Will NH lakes be safer?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As a NH resident and native, I'm very offended by your entire post.

New Hampshire lakes are public waters - owned by the people (residents) of NH. They aren't only for power boaters, or even just for boaters.

1,200 owners of NH public waters (NH residents) were polled. The results of the poll clearly show that NH residents are in favor of a speed limit.

[/B]."

Was it the killing and dying, the Santa Claus part of the intelligence thing that really set you off? The first time someone dies on the lake after the speed limit passes, you'll see what I meant, the people will still die in dumb and/or awful ways. Santa Claus is not real. By definition, just under half the people in any state have below average intelligence.

I like to canoe, a lot.

I live in NH, and have for 37 of my 40 years.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Was it the killing and dying, the Santa Claus part of the intelligence thing that really set you off? The first time someone dies on the lake after the speed limit passes, you'll see what I meant, the people will still die in dumb and/or awful ways. Santa Claus is not real. By definition, just under half the people in any state have below average intelligence.

I was offended by all your comments.

As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.

[sum-r breeze]

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude!

Regards, The breeze
make sure to wave because I'll wave back

[ApS]

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude!

What Franklin said was, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Five tons of boat operating at unreasonable speeds among lesser boaters doesn't strike me as an essential liberty.

(But that's just me).

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither!

So why then do we have laws?

We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So why then do we have laws?

We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

Who's intruding? Check out the definition of intrude (your word of choice):
1.) thrust oneself in as if by force
2.) enter uninvited
3.) enter unlawfully on someone's property

Since human power boats were on the lake first, who actually intruded?

In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding?

We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Who's intruding?

In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding?

We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.

Nobody is telling you that you cannot enjoy your sport on Winni, it is you that chooses not to. Yet you are supporting a bill that FORCES powerboaters to slow down and cut the enjoyment of the sport which they prefer, who is forcing who??? You already have an equal right yet are trying to limit others. Please show me where in the law books you are being limited in your use of Winni. Your post is just plain rubbish.

If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Nobody is telling you that you cannot enjoy your sport on Winni, it is you that chooses not to. Yet you are supporting a bill that FORCES powerboaters to slow down and cut the enjoyment of the sport which they prefer, who is forcing who??? You already have an equal right yet are trying to limit others. Please show me where in the law books you are being limited in your use of Winni. Your post is just plain rubbish.

If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove.

Or perhaps this well trained , skilled , prepared and talented kayaker is not as good as they would have us believe
In those infamaous words of "Captain Ron" , "If somethings going to go wrong , it will go wrong out there".

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Cal

Or perhaps this well trained , skilled , prepared and talented kayaker is not as good as they would have us believe

What's missing in this picture below?

Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who.

And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

What's missing in this picture below?
Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who.

And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake

GWC: I don't see any fish in your picture either, so does that also mean that there are no fish in Winni?

I fail to see your point, and don't enjoy being laughed at, just because I prefer kayaks over powerboats. And I have actually kayaked on lakes in larger waves than what your picture shows. I've also done Class III white water.

Notice how the waves in your photo are biggest closer to the shore (breakers), which is why hugging the shore is not always the best thing to do.

Here's a typical sea kayak shot, to give you a better idea of what sea kayaks are actually made for:

[Woodsy]

I think there is plenty of room on Lake Winnipesaukee for everybody.

However, the only boating related fatality we had last year was the darwin award contender who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking during the flooding in Alstead.

Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I think there is plenty of room on Lake Winnipesaukee for everybody.

However, the only boating related fatality we had last year was the darwin award contender who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking during the flooding in Alstead.

Exactly what does your comment about kayaking in a flood have to do with making NH lakes safer? You guys should really be focusing on the topic of this thread rather than picking on kayakers.

You'll notice that the sea kayakers in my photo are wearing PFDs.

And, as I posted earlier, from the years 1996 though 2002, only 1% of fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks involved sea kayaks.

