R,R,and D vote in Concord today

[sunset on the dock]

Today the House Resource, Recreation, and Development Committee voted 18 to zero against HB 448, a bill that would have increased the speed limit in the Broads to 65 MPH. Only two people spoke in favor of HB 448 (one being the bill's sponsor) with 23 speaking against. One House Representative noted that she had received 700 emails against the bill with just a handful in favor. New this year, the Dept. of Safety/ Marine Patrol took a strong stance against raising the speed limit with Sargent Dennis Wade, head of the Marine Patrol, speaking out strongly against the bill. Six marinas were on record as against raising the speed limit as well as the Lake Winni Association, NH Lakes Assoc., Loon Preservation Committee, Lakes Region Conservation Trust, Wolfeboro Waters, NH Camp Directors Association, and several other camps including Sandy Island Camp.

Very compelling testimony regarding the kayaker who was hit in 2020 by a 31' cherry red dual engine Monterey going 35 MPH was heard. The victim suffered several orthopedic injuries, a blood clot, has spent extensive time rehabilitating and suffers serious ongoing medical issues to this day. It was noted that had the Monterey been going 65 MPH the kayaker would most likely have been killed. Additionally testimony was heard regarding the 2015 incident where a swimmer was hit by a boat going 65 MPH.

[Descant]

Not surprised at the vote. Trying to limit any activity to "just the broads" is not a good plan. It was tried many many years ago with PWC and didn't get very far. Same rfesult for other activities since.

I'm having trouble recalling the 2015 swimmer vs boat accident. Why was somebody swimming in an area where a boat would do more than idle or why was a boat operating at any speed where there would be swimmers? Is there a link? Couldn't find it. TIA.

[BroadHopper]

I have seen way too many paddle boats way over their heads in extremely rough weather. Many were rescued yet you don't hear about them. Do you think that would be extremely dangerous?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I have seen way too many paddle boats way over their heads in extremely rough weather. Many were rescued yet you don't hear about them. Do you think that would be extremely dangerous?

Exactly! It’s time for a law requiring safety flags for kayaks, and another law mandating common sense to kayakers and paddle boarders so they stay out of busy traffic areas. “But wait, I have just as much right as anyone to paddle anywhere I want, when I want, without the dangerous safety flag.”

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I have seen way too many paddle boats way over their heads in extremely rough weather. Many were rescued yet you don't hear about them. Do you think that would be extremely dangerous?

They are a danger to themselves not necessarily to others and I don't think speed is a factor.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Exactly! It’s time for a law requiring safety flags for kayaks, and another law mandating common sense to kayakers and paddle boarders so they stay out of busy traffic areas. “But wait, I have just as much right as anyone to paddle anywhere I want, when I want, without the dangerous safety flag.”

Per the victim's account:

I was wearing a day-glo yellow shirt, paddling a yellow and red and orange kayak with a 4-foot mast with an orange safety flag. I am very safety-conscious and do my best to maximize my visibility.

BTW, the 4' mast was destroyed in the collision. As was the kayak.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Today the House Resource, Recreation, and Development Committee voted 18 to zero against HB 448, a bill that would have increased the speed limit in the Broads to 65 MPH. Only two people spoke in favor of HB 448 (one being the bill's sponsor) with 23 speaking against. One House Representative noted that she had received 700 emails against the bill with just a handful in favor. New this year, the Dept. of Safety/ Marine Patrol took a strong stance against raising the speed limit with Sargent Dennis Wade, head of the Marine Patrol, speaking out strongly against the bill. Six marinas were on record as against raising the speed limit as well as the Lake Winni Association, NH Lakes Assoc., Loon Preservation Committee, Lakes Region Conservation Trust, Wolfeboro Waters, NH Camp Directors Association, and several other camps including Sandy Island Camp.

Very compelling testimony regarding the kayaker who was hit in 2020 by a 31' cherry red dual engine Monterey going 35 MPH was heard. The victim suffered several orthopedic injuries, a blood clot, has spent extensive time rehabilitating and suffers serious ongoing medical issues to this day. It was noted that had the Monterey been going 65 MPH the kayaker would most likely have been killed. Additionally testimony was heard regarding the 2015 incident where a swimmer was hit by a boat going 65 MPH.

Funny how you only come out of the darkness when speed limit discussions are involved, in the news or here...

[winni83]

Sunset On The Dock appears to be the one of the last warriors of the infamous group consisting, in part, of Elchase, Bearislandmoose, Turtle Boy and others.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Per the victim's account:

I was wearing a day-glo yellow shirt, paddling a yellow and red and orange kayak with a 4-foot mast with an orange safety flag. I am very safety-conscious and do my best to maximize my visibility.

BTW, the 4' mast was destroyed in the collision. As was the kayak.

Well that's one smart kayaker. Now what about the other 99.99999% ? "It's all about ME, screw everyone else."

[The Real BigGuy]

Here’s the thing: as an operator of a boat it is up to YOU to be vigilant and observe your surroundings. Taking your eyes off the water to talk to a friend, crack a drink, look at your lovely wife or girlfriend, etc. is not an excuse. If you hit a kayaker in an 8 or 9 ft kayak (or anything else), even if they are in the middle of the Broads or if they don’t have a flag or colored vest, it’s a good bet you were going to fast or you weren’t keeping a proper lookout. The accident is ALWAYS the boat operator’s fault, both legally and any other way you want to look at it. Speed isn’t always the issue but laziness, ignorance, and/or entitlement usually plays a part.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Here’s the thing: as an operator of a boat it is up to YOU to be vigilant and observe your surroundings. Taking your eyes off the water to talk to a friend, crack a drink, look at your lovely wife or girlfriend, etc. is not an excuse. If you hit a kayaker in an 8 or 9 ft kayak (or anything else), even if they are in the middle of the Broads or if they don’t have a flag or colored vest, it’s a good bet you were going to fast or you weren’t keeping a proper lookout. The accident is ALWAYS the boat operator’s fault, both legally and any other way you want to look at it. Speed isn’t always the issue but laziness, ignorance, and/or entitlement usually plays a part.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Nonsense. Dark colored kayaks with no safety flag, out on the lake with chop and sun glare are almost impossible to see. Couple that with boats coming at you from all directions, and it's a disaster waiting to happen. As you may have gleaned from my user name, I'm a pilot and am trained to scan the sky in a very specific manner in order to "see and avoid". I use this same technique on the water, and seeing these kayaks is difficult at best. There's a reason bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed on highways.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Here’s the thing: as an operator of a boat it is up to YOU to be vigilant and observe your surroundings. Taking your eyes off the water to talk to a friend, crack a drink, look at your lovely wife or girlfriend, etc. is not an excuse. If you hit a kayaker in an 8 or 9 ft kayak (or anything else), even if they are in the middle of the Broads or if they don’t have a flag or colored vest, it’s a good bet you were going to fast or you weren’t keeping a proper lookout. The accident is ALWAYS the boat operator’s fault, both legally and any other way you want to look at it. Speed isn’t always the issue but laziness, ignorance, and/or entitlement usually plays a part.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Exactly, Just as sail boats have the "right of way" so do kayaks, paddle boards, swimmers, and any other person or item in the water that doesn't have a motor with the power to maneuver out of the way quickly!

