HB847 Passed the Senate

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The key words here are "when nobody is around," and this includes the Marine Patrol. If you are in an accident, while "opening it up" expect the book to be thrown at you.

Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?

If they could prove that over the speed limit was the primary cause of an accident how would that effect the penalty?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And you guys really should be careful about dismissing the ability of this lake speed limit law to stand up in court, because the exact same "prima facie" language is used in the highway Speed Limitations: NH RSA - Section 265:60:

Evenstar, why do you think that a lake speed limit citation would not hold up in court? I don't see where anyone said that.

BTW, I am a boater, what about my love?

[gtxrider]

[QUOTE=Mashugana;70770]Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?




I bet they try to measure the SKID marks to determine the speed!

[Chris Craft]

Evenstar: I can go for a walk in the woods durring hunting season, I would not do it, but I could. I also would not even think about asking those that hunt to not do so because I want to take a morning walk in the woods. From what I am hearing you say I should enact a law that says that no one should be able to hunt so that I can take my morning walk? Your chances of being hit on the water are infinately less then being shot while walking in the woods during hunting season. Both are statistically much less then being in a car accident. Live and let live. There is an entire lake out there for everyone to use, find a place that you do feel safe and enjoy it.

The argument about me not being able to see as far at speed is totally false. If the proponents of the law ever drove one of these boats they would realize that. How is it that my vision becomes less when traveling at speed? When you are driving in a car does your vision become less when you drive at highway speed vs. traveling around town on back roads? Also, when I drive slower I have to look at 360 degrees of the lake as people could approach from the sides and behind. As I travel faster it is less important what is behind me and more improtant what is in front of me. Get up to 70 or so MPH and there is almost no chance that some one is aproaching you from behind. This allows me to focus more on what is in front of me. How is it that my vision is less at speed?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Live and let live. There is an entire lake out there for everyone to use, find a place that you do feel safe and enjoy it. The argument about me not being able to see as far at speed is totally false. If the proponents of the law ever drove one of these boats they would realize that. How is it that my vision becomes less when traveling at speed? When you are driving in a car does your vision become less when you drive at highway speed vs. traveling around town on back roads? Also, when I drive slower I have to look at 360 degrees of the lake as people could approach from the sides and behind. As I travel faster it is less important what is behind me and more improtant what is in front of me. Get up to 70 or so MPH and there is almost no chance that some one is aproaching you from behind. This allows me to focus more on what is in front of me. How is it that my vision is less at speed?

You guys love using our state motto to protect your own freedoms, while in the very same breath suggesting that others give up their freedoms – so that you can continue to have an unlimited speed limit on the lake.

You and others here contend that kayaks should be restricted to certain areas of the lake – I contend that an experienced sea kayaker should be able to safely use the entire lake – without fear of being run over by high speed boats. My boat is made to use on the main lake. I’m not supporting a bill that would limit what parts of the lake that powerboats should use.

Besides, I’ve had close encounters with high-speed powerboats when I’ve been only a few hundred feet from shore. And others had testified about similar close calls relatively near the shore. I should not have to hug the shore or be restricted to coves to be safe from being run over. Slowing down the fastest boats to a safer speed is the fairest thing for everyone – since it is the least restrictive.

My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow).

This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.

I never stated that vision is less at higher speeds – just that vision doesn’t magically get better at higher speeds (as some forum members have suggested).

Not every boater has perfect vision, and not every boater pays enough attention to smaller boats, and visibility is not always perfect out on the lake. Combine any of these with high speeds and you can have a dangerous situation for smaller boats.

[gtxrider]

[QUOTE=Evenstar;70826]

My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow).


It is not the size of boat. I have had Captain Bonehead run right up next to me in a 19' boat. It is the 150' rule and not speed!

[Chris Craft]

Evenstar. My smaller boat (the one that I use the most) is probably only 2-3 feet longer then your kayak. I am willing to bet that it sits only slightly higher in the water then a kayak. I have NEVER had any issue with some one almost running me over at speed. Lots of people have violated the 150 foot rule around me. Not once has it been a speed boat at a high rate of speed.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Y
This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.

YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????

AMAZING!!!!! yet sad.....

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Ryan

AMAZING!!!!! yet sad.....

I know... here you go, you can all read it for yourself : http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...0&postcount=36
While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down.

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by gtxrider

I bet they try to measure the SKID marks to determine the speed!

Measure skid marks to figure boat speed. Too funny .

Hey maybe they can measure disturbed milfoil. The new pavement.

If no one is around and your boat doesn't sink what prevents a hit-and-run?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?

My two statements were meant to be separate events. Sorry for not making that clear. Of course there would have to be some proof of having been traveling over the speed limit when the accident occurred.

Evenstar, why do you think that a lake speed limit citation would not hold up in court? I don't see where anyone said that.

I do think that a lake speed limit would hold up in court. Yet others here were suggesting that it would be easy to defend, due to the "prima facie" language that was used. I was merely trying to caution against that attitude. It is my understanding that the language in the bill means is that any speeds above the speed limit are automatically rated as "not reasonable or prudent" and therefore are unlawful ... the burden would be on the defendant to prove otherwise. And I don't see that as being easy to prove.

Here's examples from this thread about what others are suggesting:

Originally Posted by Skip

You are out on the Broads on a clear and calm unlimited visibility day and its just you and a distant NHMP boat. If you can articulate in Court that the spped you are suggesting, 70 MPH, was reasonable and prudent given the conditions of the day than you, my friend, have just learned what an affirmative defense is!

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either.

BTW, I am a boater, what about my love?

Why is my signature suddenly an issue? It was never meant to be an insult to anyone - so please don't take it that way. It doesn't state that boaters love their boats more than anything else or that they only love their boats. It does not state that kayaks are not a type of boat. It does not state that kayakers don't love their kayaks.

The point on my sig is that, if you kayak, you'd better love the water, because you are going to get wet. A slightly modified version of my sig could also be very appropriate for collegiate sailing as well, as I get much wetter racing sailboats than I do when I kayak.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...
Why is my signature suddenly an issue? ...

You made it an issue.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

You made it an issue.

No I didn't. Others make it an issue by trying to us my signature against me.

Originally Posted by codeman671

You are the one that made others signatures an issue. They have a right to use whatever they want as long as it meets forum regulations for decency, even if it does poke some fun at yours. Give it a rest and move on.

I explained my signature. No member has the right to take another forum member's post and twist it in a way that pokes fun at the other member. That is hateful and it is trolling - which is in violation of the rules of this forum. I'll "give it a rest and move on," just as soon as others here do. I'm the one being made fun of, not you.

Originally Posted by gtxrider

It is not the size of boat. I have had Captain Bonehead run right up next to me in a 19' boat. It is the 150' rule and not speed!

Size is more than just length. My kayak is only 22 inches wide and it weighs only 50 pounds. If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????

That is not true and you know it! You are just taking my post out of context again (just like you did in #251 in the "Life after speed limits" thread).

In my very next post,#43 (which was posted way back on April 4, 2005!), I wrote: "That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!

I also explained this in my reply to your former accusation:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is still 100% true "Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see." The guy on Squam back in the summer of 2004 clearly saw us and was just being a jerk. I made that clear in that old thread, but you neglected to include that part. So that was clearly not a case of someone who was traveling too fast to see me. So go try to find something else to use against me - because you failed again. And personally I'm really getting tired of defending myself here all the time.

Hazelnut, you have no business posting these sort of posts,as they are in direct violation of the forum rules: "Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."

Why is it that I have to constantly defend myself on this forum???

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.

This goes back to the drawn out debate about how many non-powered boats have been hit by a speeding powerboat on Winni? In NH? In New England?

How many powerboats have been hit by a powerboat on Winni where the operator had not consumed alcohol?