(from: CRITICAL JUDGMENT II - Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak Fatalities 1996-2002 by the American Canoe Association)

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

It really doesn't matter to me what type of kayak you happen to use. So your sea kayak is the GFBL of kayaks? So what? It is still a kayak, and it still has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat. In any case, I was pointing out the flawed judgement that kayaker used. In fact when I was pulling my boat out of the water in December I witnessed 2 people in a sea kayaks go out for a paddle... no PFD, just a dry suit! On a snowy December day! Yet another case of poor judgment. The MP had closed Glendale at that point, if something bad happened they were out of luck. Statistically you are more likely die in a kayak or a canoe than you are on any other type of craft.

You want to restrict my personal freedoms yet you want no restrictions on your personal freedom! You already have access to every public body of water in the State of NH, and thats not good enough for you. You want to limit my personal freedom not because you can't kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee, but just because YOU want to feel safe. How is that fair? Especially when all of the statistics point to Lake Winnipesaukee being a VERY SAFE place for all to enjoy.

Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...It really doesn't matter to me what type of kayak you happen to use. So your sea kayak is the GFBL of kayaks? So what? It is still a kayak, and it still has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat.

I’ve explained over and over the difference between a sea kayak and a recreational kayak – if you still don’t get it, that’s not my fault. Your statement is like saying that any boat with a motor is equally safe out in the middle of the lake, in all conditions. The fact is that sea kayaks are much safer on large lakes than recreation kayaks, mostly because they are designed for large bodies of water.

GFBL kayak??? 5 to 6 mph is fast? And my kayak is hardly loud!

Where’s the data to back up your statement that a sea kayak “has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat”? The USCG data gives that there were 98 “canoe/kayak” fatalities in 2004. If sea kayakers are only 1% of all canoe/kayak fatalities, then that’s only 1 person. So are you saying that no one died in a hi-performance boat in 2004?

In any case, I was pointing out the flawed judgement that kayaker used. In fact when I was pulling my boat out of the water in December I witnessed 2 people in a sea kayaks go out for a paddle... no PFD, just a dry suit! On a snowy December day! Yet another case of poor judgment. The MP had closed Glendale at that point, if something bad happened they were out of luck.

Again that person was not on a NH lake, so that doesn’t belong in this thread. Are you suggesting that no one in a hi-performance boat has ever made a mistake, or suffered from “flawed judgment”?

Are you positive that those drysuits were not PFD rated? Some are – some are inflatable. Or that they weren’t being worn over a PFD, as some people prefer? Whatever, I never said that every sea kayaker always makes the best decisions.

Statistically you are more likely die in a kayak or a canoe than you are on any other type of craft.

But this tread is about safety on NH lakes, so can you show me some real data to back that statement up, as it applies to NH lakes. How many canoe and kayak fatalities occurred only on NH lakes? How many canoes and kayaks uses are in NH? And what are the paddling hours per year for these paddlers on NH lakes?

You want to restrict my personal freedoms yet you want no restrictions on your personal freedom! You already have access to every public body of water in the State of NH, and thats not good enough for you. You want to limit my personal freedom not because you can't kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee, but just because YOU want to feel safe. How is that fair? Especially when all of the statistics point to Lake Winnipesaukee being a VERY SAFE place for all to enjoy.

I’m supporting a bill that would require you to slow down. Personally I don’t feel that you or anyone else has the right to put others in danger, just because you enjoy going fast. Most hi-performance boaters are not willing to admit it, but there is a relationship between higher speeds and the number of vessel collisions. So there is some documented basis for my fear.
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage):

New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004:
Lake Winnipesaukee: 222
Lake Winnisquam: 28
Ossipee Lake: 15
Atlantic Ocean: 14
Lake Sunapee: 14
Squam Lake: 10
Merrimack River: 8
Hampton River: 6

“Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.”
From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/OUTDOOR/60203002
[Source: Telegraph analysis of Coast Guard Recreational Boat Accidents Database, 1999-2004]

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

{snip}

Most hi-performance boaters are not willing to admit it, but there is a relationship between higher speeds and the number of vessel collisions. So there is some documented basis for my fear.

