Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Silver Duck]

I think that Camp Zones are a fine idea, whether or not the speed limit is enacted!

Could this be done by the MP administratively, or would legislation be needed to create a new category of zone?

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Evenstar

I, for one, have never numbered you among the "run 'em off the lake" set.

However, I think that you're a bit optimistic about Captain Bonehead's idea of "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions" being anything less than the posted maximum.

For instance, over the last six seasons, I've spent many nights sitting in the cockpit of my cruiser (inside the enclosure, of course) on pitch dark and rainy nights, with visibility maybe 100 ft, at best. (The only reason I'd have left my slip on some of those nights was if the dock was on fire!)

Yet, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen boats leave the public docks and come up on plane before they even reach the no wake markers. Definitely not reasonable and prudent behavior by my standards.

The 60 year old cynic in me keeps telling me that "reasonable and prudent" seems to be in short supply with some folks. I don't much like it, but I suspect that Captain B is going to adopt 45 mph as reasonable and prudent by definition (until he hits something or somebody, and the MP can hang a violation of subparagraph A on him.)

But, I do hope that you're right, and I'm being too pessimistic. Time will tell.

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Islander

Since, as you say (and I'll accept your word on it) neither you nor Bear Lover were "involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation", why should I accept your theory on the reasons behind the legislation over my own (which is shared by a number of other forum members)?

I'm not calling you a liar, I merely feel that my view of the reasons behind the speed limit is correct and your isn't. I rather doubt that either of us has any possibility of convincing the other.

By the way, excellent pun!

Silver Duck

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Islander

Since, as you say (and I'll accept your word on it) neither you nor Bear Lover were "involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation", why should I accept your theory on the reasons behind the legislation over my own (which is shared by a number of other forum members)?

I'm not calling you a liar, I merely feel that my view of the reasons behind the speed limit is correct and your isn't. I rather doubt that either of us has any possibility of convincing the other.

By the way, excellent pun!

Silver Duck

Although I was not involved with creating the legislation, I know some people that were. And I have been involved with support meetings. I have read the communications. There is no secret agenda. How could such a wide based loosely organized group hide its true purpose? Would that many people keep the real purpose secret? We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't make sense.

And if GFBL's were the target why not just say so. You can make a good argument (as some have) that the lake is to small and fragile for these boats.

Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is more likely to be true.

[TiltonBB]

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.

Could you support a minimum daytime speed of, say, 44 MPH? That way no boat will ever overtake another slower boat and with everyone going the same speed it will eliminate the unsafe passing of other boats.

I've been boating and swimming on the lake for many, many years. I used to love looking at the mountians and trees. Is there any way to include in the speed legislation that people shouldn't develop their mountainside land. The view is changing and I don't enjoy the lake as much because I have to see those big houses that rich people own.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?

This is what NH LAW states” “. . . 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, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights.

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.

Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.

I paddle a sea kayak, which is made to handle large waves. I happen to enjoy waves – and I often surf on large wakes.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!

I have kayaked and sailed on the ocean – I cross shipping lanes all the time. Commercial vessels are not going all that fast, so it is no problem to stay out of their way.

What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?

Excuse me? What have I ever made up? Look back at my previous post – I referenced and quoted that NH law.

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.

How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater?
Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is what NH LAW states” “. . . 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, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights..

Variety of uses doesn't mean all. Some kayaks won't want to be out with boats going between 20 and 45. Those above 45 are just more of the same. I think the lake meets the requirements of variety of uses.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.

Define speeding? I sure see a lot of complaints that about speeding, yet not at speeds above 45. A speed limit of 45 won't solve the problem. Few of the "to fast for conditions" accidents are above 45. I suggest that those going above 45 are better drivers, and there are fewer of them. You're point of speeding is well taken, but the speed limit won't address it.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.

Common thinking is that boats going above 45 make less wake, so the issue of legislating wake and speed limits are totally different issues - as you seem to acknowledge.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater? Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.

Its not. Boats that want to speed need to stay clear of you and when you get in the way, the boats have to deal with it. Now if you'd only stop trying to restrict them when you aren't around.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Variety of uses doesn't mean all. Some kayaks won't want to be out with boats going between 20 and 45. Those above 45 are just more of the same. I think the lake meets the requirements of variety of uses.

RSA 270:1 dates back to 1941 and the law was made to help prevent (among other things) the very things that we are debating here, which is that high-speed powerboats are making the lake unsafe for others. I, and many others, contend that the current unlimited speed limit is a very unsafe policy, and this law explicitly states that NH lakes are to be “regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment.” An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer.

Paddlers were on this lakes long before any powerboat – so you can’t really argue that canoes and kayaks are not among the “variety of uses.” Kayaks are the fastest growing recreational boat, so it’s not like their popularity is decreasing. I’m also not saying that it is ok to use a boat beyond what it was designed for or for an operator to use a boat beyond their own ability. That is putting yourself in danger.

What I am saying that if a boat that is designed for large bodies of water cannot be safely used by an experienced paddler on NH lakes, due to the actions of other boaters – that we have a major problem that needs to be addressed by regulation (which is part of RSA 270:1 requires).

Define speeding? I sure see a lot of complaints that about speeding, yet not at speeds above 45. A speed limit of 45 won't solve the problem. Few of the "to fast for conditions" accidents are above 45. I suggest that those going above 45 are better drivers, and there are fewer of them. You're point of speeding is well taken, but the speed limit won't address it.

Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

Boats that want to speed need to stay clear of you and when you get in the way, the boats have to deal with it. Now if you'd only stop trying to restrict them when you aren't around.

I don’t “get in the way” – according to navigational rules, I have the right of way. Having said that, I don’t cut powerboats off and I try my best to stay out of their path. I have had to slow down fairly often for powerboaters who have cut me off.

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.