I think tipping and drowning seem to be the issues that are claiming kayakers across the region. I know I've read of at least 2 in the past few weeks.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!

So, if I'm going over 45mph and enter somebody's 150' zone with a smile it's ok?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Ryan

This goes back to the drawn out debate about how many non-powered boats have been hit by a speeding powerboat on Winni? In NH? In New England?

To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.

I think tipping and drowning seem to be the issues that are claiming kayakers across the region. I know I've read of at least 2 in the past few weeks.

And how many of those were on winni? Or on a NH lake? And were those victims wearing PFDs and were they wearing appropriate clothing? The thing is that I can protect myself from things like drowning, by being a good swimmer, wearing a PFD and usually going with a friend. And I own and use cold water gear like a wetsuit, a drysuit, and underarmor. What I have no control over are the powerboat operators who travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats. If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law.

So, if I'm going over 45mph and enter somebody's 150' zone with a smile it's ok?

No, it’s not. And I never suggested that it was. That is dangerous and it is breaking a law. But these are two different violations – one is intentional and one is unintentional. It is my belief that a speed limit law will help reduce the unintentional violations.

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Evenstar: First your point about you getting hurt more in your boat then me in mine if we get hit by the same boat I am sure you can see is very flawed.

When I wrote: “If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most?” The two boats here were my kayak and the powerboat that hit me. I was not talking about you and your boat. My point was that size is more than just length – mass is a major factor.

Now your point about the Squam incident... First back in 04 or when ever it was you pointed out that the guy was laughing at you as he passed. Well how are you sure that the other people that have come close to you (violated your 150 foot rule) also did not have the same mentality.

Other boats have intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. I actually pull one violator over with my kayak – much to the amusement of the MP that I reported the incident to. My point is that some high-speed powerboats (boats going over 45 mph) have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone because they were going to fast to see me. And I’m 99% sure that this was not intentional, because I had a very good look at their expression when they did finally notice me.

Lastly let the owner of this board decide what is or is not against the rules of the board. Just about every post on this forum is moderated. He has read them all. I would assume that if he thought that they were against forum rules he would either edit them or not post them. Everyone needs to lighten up on this board and have a little more fun.

The forum rules are something that all members agree to follow. I did not make up the rules – they are very clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I know what a personal attack is.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Evanstar you lied and said it never happened on Squam yet when I post YOUR words that clearly state somebody came within 40 feet of you VIOLATING YOUR 150 FOOT ZONE I am attacking you???????? Enough is enough. You are bordering on troll posting now. I move to have you moderated again because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation!

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.”

So please stop your personal attacks on me. You have no right to repeatedly accuse me of lying. Your attacks are personal – they are intentional – and they are done with malice.

The legal definition of slander is: “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.”

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

I'm not claiming that you made this stuff up Evenstar. I'm just saying that you left out an important portion of what Skip quoted which qualifies the "exact same language". Skip was talking about the differences in how the violations are handled. If you don't understand what he is saying, don't dismiss him or try to change the meaning of his statements. The qualification you omitted, Evenstar, makes a big difference.

I wasn’t even disagreeing with most of what Skip posted. I just was trying to clarify something that other members seemed to be misunderstanding. I honestly didn’t want people here getting in trouble because of a misunderstanding.

You have accused me of trolling. That is your opinion but I don't agree. I am rather annoyed at various people in the speed limit discussion who seem to want to tell me what I think or what I know or what I pretend not to know or even tell me where my love goes.

Well it is not my just opinion - it is clearly stated in the forum rules: “No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!” I asked you to please not use a distorted version on my signature. Yet you continue to do so – even though you know that this upsets me. That is trolling, according to the definition given in the forum rules. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.

What, exactly is a "close call" is it a boat that travels within 149' of your kayak? 120'? 75'? And why aren't/can't these be reported?