Evenstar, this just isn't true, think about it if it were then there would be many more accidents on high speed highways than city streets. The documentation you show is one man's opinion and I think it is a misstatement.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage):

New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004:
Lake Winnipesaukee: 222
Lake Winnisquam: 28
Ossipee Lake: 15
Atlantic Ocean: 14
Lake Sunapee: 14
Squam Lake: 10
Merrimack River: 8
Hampton River: 6

“Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.”
From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/OUTDOOR/60203002
[Source: Telegraph analysis of Coast Guard Recreational Boat Accidents Database, 1999-2004]

Once again how does this prove the need for a speed limit, it doesn't. Excessive speed quoted above could be speed well below the speed limit. The number of accidents on Winni. needs to be looked at in relationship to the number of boats and time the boats are used. If I were you, looking at the data the way you seem to look at it, I would not kayak on Winni. even with the speed limit.....

[jeffk]

If you consider the safe passage law, by definition, any boats that collide at speeds greater than 6 MPH are using "excessive" speed. Some of the Coast Guard stats that break this down into more detail show that speeds in excess of 40 MPH are responsible for very few accidents and deaths compared to accidents and deaths occuring at speeds below 40 MPH. Why? Probably because there are a LOT of people traveling at slow speeds and few traveling at 40 plus. What does this mean? To me, it means that there are no clear statistics that show high speed is a major contributor to boating accidents on NH lakes. In general, the statistics that are available indicate that high speed is not a disproportionate contributor to accidents and fatalities. Would more detailed information show a disproportionate high speed link to accidents? Personally I don't believe it would but the reality is that we do not have this information.

As to the number of accidents on Winni, there are many factors that must be considered to place these numbers in context. For example, Winni is about 10 times larger than Winnisquam. If you multiply Winnisquam's 28 accidents by 10 you get 280, significantly more per acre than Winni (222). You would also need to ask how many boats are using these lakes. Because of the variety of entertainments availble on Winni I would guess that many more boats are in use on Winni than on other NH lakes. I have 0 boating accidents in my swimming pool. Does that allow me to compare it to Winni in terms of safety? A meaningful statistic would be the number of accidents per boating hour in use. I don't think we'll get that since boaters don't clock in and out when using their boats. I would like to get better information so that we can make informed choices in the future. IS education working? Are boaters aware of the current laws on the lake? Are people getting into accidents new boaters? new to the lake?

The clear statistics that ARE available show that with increasing boat registrations in NH the number of reported accidents are decreasing. That is surely a good thing. However, no one disputes that the lake is more congested, especially on some summer weekends. This congestion amplifies any problems that may have already been happening. People are ruder when crammed together and stupid behavior seems to peak when people become impatient. These are real problems that we need to think about, and they can be hard to fix. People need to be made aware of the problems and taught how to avoid them and we need tough enforcement of existing laws to reign in the boneheads.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

if you still don’t get it, that’s not my fault.

Whatever, I never said that every sea kayaker always makes the best decisions.

So there is some documented basis for my fear.

Focus on being heard on the Lake (blaster horn); not on this forum.

http://www.orionsignals.com/Marine/P...d-signals.html

P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar:
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage):

New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004:
Lake Winnipesaukee: 222
Lake Winnisquam: 28
Ossipee Lake: 15
Atlantic Ocean: 14
Lake Sunapee: 14
Squam Lake: 10
Merrimack River: 8
Hampton River: 6

“Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.”
From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?...TDOOR/60203002

That's interesting, but what you quoted was a sidebox from the article. As you well know the article contained the following two paragraphs:

Operator inexperience and inattention easily swamp speeding as a cause of accidents in the state, according to a Telegraph review of the Coast Guard’s Recreational Boating Accident Database for 1999-2004. Inexperience and inattention were blamed for 120 accidents; hazardous waters, 55 accidents; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35, and the weather, 28.

