![]()  | 
		
		![]()  | 
		
			
  | 
	|||||||
| Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Members List | Donate | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | 
| 
		 | 
	Thread Tools | Display Modes | 
| 
	 | 
| 
			
			 | 
		#1 | 
| 
			
			 Senior Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Feb 2007 
				
				
				
					Posts: 120
				 
				 
	Thanks: 0 
	
		
			
				Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
			
		
	 
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			Evenstar:  my problem with your argument is this.  Today you are looking to add a speed limit so that you can take your ocean kayak out on lake winni.  Well to me the next step for you will be to look for the same speed limit so that you can take your ocean kayak in the ocean.  Seems that it is OK for me to not be able to use the lake in a safe responsible manner but if that is put on you then.....  Why are your rights more important then mine?
		 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#2 | 
| 
			
			 Senior Member 
			
			
			
			Join Date: Feb 2003 
				Location: Moultonboro, NH 
				
				
					Posts: 1,683
				 
				Blog Entries: 1  
	Thanks: 356 
	
		
			
				Thanked 641 Times in 292 Posts
			
		
	 
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 
			
			The first paragraph of the existing law is enough to satisfy the rights mentioned in RSA 270:1:II, the one Evenstar expresses concerns about. Safe and mutual enjoyment comes with speeds that are reasonable and prudent under existing conditions.  
		
		
		
		
		
		
			We are currently living under a good rule that we all should be able to agree on. It does not allow unlimited speed. The debate should be about enforcement of existing law, not extensions that create legitimate disrespect for the law. From HB 0847: No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore. <-- Good enough! The reason there is a public outcry against the proposed law is that it defines what is not reasonable or prudent, removing the responsibility and freedom from certified boat pilots. To imply that going over 45 mph is unreasonable or not prudent when it is 7AM in the broads, on a Tuesday in May, with no boat in sight; is just plain wrong. Yet, that is what the law is implying. (b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful: (1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and (2) 45 miles per hour at any other time. 
				__________________ 
		
		
		
		
	-lg  | 
| 
		 | 
	
	
| 
			
			 | 
		#3 | |
| 
			
			 Deceased Member 
			
			
			
				
			
			Join Date: Nov 2002 
				Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence 
				
				
					Posts: 573
				 
				Blog Entries: 3  
	Thanks: 32 
	
		
			
				Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
			
		
	 
				
				
				
				 | 
	
	
	
		
		
			
			 Quote: 
	
  .If it make a difference to anyone I agree 100% with what Lakegeezer has said. BTW, as I've said before, the only way my boat can go as fast as 45 mph is DOWNHILL. 
				__________________ 
		
		
		
		
	Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works. Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient.  | 
|
| 
		 | 
	
	
| Bookmarks | 
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
		
  | 
	
		
  |