[Major]

Unfortunately, as with many other issues in life, we have a vocal minority who is making a loud stink about go fast boats. There is absolutely no data that supports that a speed limit makes our lake any safer. Those of us who have boated for a long time, and have owned fast (and in some cases very fast) boats, know that a person doing 40 mph in one situation can create a far more dangerous situation than a person doing 90 mph in another situation. Speed has almost nothing to do with safety. The best and safest boaters I know have owned fast boats.

I guess a lot of this comes down to common sense. Fifty years ago, a car manual showed the owner how to change the transmission. Now that same safety manual has prohibitions against drinking battery acid. We have people in Concord who have never owned a boat making decisions based on what feels good in the moment. We have people in Concord who are fearful that their constituents will drink the battery acid. The rest of us are caught in the cross fire.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

Unfortunately, as with many other issues in life, we have a vocal minority who is making a loud stink about go fast boats. There is absolutely no data that supports that a speed limit makes our lake any safer. Those of us who have boated for a long time, and have owned fast (and in some cases very fast) boats, know that a person doing 40 mph in one situation can create a far more dangerous situation than a person doing 90 mph in another situation. Speed has almost nothing to do with safety. The best and safest boaters I know have owned fast boats.

I guess a lot of this comes down to common sense. Fifty years ago, a car manual showed the owner how to change the transmission. Now that same safety manual has prohibitions against drinking battery acid. We have people in Concord who have never owned a boat making decisions based on what feels good in the moment. We have people in Concord who are fearful that their constituents will drink the battery acid. The rest of us are caught in the cross fire.

I think you are wrong:
A 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/spe...-over-25-years Physics, probability, and statistics all support this. Even our own Marine Patrol agrees with this.

And as far as a vocal minority I find it interesting that 700 emails were received by Concord reps with only a handful in favor of HB 448. And 23 speaking out against the bill, just two in favor. All 18 reps, half Democrat, half Republican opposed HB 448. Where was the outpouring of support from the other side?

And yes, we hear how the owners of fast boats are the best and safest boaters. Clearly the kayaker hit by the Monterey would disagree. As would the swimmer hit by a boat at 65 MPH. As would Mr. Hartman, killed by Mr. Littlefield. Ditto the Blizzard accident.

And a drunk boater at 65 MPH is far more dangerous than one at 35 MPH.

[tis]

Marine Patrol is not what it used to be.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by tis

Marine Patrol is not what it used to be.

Agreed,…I miss Dave Barrett…

Dan

[tis]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Agreed,…I miss Dave Barrett…

Dan

Agree and Capt Dunleavy knew the lake.

The State Police are not the Marine Patrol. They hardly know the lake, let alone the laws. (Probably not all but the ones I have dealt with)

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

Unfortunately, as with many other issues in life, we have a vocal minority who is making a loud stink about go fast boats. There is absolutely no data that supports that a speed limit makes our lake any safer. Those of us who have boated for a long time, and have owned fast (and in some cases very fast) boats, know that a person doing 40 mph in one situation can create a far more dangerous situation than a person doing 90 mph in another situation. Speed has almost nothing to do with safety. The best and safest boaters I know have owned fast boats.

I guess a lot of this comes down to common sense. Fifty years ago, a car manual showed the owner how to change the transmission. Now that same safety manual has prohibitions against drinking battery acid. We have people in Concord who have never owned a boat making decisions based on what feels good in the moment. We have people in Concord who are fearful that their constituents will drink the battery acid. The rest of us are caught in the cross fire.

Well, from what I read, it was a vocal majority that shot it down, not many of the vocal minority for, cared enough to showed up!

[Dick52]

I was one of the 700 who wrote a letter asking that the speed limit not be increased. I have lived on the lake for 30+ years and have boated year-round for 40 years. I have seen first-hand the dangers of boating and how speed increases that danger. Most boats do not the ability to go much faster than 50 MPH. The only exceptions would some bass boats and high-performance boats. The need to travel faster than 45 MPH is for the minority of boaters yet if the speed limit had changed it would affect most boaters and other users of the lake.

Some people cite people in canoes, kayaks as more dangerous than high speed boats. Really? I would agree a kayak should not be out in the middle of the broads, BUT it is my job the be alert and see them and not the other way around. There is a huge difference in my ability to see and react to other boaters, swimmers etc. I simply have more time at 45 MPH than at 90 MPH. Me? I usually boat at my most fuel-efficient speed around 35 MPH.

This speed limit debate will come and go again and again but common sense and the majority ruled.

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I think you are wrong:
A 5 mph increase in the maximum speed limit was associated with an 8 percent increase in the fatality rate on interstates and freeways. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/spe...-over-25-years Physics, probability, and statistics all support this. Even our own Marine Patrol agrees with this.

And as far as a vocal minority I find it interesting that 700 emails were received by Concord reps with only a handful in favor of HB 448. And 23 speaking out against the bill, just two in favor. All 18 reps, half Democrat, half Republican opposed HB 448. Where was the outpouring of support from the other side?

And yes, we hear how the owners of fast boats are the best and safest boaters. Clearly the kayaker hit by the Monterey would disagree. As would the swimmer hit by a boat at 65 MPH. As would Mr. Hartman, killed by Mr. Littlefield. Ditto the Blizzard accident.

And a drunk boater at 65 MPH is far more dangerous than one at 35 MPH.

Sorry, but I disagree. The article you reference is inapplicable to the issue of speed limits on the lake. There is no data that shows that a speed limit has had any effect on safety on our lake. Believe me, if there were, we would all know about it. Observationally, it seems like most accidents are caused by 1) violating the 150 foot rule, and 2) drinking and boating.

Regarding the vocal minority making rules for the rest of us, most of us are busy working and honestly don't care enough to take time from our busy lives to weigh in on this or any other important or nonimportant issue. There are over 100,000 watercraft on the lake, so 700 emails seems like a vocal minority to me. I don't know one person who owns a boat who believes we should have a speed limit. (I know, I sound like Pauline Kael referencing Nixon's landslide victory.)