Boating accidents with injury or serious property damage declined by 68 percent from 1999-2004 in New Hampshire, the records show. The state began mandatory boater education in 2002. Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years. Deaths also declined, from six in 1999 to only two in 2004, the latest year available.

and by this quote that you made:

I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe!

You totally ignore the fact the boating accidents have declined by 68 percent since 1999, going from a high of 109 in 1999 to 35 in 2004. Every year there was a Decrease in the number of accidents. That fact was also included in the article that you quote but chose to ignore in your post:

The number of reported accidents fell from 109 in 1999 to 94 in 2000, 74 in 2001, 68 in 2002 when mandatory boater education began, 49 in 2003, and 35 in 2004. That’s a decline of 68 percent over five years.

So how does that compare to the rest of the nation? Well the next paragraph in the article that you forgot to quote gives us a clue!

Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years, from 7,931 in 1999 to 4,904 in 2004.

You might also note that WEATHER is blamed for nearly as many accidents as excessive speed....so, no boating in bad weather!!!!

So, to recap. Boating accidents since 1999 have DECREASED by 68%. BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING! So let it work!!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...You might also note that WEATHER is blamed for nearly as many accidents as excessive speed....so, no boating in bad weather!!!!"

Most accidents occur on bright, sunny days with calm water conditions.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...So, to recap. Boating accidents since 1999 have DECREASED by 68%. BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING! So let it work!!!"

Check those numbers again.

1) Why did accidents drop by nearly half in 1996—then double?
2) Why were accidents so low in 2004?
3) Why were fatalities at a record low in 2004?
4) Why are other states with mandatory Boater Education seeing higher accident rates?

For New Hampshire in 1996 and 2004, the answer is...unprecedented rainfall in 1996, and a very soggy 2004 season! Nobody is going to drive up to Winnipesaukee and put their boat in the water if the forecast is for rain, rain, and more rain.

Boating accidents in nearby Connecticut and New Jersey have spiked.

Both states have required Boater Education much longer than New Hampshire. Their "education" programs are keeping accidents down, all right—but only when there's bad weather!!!

New Jersey went for a NEW!!!—AND—IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course this year when their accident rate went from 85 to 124.

It couldn't be their unlimited boating speeds, of course. (Last year's Barnegat Bay speed limit initiative in New Jersey got scuttled with help from the $peedboat industry lobbyist$).

The peaks and valleys associated with New Hampshire accident numbers are "statistically insignificant"; i.e., as a small state, we have too few numbers to determine a trend attributable to the educated boater. There is a closer correlation to clouds than to education!

The only trend your numbers support are the very same numbers that are decreasing across the country anyway.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Focus on being heard on the Lake (blaster horn); not on this forum.

P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills...

If you're going to quote me, please keep my quotes in the context that I wrote them. You are twisting what I actually wrote.

FYI: I made that thrill comment ONCE. In this post: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26984&postcount=3
My comment was in response to Cal’s comment: “... If you find the little safe ponds and streams so boring , you must LIKE the thrill that comes with the big lake. So now you wish to make it boring too?”
My reply was: “Speeding boats do not make a lake more exciting for kayaks - We count on Mother Nature to do that.”

I don’t see any power boats in your photo either.

You guys act like I’m some kind of irresponsible thrill junkie – just because I made one comment about Mother Nature providing enough thrills for us sea kayakers. I don’t go out in conditions that are beyond what I can handle and I do turn back when conditions start to get a bit too challenging. Did I ever say that Winni, or any other large lakes were NEVER too rough for me? All I’ve said is that sea kayaks are made for large bodies of water, so they (with an experienced paddler) are safe to use in much rougher conditions than what open canoes and recreational kayaks would be safe in.

See my post on whistles (and air horns): http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28538&postcount=57

If a boat is going too fast to see me – it’s likely too noisy for the operator to hear an air horn – assuming that I even have time to use one. Besides, it does take both hands to paddle a kayak.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Focus on being heard on the Lake (blaster horn); not on this forum.

http://www.orionsignals.com/Marine/P...d-signals.html

P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills...