Again, without proof (radar, laser) that these boats were going 46mph or faster, you seem to make great case for better enforcement of the 150' rule. The speed limit is not going to solve this.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And how many of those were on winni? Or on a NH lake? And were those victims wearing PFDs and were they wearing appropriate clothing? The thing is that I can protect myself from things like drowning, by being a good swimmer, wearing a PFD and usually going with a friend. And I own and use cold water gear like a wetsuit, a drysuit, and underarmor. What I have no control over are the powerboat operators who travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats. If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law.

You sound like you are very well protected and prepared in case of tipping. Since we're talking about being in an encounter with a high speed motorized vessel travelling at speeds that make the captain inattentive, unable to slow his vessel due to his/her inability to clearly identify your sea kayak and bright paddles in a manner timely enough to change course and avoid a potentially fatal accident - maybe a kayak flag would make a sensible addition to your equipment?

Few members of the forum have posted that their boats are capable of reaching 45mph. Of those, many admit that they reserve pushing their boats to speeds of 45mph in open areas, such as the broads. Let's say 10% of the boats on the lake are going 45mph or higher at any point in time (0.29%, speed survey, blah, blah, blah - we know those numbers are just totally fictional and serve no relevance about speeds on the lake) but applying this logic - it seems like you'd have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, involved in an airplane crash, or winning the lottery (might be a good night to buy a ticket) than having MULTIPLE incidents with a "Speeding" vessel on the lake. But that is just my opinion (except for the lottery ticket thing - you seem to be able to beat the odds time after time!!!!!).

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation!

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.”

So please stop your personal attacks on me. You have no right to repeatedly accuse me of lying. Your attacks are personal – they are intentional – and they are done with malice.

The legal definition of slander is: “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.”

Will you give it a rest already. I never attacked you. You absolutely can not stand it when anyone disagrees with you so you get all defensive and cry attack? This post in itself is an absolute personal attack. A LAWSUIT?!? Are you for real. I have not once spoken an untruth about you.

You posted a while back about a close call on Squam. Whether he saw you before he violated your 150 foot zone or not or unintentionally or intentionally came at you was not referenced in any of my posts. You pointed to a 40MPH limit on Squam as the reason nobody ever infringed upon your 150foot zone. I used YOUR WORDS to remind you that in fact it had happened to you.

If you just stopped the whoa is me attitude and stuck to your arguments you may be a bit more well received here. This isn't personal and it never will be. I absolutely 100% disagree with everything you say. Oh well move on. I don't dislike you, I don't wish you ill will, I don't know you. Unfortunately you fail to see where you have been extremely condescending and negative to just about every poster on this forum. Maybe you don't mean to be, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't. Unfortunately most here and most I've spoken to personally or have PM'ed me think that you do mean it and that you are being smug and or arrogant. Sometimes the written word does not accurately reflect the true personality of somebody. I have but one request. Please stop playing the victim.

[Evenstar]

Will you give it a rest already. I never attacked you. You absolutely can not stand it when anyone disagrees with you so you get all defensive and cry attack?

I have no problem when people disagree with me – that’s called debating. The problem is that too many members here - like you, can’t seem to debate anything without resorting to personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with them – and THAT I do have a problem with.

You falsely accused me of lying, again. You completely misunderstood what I posted – even though I made the distinction very clear. And even after I had pointed out what I actually wrote. That is very much a personal attack. Before accusing someone of lying, you really should make sure that they actually posted what you think they posted.

This post in itself is an absolute personal attack. A LAWSUIT?!? Are you for real. I have not once spoken an untruth about you.

You have repeatedly called me a liar, even though I provided clear evidence that proved that I didn’t lie. Your act was intentional, it was done with malice, and you did it on a public forum – which makes it libel (I mistakenly used the definition for slander earlier – I make mistakes when I get upset).

You posted a while back about a close call on Squam. Whether he saw you before he violated your 150 foot zone or not or unintentionally or intentionally came at you was not referenced in any of my posts. You pointed to a 40MPH limit on Squam as the reason nobody ever infringed upon your 150foot zone. I used YOUR WORDS to remind you that in fact it had happened to you.