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dick52

I was one of the 700 who wrote a letter asking that the speed limit not be increased. I have lived on the lake for 30+ years and have boated year-round for 40 years. I have seen first-hand the dangers of boating and how speed increases that danger. Most boats do not the ability to go much faster than 50 MPH. The only exceptions would some bass boats and high-performance boats. The need to travel faster than 45 MPH is for the minority of boaters yet if the speed limit had changed it would affect most boaters and other users of the lake. Some people cite people in canoes, kayaks as more dangerous than high speed boats. Really? I would agree a kayak should not be out in the middle of the broads, BUT it is my job the be alert and see them and not the other way around. There is a huge difference in my ability to see and react to other boaters, swimmers etc. I simply have more time at 45 MPH than at 90 MPH. Me? I usually boat at my most fuel-efficient speed around 35 MPH. This speed limit debate will come and go again and again but common sense and the majority ruled.

Ocean-racers designed for racing off our coasts are incompatible with:
1) lesser craft
2) New Hampshire's 150-foot distancing requirement
3) "golden pond" quietude
4) lazy afternoons afloat
4) swimmers!

It's not necessarily speeds over 65: It's as simple as not being able to see ahead from idle to top speed. Check out this brief video of an ocean-racer Donzi as it accelerates:

https://youtube.com/shorts/2B4HGfYI-Y8?feature=share

It's even worse when you're short and feeling invisible.

Many were convinced when an ocean-racer ejected both aboard, crossed a nearby lake without a captain, ran up a shore with enough inertia to continue 130-feet to interrupt a neighborhood cookout!

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, but I disagree. The article you reference is inapplicable to the issue of speed limits on the lake. There is no data that shows that a speed limit has had any effect on safety on our lake. Believe me, if there were, we would all know about it. Observationally, it seems like most accidents are caused by 1) violating the 150 foot rule, and 2) drinking and boating.

Regarding the vocal minority making rules for the rest of us, most of us are busy working and honestly don't care enough to take time from our busy lives to weigh in on this or any other important or nonimportant issue. There are over 100,000 watercraft on the lake, so 700 emails seems like a vocal minority to me. I don't know one person who owns a boat who believes we should have a speed limit. (I know, I sound like Pauline Kael referencing Nixon's landslide victory.)

"over 100,000 watercraft on the lake" that says it all right there!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, but I disagree. The article you reference is inapplicable to the issue of speed limits on the lake. There is no data that shows that a speed limit has had any effect on safety on our lake. Believe me, if there were, we would all know about it. Observationally, it seems like most accidents are caused by 1) violating the 150 foot rule, and 2) drinking and boating.

Regarding the vocal minority making rules for the rest of us, most of us are busy working and honestly don't care enough to take time from our busy lives to weigh in on this or any other important or nonimportant issue. There are over 100,000 watercraft on the lake, so 700 emails seems like a vocal minority to me. I don't know one person who owns a boat who believes we should have a speed limit. (I know, I sound like Pauline Kael referencing Nixon's landslide victory.)

Well I guess this must be the new reality. 23 to 2, 18:0, 700 to a handful...all a minority. It brings to mind another "minority"... the 80% of NH reps who supported the bill a decade ago that made 45/30 law, with an even higher percentage of reps from towns bordering the lake in support.

I feel sorry for those individuals who cannot or will not grasp even the basic tenets of physics, statistics, probability and science. But yikes...100,000 boats on the lake. I'm glad it will continue to be illegal for them to exceed 45 MPH!

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Well I guess this must be the new reality. 23 to 2, 18:0, 700 to a handful...all a minority. It brings to mind another "minority"... the 80% of NH reps who supported the bill a decade ago that made 45/30 law, with an even higher percentage of reps from towns bordering the lake in support.

I feel sorry for those individuals who cannot or will not grasp even the basic tenets of physics, statistics, probability and science. But yikes...100,000 boats on the lake. I'm glad it will continue to be illegal for them to exceed 45 MPH!

Newsflash, boaters exceed the speed limit routinely. Watch the boaters going down Paugus Bay on a weekend, especially an afternoon. It really hasn't had any effect on fast boats going fast.

Go into any marina and take a poll. I guarantee it is 80% against the speed limit. Unfortunately, most of those folks are too busy to write to their representatives, and know that it is probably a fruitless effort. Take a poll of the 80% of representatives you reference, how many of them own a boat.

I earned a mechanical engineering degree in college, and did quite well in physics, thank you!

[John Mercier]

But most of the residents of NH - who ''own'' the lake - don't own motorized boats.
Reps in NH walk a very fine line.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

Newsflash, boaters exceed the speed limit routinely. Watch the boaters going down Paugus Bay on a weekend, especially an afternoon. It really hasn't had any effect on fast boats going fast.

Go into any marina and take a poll. I guarantee it is 80% against the speed limit. Unfortunately, most of those folks are too busy to write to their representatives, and know that it is probably a fruitless effort. Take a poll of the 80% of representatives you reference, how many of them own a boat.

I earned a mechanical engineering degree in college, and did quite well in physics, thank you!

"fruitless" is this argument. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and should be respected.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

Newsflash, boaters exceed the speed limit routinely. Watch the boaters going down Paugus Bay on a weekend, especially an afternoon. It really hasn't had any effect on fast boats going fast.

Go into any marina and take a poll. I guarantee it is 80% against the speed limit. Unfortunately, most of those folks are too busy to write to their representatives, and know that it is probably a fruitless effort. Take a poll of the 80% of representatives you reference, how many of them own a boat.

I earned a mechanical engineering degree in college, and did quite well in physics, thank you!

Fortunately those 80% of reps that I reference listened to their constituents. You know, the ones who boat on the lake. As did the 18 to zero reps who who voted Wednesday to table the bill. I'm glad I took time from my busy schedule to write to my reps as it was not fruitless in the least. I suspect that you didn't.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Biggd

"fruitless" is this argument. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and should be respected.

Where was anyone disrespected? I didn't feel disrespect, nor do I think I disrespected anyone else. We have a healthy disagreement about something we all feel passionate about -- our beautiful lake!

My issue is the overreach of government. I know, we see overreach in our daily lives, from driving a car to building on property. The examples are endless. I get it, we have restrictions on almost every aspect of our lives.

However, this does not make it right or mean that it is correct. We saw this with COVID -- government overreach that shut down small businesses and destroyed way more lives than the overreach was intended to protect.

If we focus and are vigilant about stopping the small and unnecessary overreaches, like stupid speed limits on lakes, then maybe perhaps we will prevent the future large overreaches.

[John Mercier]

Overreach of the population taking control of the usage of their property?
If you owned the lake outright, and the government made such a restriction, that would be overreach; but as the ''management team'' for the landowners... I don't think we could call that overreach in the traditional sense.

Common property dictates that the will of the majority of landowners will decidedly be obeyed.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

Where was anyone disrespected? I didn't feel disrespect, nor do I think I disrespected anyone else. We have a healthy disagreement about something we all feel passionate about -- our beautiful lake!

My issue is the overreach of government. I know, we see overreach in our daily lives, from driving a car to building on property. The examples are endless. I get it, we have restrictions on almost every aspect of our lives.