GWC..there are MANY on this forum who express their opinions/ideas and espcially about this certain topic. There are certain posts I don't even bother to read just because of the name of the poster and their long winded, boring rhetoric. To single out Evenstar and tell him to concentrate on being heard in the lake and NOT on this forum is so ignorant!! Why would you post such a thing. Evenstar has just as much right to post and be "heard" as the next person as long as he's posting within the rules set up by the moderator. I can't understand why you would single him out like that. The avatar at the end of the face winking doesn't excuse you either. Sorry for the rant I just feel that was so mean spirited!!

[Evenstar]

Thanks Konachick, I really appreciate your post!

But I just wanted to point out that I'm a she.

[John A. Birdsall]

Originally Posted by Cal

OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

You know I have heard complaints about kayakers and the speed limit. Perhaps if you would paddle half as fast as Willie Coyete runs, then you too could go 45 mph.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I was offended by all your comments.

As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.

I think you need to lighten up a bit. Look at your bell shaped curve for a moment, it has a center point and does not have a flat top. I was referring to everyone that falls left of center on the curve. That would be 50% of the area under the curve.

Showing the results of popular polls on subjects sach as this tends to push the assumption that voters should decide the laws. Problem is, what's popular isn't always right. Britney Spears is popular... I think I'd rather have wizened folks making laws based on logic. If the wize people do a poor job, they can be fired easily enough.

The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I think you need to lighten up a bit. Look at your bell shaped curve for a moment, it has a center point and does not have a flat top. I was referring to everyone that falls left of center on the curve. That would be 50% of the area under the curve.

Your comments were insulting to NH residents - I was offended. Don't make insulting comments and then tell one of the persons you insulted to "lignten up".

The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion.

The senators should represent the public opinion, especially in areas of public safety. And they have a responsibility to follow the intent of existing laws, in passing new laws.

HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Your comments were insulting to NH residents - I was offended. Don't make insulting comments and then tell one of the persons you insulted to "lignten up".


The senators should represent the public opinion, especially in areas of public safety. And they have a responsibility to follow the intent of existing laws, in passing new laws.

HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.

I guess the truth hurts. My "insulting comments" were entirely true. I'm also a NH resident and I don't want the opinions of NH residents to cloud the judgent of my elected leaders. Public opinion is a silly method to set a speed limit, or enact any other safety regulation. One should really pay attention to physics and statistics in this sort of calculation, not opinion polls. Would you prefer the general public decide things like construction, plumbing, fire prevention and wiring requirements or would you rather have an expert do so?

Are you unable or unwilling to use your kayak on the lake due to the presence of boats going more than 45 MPH? If so, the problem may be your own. I see lots of kayaks out there with fast boats alos present and everyone appears to be having fun. I don't think you've lots any rights at all.

Proponents for this law seem to forget that it's considered bad form, at the least, (and is quite likely already against the law) to actually hit another boat, regardless of speed. Most boaters avoid hitting other boaters. Statistically, you are really quite unlikley to get run over by a power boat out there and are much more likely to die from something like an act of God or bad judgement.

[Skip]

From today's Manchester Union Leader:

Fatal Ice Boat Collision, Lake Sunapee

[sum-r breeze]

Weis Guy,
The Lake will not be safer. I know the size my wake at slow speed (before getting on plane) and the size it is after getting on plane. Big difference.
If this bill passes we should all go PLOWING around the Lake at 15mph and show the elite liberals the trouble they caused.You won't be able to ge out on that water in any thing less than a 28footer. Just a protesting thought....
Anyone been within a 1/4 mile of the Mail Boats? The size of that wake is downright dangerous! Getting back to my Quote from Franklin.... I think it's an Essential Liberty to be left alone when out on the water! Keep all your restrictive laws to yourself and leave us alone!!!! We go out on the water to get away from all that nonsense

All the Best,
The breeze
Make sure to wave cause I'll Wave Back