However, this does not make it right or mean that it is correct. We saw this with COVID -- government overreach that shut down small businesses and destroyed way more lives than the overreach was intended to protect.

If we focus and are vigilant about stopping the small and unnecessary overreaches, like stupid speed limits on lakes, then maybe perhaps we will prevent the future large overreaches.

The message I got from your post is, the people that voted it down have lots of time on their hands because they aren't very busy, as in not working, but the people that want to see the speed limit raised were too busy working to show support for it?

[Major]

Originally Posted by Biggd

The message I got from your post is, the people that voted it down have lots of time on their hands because they aren't very busy, as in not working, but the people that want to see the speed limit raised were too busy working to show support for it?

How is that not true? I don't have time to reach out to people I don't know to discuss things that they care very little about. Doesn't seem like a very good use of my time. Most everyone I know is in that boat. When you run a small business, it is truly all-encompassing.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

How is that not true? I don't have time to reach out to people I don't know to discuss things that they care very little about. Doesn't seem like a very good use of my time. Most everyone I know is in that boat. When you run a small business, it is truly all-encompassing.

You don't have time to write a letter of support, yet you have plenty of time to read and post on the forum.

[stingray]

Bottom line is idiots paddle and swim where they shouldn’t and idiots operate boats recklessly. Laws are generated to protect idiots from themselves. Unfortunately people that do the right thing get collateral damage from these idiots.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[sunset on the dock]

Man, what an amazing modern world we now live in. Sometimes I have to pinch myself to be sure it's all so wonderfully real. Up is down, black is white, 23 to 2 and 700 to a few is a minority, the laws of physics and statistics no longer matter, and people who don't have enough time to send a quick email to Concord still have plenty of time to post on forums. Who could have imagined that we would live in such an enlightened era. Certainly I've experienced a MAJOR illumination.
I wish my grandparents could be here to witness and experience, with wonder and awe, the dizzying heights to which we have all scaled.

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Man, what an amazing modern world we now live in. Sometimes I have to pinch myself to be sure it's all so wonderfully real. Up is down, black is white, 23 to 2 and 700 to a few is a minority, the laws of physics and statistics no longer matter, and people who don't have enough time to send a quick email to Concord still have plenty of time to post on forums. Who could have imagined that we would live in such an enlightened era. Certainly I've experienced a MAJOR illumination.
I wish my grandparents could be here to witness and experience, with wonder and awe, the dizzying heights to which we have all scaled.

A tad dramatic, no? Not one life has been saved, not one accident prevented, because of this feel-good law. Speed on the lake was never a safety issue prior to its enactment and it is not an issue afterwards. The irony is that the data is on my side. Like I said above, if there is a study about speed and boater safety, everyone of us would know about it.

Let's face it, this law was passed to eliminate fast, noisy boats from the lake. People didn't like the noise, and maybe they didn't like the type of people who operated them. For whatever reason, they hijacked the safety aspect of the issue to appeal to the masses. How can a bill directed to improving safety be bad?

We create silly laws and and unnecessary processes to address non-existent issues to make people feel good. All you need to do is go to an airport. TSA is a great example.

My parents are still alive and think the law is stupid. And my grandparents, if they were alive, would have thought the law was beyond silly.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

A tad dramatic, no? Not one life has been saved, not one accident prevented, because of this feel-good law.

There is a world of difference between drama and mockery.

But as far as "Not one life has been saved, not one accident prevented, because of this feel-good law"....where is your data?

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There is a world of difference between drama and mockery.

But as far as "Not one life has been saved, not one accident prevented, because of this feel-good law"....where is your data?

I have lived here since 1977 and I read the newspaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dick52]

Originally Posted by Major

Observationally, it seems like most accidents are caused by 1) violating the 150 foot rule, and 2) drinking and boating.

Hmmmm!!??? And exactly how could you have an accident if you were 150 feet away? Damn even 1 foot away avoids the accident. LOL...you are a funny guy. Least I think you were making a joke?

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by Major

. There are over 100,000 watercraft on the lake, so 700 emails seems like a vocal minority to me. I don't know one person who owns a boat who believes we should have a speed limit. (I know, I sound like Pauline Kael referencing Nixon's landslide victory.)

2 things: 1) “100,000 watercraft” doesn’t equal 100,000 powerboats. It includes power, sail, rowboats, kayaks, SUPS, etc. and I’m willing to bet the vast majority are in the last 5 categories. 2) Because your circle of friends doesn’t include anyone that thinks we need a speed limit (which I don’t believe) doesn’t mean that a majority of lake boaters don’t. Based on the hard facts we know (i.e., a majority of correspondence against the proposed rule & what was it, 27 to 3 in testimony) I’d say a majority were against it. Kinda like voting in an election.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[The Real BigGuy]

This is the same rabbit hole the whole country has gone down before. Based on recent history neither side is going to change the other’s mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

I have lived here since 1977 and I read the newspaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Living here and reading the newspaper is not data. So how do you prove that a law, on the books for 10+ years, has not prevented any accidents on an increasing congested lake? Only a deity could do that.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Dick52

Hmmmm!!??? And exactly how could you have an accident if you were 150 feet away? Damn even 1 foot away avoids the accident. LOL...you are a funny guy. Least I think you were making a joke?

Just apply a little deductive reasoning. If two boats are going greater than wake speed and not respecting the 150’ rule, the closer they get to one another the greater risk that bad things will happen. If you had any experience on the lake you would know this very well. Happens routinely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Living here and reading the newspaper is not data. So how do you prove that a law, on the books for 10+ years, has not prevented any accidents on an increasing congested lake? Only a deity could do that.

It isn’t like we are splitting the atom. There have only been a handful of fatal accidents on the lake the past 40 years, and less than a handful of “accidents” each year. Not enough to count and not enough to draw any conclusions. Speed is never an issue. I wish it was like the feckless ban on assault rifles which did nothing. Lots of good data on that. That’s why they reversed it. Unfortunately, speeding on the lake never has been and never will be a safety issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sunset on the dock]

As noted, boy for a guy who is too busy to send a quick email to his state rep you certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands for the forum.

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

As noted, boy for a guy who is too busy to send a quick email to his state rep you certainly seem to have a lot of time on your hands for the forum.

Only today. Most times I’m too busy. I’ll take the V if that’s your best response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

Only today. Most times I’m too busy. I’ll take the V if that’s your best response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still like your stance that all the people that voted against it don't work and all the people that are for the increase in the speed limit are too busy working to come forward to advocate for it's acceptance.
I think that theory was based on some serious scientific data, take the V!

[Dick52]

Originally Posted by Major

It isn’t like we are splitting the atom. There have only been a handful of fatal accidents on the lake the past 40 years, and less than a handful of “accidents” each year. Not enough to count and not enough to draw any conclusions. Speed is never an issue. I wish it was like the feckless ban on assault rifles which did nothing. Lots of good data on that. That’s why they reversed it. Unfortunately, speeding on the lake never has been and never will be a safety issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, I have gone back and read some of your posts on other issues. Who knows maybe I am wrong but it appears you are a "troll". I think you are. You appear to be just having some "sport" with people who take these issues seriously. Anyway have fun...if that is what floats your boat.

[tis]

I don't think Major is a troll. He's been on here forever! He's just not a liberal and isn't afraid to say so. I think his opinions have always been consistent.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by tis

I don't think Major is a troll. He's been on here forever! He's just not a liberal and isn't afraid to say so. I think his opinions have always been consistent.

100% correct, tis. Conservatives push against issues they don’t agree with. Liberals (of which there are apparently many on this thread and this forum in general), have to attack the “person” who dares go against their position. It’s sickening if you ask me.

Major always has thoughtful posts and never makes personal attacks. More than I can say for those launching insults at him.

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Well I guess this must be the new reality. 23 to 2, 18:0, 700 to a handful...all a minority. It brings to mind another "minority"... the 80% of NH reps who supported the bill a decade ago that made 45/30 law, with an even higher percentage of reps from towns bordering the lake in support.

I feel sorry for those individuals who cannot or will not grasp even the basic tenets of physics, statistics, probability and science. But yikes...100,000 boats on the lake. I'm glad it will continue to be illegal for them to exceed 45 MPH!

Just because people disagree with the speed limit doesn’t mean they don’t understand the concepts you listed. “Science” is a pretty broad subject to accuse others of not understanding.

I suspect people who disagree also don’t want, need, or seek any pity from the people with whom they disagree. The attempt to veil the insult with the feigned emotional reaction doesn’t make the insult laudable or even justifiable.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by tis

I don't think Major is a troll. He's been on here forever! He's just not a liberal and isn't afraid to say so. I think his opinions have always been consistent.

I agree with Tis, I know Major to be genuine. I did like Dick’s “floats your boat” pun.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

100% correct, tis. Conservatives push against issues they don’t agree with. Liberals (of which there are apparently many on this thread and this forum in general), have to attack the “person” who dares go against their position. It’s sickening if you ask me.

Major always has thoughtful posts and never makes personal attacks. More than I can say for those launching insults at him.

Liberal would be the idea that one can do as they please...
Especially with property that they do not personally own.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Well I guess this must be the new reality. 23 to 2, 18:0, 700 to a handful...all a minority. It brings to mind another "minority"... the 80% of NH reps who supported the bill a decade ago that made 45/30 law, with an even higher percentage of reps from towns bordering the lake in support.

I feel sorry for those individuals who cannot or will not grasp even the basic tenets of physics, statistics, probability and science.
But yikes...100,000 boats on the lake. I'm glad it will continue to be illegal for them to exceed 45 MPH!

Lake Winnipesaukee is not the only lake with a speed limit.

I'd be interested in reading of those tragic cases that sealed the freedoms of ocean-racer speed stars.

Many have said they'd take their ocean-racers elsewhere. What would happen if they were to return? Fundamentally change the character of a safer and relatively peaceful lake?

Originally Posted by tis

I don't think Major is a troll. He's been on here forever! He's just not a liberal and isn't afraid to say so. I think his opinions have always been consistent.

Oh noooo...you've used a word that always locks a thread!

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Liberal would be the idea that one can do as they please...
Especially with property that they do not personally own.

It's true, the definition of liberal is improperly used by calling Democrats liberal. And the last thing Dems want is for people to do as they please. And I will probably get in trouble for this so I am not going say any more. Let's end this.

[John Mercier]

You are spot on.
Terms are being misappropriated, and then everyone is complaining about a lack of education.

The two parties have for decades danced back and forth. Neither is truly liberal or conservative; and even individual members tend to be more conservative in some instances and more liberal in others.

You should here how many people are upset that we're developing the lake shore to be more like the seacoast of the Cape rather than ''On Golden Pond''; and many times those are the same people espousing ''Live Free or Die''.

It isn't my land. I just do the designs the way the owner envisions.

20 or so years ago, we had the same battle around the lake. But at the time, once we got behind closed doors, it was kayaks/canoes that loved to hug the shore were upset with those of us that sat in our boats and cast our lines toward the shaded areas of the shoreline. They would have trouble navigating around us, and we would gripe about them tangling our lines.

I think as the population around the lakes grows... it is just going to be an onging battle that the Legislature is walking an ever tighter fine line around.

They ares definitely the driver of tourism in the local area. Is that generational? Is all this generational? I really don't know. I have a feeling some of it is, but not sure how much.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by ApS

Lake Winnipesaukee is not the only lake with a speed limit.

I'd be interested in reading of those tragic cases that sealed the freedoms of ocean-racer speed stars.

Many have said they'd take their ocean-racers elsewhere. What would happen if they were to return? Fundamentally change the character of a safer and relatively peaceful lake?

This is the most important argument for a speed limit--ocean racers change the fundamental character of the lake, and their "footprint" imposed on the rest of us is huge. They belong on the ocean

[Billy Bob]

Originally Posted by Major

A tad dramatic, no? Not one life has been saved, not one accident prevented, because of this feel-good law. Speed on the lake was never a safety issue prior to its enactment and it is not an issue afterwards. The irony is that the data is on my side. Like I said above, if there is a study about speed and boater safety, everyone of us would know about it.

Let's face it, this law was passed to eliminate fast, noisy boats from the lake. People didn't like the noise, and maybe they didn't like the type of people who operated them. For whatever reason, they hijacked the safety aspect of the issue to appeal to the masses. How can a bill directed to improving safety be bad?

We create silly laws and and unnecessary processes to address non-existent issues to make people feel good. All you need to do is go to an airport. TSA is a great example.
You have absolutely no way of knowing how many lives have been saved by this law ! Common sense will tell you the lower speed limit allows more reaction time and that will lead to fewer accidents. The vote itself , 18 to zero demonstrates your view on this is a fringe minority viewpoint .
My parents are still alive and think the law is stupid. And my grandparents, if they were alive, would have thought the law was beyond silly.

You have no way of knowing how many lives have been saved by this law ! Common sense would indicate the added reaction time allowed with the slower speed results in fewer accidents. The 18 to zero vote puts you in a fringe minority

[LikeLakes]

People shouldn't feel the need to label others this or that, it's ok to have views on various things and once you get to know someone, in every case you learn they have different ideas about different topics, it's what makes conversation interesting.

I'll state a few things about me ...
I tend to lean left on many/most issues, not all
I'd vote in favor of removing the speed limit on the broads
I've run a few boats in the 60's on Winni, really enjoy it (never on a weekend)
I paddle board and kayak and think I should be able to do so anywhere on the lake I want to
Paddlers, like power boaters, should be responsible for safety, meaning PFD's, flags, etc.

And I consider myself a safe, considerate boater and paddler. And seems to me everyone here was posting opinions on the vote and merits of the speed limit, pretty respectful all around if you ask me.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Billy Bob

You have no way of knowing how many lives have been saved by this law ! Common sense would indicate the added reaction time allowed with the slower speed results in fewer accidents. The 18 to zero vote puts you in a fringe minority

There were no deaths attributed to speed before and after the law so we will have no way of knowing. I have a lot of common sense so I know it’s perfectly safe to open it up so to speak in the broads or Meredith, Paugus and Alton Bays when things are clear. Fast boats are fun to some of us.

Show me a study that shows having a speed limit improves safety. You may enjoy living in a world in which the government dictates every aspect of your life. I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dick52]

Originally Posted by Major

There were no deaths attributed to speed before and after the law so we will have no way of knowing. I have a lot of common sense so I know it’s perfectly safe to open it up so to speak in the broads or Meredith, Paugus and Alton Bays when things are clear. Fast boats are fun to some of us.

Show me a study that shows having a speed limit improves safety. You may enjoy living in a world in which the government dictates every aspect of your life. I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You just crack me up. No way are your posts for real. Anyway...A study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that lower speed limits on inland lakes in Wisconsin reduced the number of accidents and fatalities.

A study by the National Marine Manufacturers Association found that slower speeds reduce the risk of accidents and injuries, and that boaters who travel at slower speeds are more likely to be wearing life jackets.

[pondguy]

Well the speed limit is 45 mph so there is not much more to talk about.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Dick52

You just crack me up. No way are your posts for real. Anyway...A study by the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that lower speed limits on inland lakes in Wisconsin reduced the number of accidents and fatalities.

A study by the National Marine Manufacturers Association found that slower speeds reduce the risk of accidents and injuries, and that boaters who travel at slower speeds are more likely to be wearing life jackets.

I feel better about myself knowing that God put me on his great earth to amuse you! I tried finding the studies you referenced - 10 minutes - with no luck. Maybe you can provide links?

I know what I see and believe. Like many on this Forum I have been boating for many years. I’ve witnessed firsthand what I have thought were dangerous and unsafe situations. An example is some yahoo coming out of the channel with literally dozens of boats in front of him, bow up, full throttle. That’s dangerous. I have never thought or gauged some guy with a fast boat on open water with no one around him as being dangerous. I guess with the decline of common sense, we are forced to adopt silly rules. The irony is that those who lack common sense probably don’t adhere to rules anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by pondguy

Well the speed limit is 45 mph so there is not much more to talk about.

Wait, by gps or speed relative to water? If I'm headed east going 47 by gps but there's a 3 mph eastward current and my boat speedo says I'm only going 44, will I get pulled over???

[Biggd]

All I know is you're not allowing John to get the last word in!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

I feel better about myself knowing that God put me on his great earth to amuse you! I tried finding the studies you referenced - 10 minutes - with no luck. Maybe you can provide links?

I know what I see and believe. Like many on this Forum I have been boating for many years. I’ve witnessed firsthand what I have thought were dangerous and unsafe situations. An example is some yahoo coming out of the channel with literally dozens of boats in front of him, bow up, full throttle. That’s dangerous. I have never thought or gauged some guy with a fast boat on open water with no one around him as being dangerous. I guess with the decline of common sense, we are forced to adopt silly rules. The irony is that those who lack common sense probably don’t adhere to rules anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thought everyone might like to read part of one person's testimony from last Wednesday's hearing in Concord. The testimonies are part of the public domain and as such are available for the public to review. His take, as one can see, contrasts wildly with Major's rather "Twilight Zone" interpretation of the issues at hand.

"My name is ........, I am a professional Mariner, having graduated from Maine Maritime Academy in 1983. I hold an unlimited Master License, the highest license the USCG issues, and I have lived and boated in NH for over 30 years........

... Professionally, I held Master High Speed Vessel license and operated the HSV Westpac Express in service to the Marine Corp in mid 2000’s. On that vessel, capable of only 40 Knots, on open ocean, not 80-100 mph in enclosed waters full of skiers, kayakers, even swimmers who cross between islands, we had to maintain a bridge watch as follows. 2 men in the control chairs at all times, within arms reach to throttles, one licensed engineer in chair behind us, also eyes forward as lookout. We had ECDIS, 2 radars with ARPA Collision avoidance, AIS and other modern safety features. On that vessel, if I wished to relieve myself on watch, I was not able to get up from my command chair unless the other two chairs were fully manned. No distractions were allowed, no music, no visitors distracting watch officer. Let’s contrast this with a go fast boat, often with either kids on board or beers in hand, sometimes both, towels and toys flying about boat at speed, which are all distractions to the operator. There is no formal training, no electronic collision avoidance equipment, boat is operating in constricted waters with small spar buoys, kayaks, wakeboarders, and the occasional swimmer."

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Thought everyone might like to read part of one person's testimony from last Wednesday's hearing in Concord. The testimonies are part of the public domain and as such are available for the public to review. His take, as one can see, contrasts wildly with Major's rather "Twilight Zone" interpretation of the issues at hand.

"My name is ........, I am a professional Mariner, having graduated from Maine Maritime Academy in 1983. I hold an unlimited Master License, the highest license the USCG issues, and I have lived and boated in NH for over 30 years........

... Professionally, I held Master High Speed Vessel license and operated the HSV Westpac Express in service to the Marine Corp in mid 2000’s. On that vessel, capable of only 40 Knots, on open ocean, not 80-100 mph in enclosed waters full of skiers, kayakers, even swimmers who cross between islands, we had to maintain a bridge watch as follows. 2 men in the control chairs at all times, within arms reach to throttles, one licensed engineer in chair behind us, also eyes forward as lookout. We had ECDIS, 2 radars with ARPA Collision avoidance, AIS and other modern safety features. On that vessel, if I wished to relieve myself on watch, I was not able to get up from my command chair unless the other two chairs were fully manned. No distractions were allowed, no music, no visitors distracting watch officer. Let’s contrast this with a go fast boat, often with either kids on board or beers in hand, sometimes both, towels and toys flying about boat at speed, which are all distractions to the operator. There is no formal training, no electronic collision avoidance equipment, boat is operating in constricted waters with small spar buoys, kayaks, wakeboarders, and the occasional swimmer."

Sorry, not fact or data, just opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

Sorry, not fact or data, just opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact: he is a professional mariner. You are not.

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

The fact: he is a professional mariner. You are not.

I have it on good authority that the person who testified is a pill-popping raging alcoholic who cheats on his wife and taxes. If he can assume that owners of fast boats have either kids on board or beers in hand, sometimes both, towels and toys flying about boat at speed, which are all distractions to the operator, as well as having no formal training, I can assume the worse of him.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

I have it on good authority that the person who testified is a pill-popping raging alcoholic who cheats on his wife and taxes. If he can assume that owners of fast boats have either kids on board or beers in hand, sometimes both, towels and toys flying about boat at speed, which are all distractions to the operator, as well as having no formal training, I can assume the worse of him.

Wow...for a guy who is too busy to send off a quick email to his state rep you seem to have plenty of time to dig up the scuttlebutt. So if you know so much about this guy, what town does he live in, just so we know you're not pulling this out of your hat (hint: I know him, and he'll be interested in knowing your views, as blatantly incorrect as they are). Come on Mr. "give me the facts", give me the facts

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

I have it on good authority that the person who testified is a pill-popping raging alcoholic who cheats on his wife and taxes. If he can assume that owners of fast boats have either kids on board or beers in hand, sometimes both, towels and toys flying about boat at speed, which are all distractions to the operator, as well as having no formal training, I can assume the worse of him.

Man...you are really on thin ice and totally out of line. Slandering someone who is, in addition to being a professional mariner, a well respected person in his community. Have you no shame? Was this kind of behavior tolerated in the U.S. Army? Would this kind of talk make your Army buddies proud? Are these the lengths you feel you must resort to to prove your point? A man who writes a thorough and thoughtful description of his professional duties and the best you can do is throw out a wild and untrue accusation to try to shore up your poorly conceived opinion of the need for a speed limit. And given that his testimony is a matter of public record such that someone could look it up and mistakenly assume what you allege is correct? You have certainly given us all a vivid insight into your true character. You need to be a bit more circumspect of what you put out there on the public domain. SHAME ON YOU.

And I have taken a screen shot of your venomous assault should this all be scrubbed. And a word of advice. Before it gets scrubbed you might want to issue an apology/mia culpa. And take a screen shot of it. It might be helpful for you down the line.

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Man...you are really on thin ice and totally out of line. Slandering someone who is, in addition to being a professional mariner, a well respected person in his community. Have you no shame? Was this kind of behavior tolerated in the U.S. Army? Would this kind of talk make your Army buddies proud? Are these the lengths you feel you must resort to to prove your point. A man who writes a thorough and thoughtful description of his professional duties and the best you can do is throw out a wild and untrue accusation to try to shore up your poorly conceived opinion of the need for a speed limit. And given that his testimony is a matter of public record such that someone could look it up and mistakenly assume what you allege is correct? You have certainly given us all a vivid insight into your true character. You need to be a bit more circumspect of what you put out there on the public domain. SHAME ON YOU.

Geez, lighten up, Francis!! It was a joke! Although my point is valid in that the testifier loses credibility by categorizing all fast boater as distracted, booze guzzling novices.

I have time now, and this issue is important. I have a few questions for you. Do you even own a power boat? Have you ever gone fast in a power boat?

I have owned power boats most of my adult life. Not fast ones, just family boats. My dad owned boats that would do 60+ MPH for 40 years. His last boat was an Eliminator Daytona 27. It would do 85-90 depending on the wind and the chop. (Interesting fact: you go faster into a slight chop and wind than with the chop and wind.)

Anyway, I had the privilege of driving and being with him going fast. Real fast. Went with him with my wife and my kids when they were young. Never once felt unsafe. My dad (and me when I drove) we’re safe, alert and responsible.

After the implementation of the speed limit, he sold his boat.

I am passionate about the issue since most on the wrong side of the issue have never owned a power boat. They really don’t know what they are talking about.

One so-called expert doesn’t define the issue.

Anyway, one thing I know is true - my side lost the battle and the war. Given NH’s demographics, it is unlikely that we’ll have another shot at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Man...you are really on thin ice and totally out of line. Slandering someone who is, in addition to being a professional mariner, a well respected person in his community. Have you no shame? Was this kind of behavior tolerated in the U.S. Army? Would this kind of talk make your Army buddies proud? Are these the lengths you feel you must resort to to prove your point? A man who writes a thorough and thoughtful description of his professional duties and the best you can do is throw out a wild and untrue accusation to try to shore up your poorly conceived opinion of the need for a speed limit. And given that his testimony is a matter of public record such that someone could look it up and mistakenly assume what you allege is correct? You have certainly given us all a vivid insight into your true character. You need to be a bit more circumspect of what you put out there on the public domain. SHAME ON YOU.

And I have taken a screen shot of your venomous assault should this all be scrubbed. And a word of advice. Before it gets scrubbed you might want to issue an apology/mia culpa. And take a screen shot of it. It might be helpful for you down the line.

Good lord, go read a book or something.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Major

Geez, lighten up, Francis!! It was a joke! Although my point is valid in that the testifier loses credibility by categorizing all fast boater as distracted, booze guzzling novices.

I have time now, and this issue is important. I have a few questions for you. Do you even own a power boat? Have you ever gone fast in a power boat?

I have owned power boats most of my adult life. Not fast ones, just family boats. My dad owned boats that would do 60+ MPH for 40 years. His last boat was an Eliminator Daytona 27. It would do 85-90 depending on the wind and the chop. (Interesting fact: you go faster into a slight chop and wind than with the chop and wind.)

Anyway, I had the privilege of driving and being with him going fast. Real fast. Went with him with my wife and my kids when they were young. Never once felt unsafe. My dad (and me when I drove) we’re safe, alert and responsible.

After the implementation of the speed limit, he sold his boat.

I am passionate about the issue since most on the wrong side of the issue have never owned a power boat. They really don’t know what they are talking about.

One so-called expert doesn’t define the issue.

Anyway, one thing I know is true - my side lost the battle and the war. Given NH’s demographics, it is unlikely that we’ll have another shot at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And since you did not quote the entirety of my last post I will repeat it.

"And I have taken a screen shot of your venomous assault should this all be scrubbed. And a word of advice. Before it gets scrubbed you might want to issue an apology/mia culpa. And take a screen shot of it. It might be helpful for you down the line."

And the answer to your 2 questions is yes and yes.
Oh yeah and your comment..."It was a joke". Like I alluded to, we now have a great deal of insight into your character.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Good lord, go read a book or something.

Do you condone Major slandering said mariner?

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

And since you did not quote the entirety of my last post I will repeat it.

"And I have taken a screen shot of your venomous assault should this all be scrubbed. And a word of advice. Before it gets scrubbed you might want to issue an apology/mia culpa. And take a screen shot of it. It might be helpful for you down the line."

And the answer to your 2 questions is yes and yes.
Oh yeah and..."It was a joke". Like I alluded to, we now have a great deal of insight into your character.

I’m not too worried. Anyone with common sense knows it was a joke.

Anyway, stay cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Major]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Do you condone Major slandering said mariner?

It’s not slander. Slander is by word of mouth. Libel is written. If you are going to play amateur lawyer at least get the terms right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dick52]

Originally Posted by Major

IÂ’m not too worried. Anyone with common sense knows it was a joke.

Anyway, stay cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Libel is a legal term that refers to a false and malicious statement that is written or published and that harms the reputation of an individual or an organization. Libel is a form of defamation that is intended to cause harm to a person's reputation or character. To prove libel, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement was false, caused damage to their reputation, and was published or communicated to at least one other person. In many jurisdictions, a person who is found guilty of libel may be required to pay damages or face other legal penalties."

Doubt it much matters if you intended it as a joke your words are you words.

I think your ship is sunk!

[Dick52]

Originally Posted by Major

It’s not slander. Slander is by word of mouth. Libel is written. If you are going to play amateur lawyer at least get the terms right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why you would ever say something like that over a silly conversation that is now MOOT....the speed limit stands. You lose. Case closed...well maybe except for you. Might be a whole new case for you. Good luck who knows maybe a Judge will find you a funny guy/gal or whoever behind your screen name and they will only make you pay a small amount in damages, plus legal fees.

[LikeLakes]

Sunset, you are the one that can't seem to stay on topic and debate the subject. Either you know Major was using his post to simply make a point about people making assumptions, or if not please re-read it to understand. He was saying "assuming towels are flying around every boat is the same as assuming a person testifying is a flawed individual", to paraphrase and explain it.

Debating a speed limit vote simply does not have to get venomous and personal. You seem very angry, while Major seems to be calmly and consistently making his points based on how he feels about the subject.

[Major]

Originally Posted by Dick52

Why you would ever say something like that over a silly conversation that is now MOOT....the speed limit stands. You lose. Case closed...well maybe except for you. Might be a whole new case for you. Good luck who knows maybe a Judge will find you a funny guy/gal or whoever behind your screen name and they will only make you pay a small amount in damages, plus legal fees.

Everyone needs to lighten up. I don’t know who the individual is who made the statement. I never heard the statement before today. The person’s name was left blank. Had his name been there I would not have made the joke. To the extent it matters I have no knowledge or no ill will against this person.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Major]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

Sunset, you are the one that can't seem to stay on topic and debate the subject. Either you know Major was using his post to simply make a point about people making assumptions, or if not please re-read it to understand. He was saying "assuming towels are flying around every boat is the same as assuming a person testifying is a flawed individual", to paraphrase and explain it.

Debating a speed limit vote simply does not have to get venomous and personal. You seem very angry, while Major seems to be calmly and consistently making his points based on how he feels about the subject.

Thank you, Like. A voice of reason and sanity. A lot has been said about my character. I can tell you one thing, I would never go on a forum and threaten litigation or to destroy someone's life over a silly argument and a stupid joke.

[Biggd]

Where's John when you need him?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by LikeLakes

Sunset, you are the one that can't seem to stay on topic and debate the subject. Either you know Major was using his post to simply make a point about people making assumptions, or if not please re-read it to understand. He was saying "assuming towels are flying around every boat is the same as assuming a person testifying is a flawed individual", to paraphrase and explain it.

Debating a speed limit vote simply does not have to get venomous and personal. You seem very angry, while Major seems to be calmly and consistently making his points based on how he feels about the subject.

Thanks for explaining this to those on here that seemingly can’t comprehend what Major’s point was. Some people just love looking for a fight, and I love the Perry Mason wannabes. Hysterical!

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by Dick52

"Libel is a legal term that refers to a false and malicious statement that is written or published and that harms the reputation of an individual or an organization. Libel is a form of defamation that is intended to cause harm to a person's reputation or character. To prove libel, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement was false, caused damage to their reputation, and was published or communicated to at least one other person. In many jurisdictions, a person who is found guilty of libel may be required to pay damages or face other legal penalties."

Doubt it much matters if you intended it as a joke your words are you words.

I think your ship is sunk!

As Major knows, he is safe. The requisite intent is lacking to prove libel. Sunset’s screenshot gambit was a first for the forum, I think. I suspect Major’s boots are almost done shaking by now. ��


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Major

Geez, lighten up, Francis!! It was a joke! Although my point is valid in that the testifier loses credibility by categorizing all fast boater as distracted, booze guzzling novices. I have time now, and this issue is important. I have a few questions for you. Do you even own a power boat? Have you ever gone fast in a power boat? I have owned power boats most of my adult life. Not fast ones, just family boats. My dad owned boats that would do 60+ MPH for 40 years. His last boat was an Eliminator Daytona 27. It would do 85-90 depending on the wind and the chop. (Interesting fact: you go faster into a slight chop and wind than with the chop and wind.) Anyway, I had the privilege of driving and being with him going fast. Real fast. Went with him with my wife and my kids when they were young. Never once felt unsafe. My dad (and me when I drove) we’re safe, alert and responsible. After the implementation of the speed limit, he sold his boat. I am passionate about the issue since
most on the wrong side of the issue have never owned a power boat. They really don’t know what they are talking about. One so-called expert doesn’t define the issue. Anyway, one thing I know is true - my side lost the battle and the war. Given NH’s demographics, it is unlikely that we’ll have another shot at it.

The last memorable person to take your side ran their boat into an island. The collision with shoreline was speedy enough to kill a passenger and to have their boat's anchor fly off their deck to impact a residence.

That island marks the northern border of your proposed race course.

Is it possible that a year of "punishing" night-times in jail was sufficient to propose again a race course through the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee?

Or did such a light sentence steel the resolve of us "Winnipesaukee Boaters Against Fatalities" into opposition?

[Major]

Originally Posted by ApS

The last memorable person to take your side ran their boat into an island. The collision with shoreline was speedy enough to kill a passenger and to have their boat's anchor fly off their deck to impact a residence.

That island marks the northern border of your proposed race course.

Is it possible that a year of "punishing" night-times in jail was sufficient to propose again a race course through the middle of Lake Winnipesaukee?

Or did such a light sentence steel the resolve of us "Winnipesaukee Boaters Against Fatalities" into opposition?

I am in no way mitigating or devaluing the severity of the incident, but speed in and of itself was not the reason for the accident. She was going approximately 25 MPH which is now the speed limit at night. Obviously had she been going slower the result may have been different.

Nor was speed the reason for the other famous Meredith Bay fatality.

The only fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee in which speed may have been a factor was back in the 1970s or 1980s in which a speed boat hit Little Island at night. However, I think alcohol may have been the primary cause for the accident.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Major

I am in no way mitigating or devaluing the severity of the incident, but speed in and of itself was not the reason for the accident. She was going approximately 25 MPH which is now the speed limit at night.

Just a minor correction….the speed limit at night is 30 mph…

Dan