What you did is take my words out of context to use them against me. I NEVER stated that no one on Squam ever infringed on my 150 foot zone. I clearly stated that no one on Squam has UNINTENTIONALLY ever violated my 150 foot zone – BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T SEE ME. That is not the same thing as what you have now repeatedly accused me of posting! Read my post – and read my entire post this time.

If you and others think that I’m coming across as “smug and or arrogant,” perhaps that is due to that fact that I have to provide credentials for every single ability, for every bit of experience, and for every statement that I make on this forum. I am not a smug or arrogant person. I can not even make a helpful post or make a joke without someone here criticizing me.

You blatantly attacked me by calling me a liar again and demanding that I be moderated for my actions – and then you tell me to “give it a rest!!!” If you would just back off and quit attacking my posts and falsely accusing me, I wouldn’t have to spend nearly as much time defending myself here. I am “the victim” because people like you have made me “the victim.” I am not playing anything – but have merely tried to defend myself from some really hostile attacks, that I don’t feel like I deserved. You seem to wait around for me to post just to rip my posts apart – and whenever anyone else criticizes me, you are one of the first ones to chime in and add to the feeding frenzy. You claim that you don’t hate me, but your actions say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ryan

What, exactly is a "close call" is it a boat that travels within 149' of your kayak? 120'? 75'? And why aren't/can't these be reported? Again, without proof (radar, laser) that these boats were going 46mph or faster, you seem to make great case for better enforcement of the 150' rule. The speed limit is not going to solve this.

Ryan, I’m been through this many, many, many times on this forum. You and others should really go back and read my posts, rather than just keep asking me the very same questions over and over again.

I’ve stated more than once that my sea kayak is nearly 16 feet long, so when a powerboat gets within 3 or 4 of my kayak lengths from me, they are much closer than 150 feet. Being less than a second away from a likely fatal collision is what I consider to be a close call.

Close calls can be reported – but, as far as I know, no one actually keeps track of them. Have you ever seen a published report that gives the number of close calls on NH lakes?

How do you enforce a violation that wasn’t intentional? Sure, the MP can cite they operator, but how does that prevent an unintentional violation from happening again. And that’s not going to do the paddler any good, after a powerboat collides with them.

Again, I’ve stated this over and over – so, either you guys are not getting this, or you’re just choosing to ignore what I post. It is my belief that unintentional violations happen because the operator is traveling beyond his abilities to see smaller boats in time, so if he is forced to slow down, he will be traveling at speeds that are now closer to his abilities. Plus when you are going slower, you have more time to react. That is a fact. Therefore the speed limit should greatly reduce the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

. . .maybe a kayak flag would make a sensible addition to your equipment?

I’ve already explained over and over why this is not a helpful suggestion. Go HERE and read for yourself, if you somehow missed my numerous posts of this.

I’ve been 100% truthful in my accounts of close calls on the lake. The main reason that I’m supporting enacting a speed limit on the lake is based of my own personal experiences on the lake. And I’m not the only person who has recounted numerous close calls from high-speed powerboats while paddling.

[hazelnut]

So go ahead and sue me then.

I've seen several people here try to help you in your posting to no avail. I stand by my post regarding the Squam incident. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to bury that incident and pretend it did not happen fine. It happened, the circumstances surrounding it are not what I am debating. My point was and is that careless boating is the problem regardless of speed limit. Your incident proves that. You can not understand that, too bad I guess. Jerks boat everywhere.

I guess "the victim" act will continue, oh well everyone here has tried. It is what it is.

[Chris Craft]

Can I get the cliffs notes version of all these long posts please

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Can I get the cliffs notes version of all these long posts please

I found one on my computer. The down arrow on the lower right corner gets me right past the manifesto in no time. I have found that the shorter a post is the more it draws my attention to read it. Somebody has a point and they make it quickly. Maybe it's me but the post with 15 quotes in them are seldom worth the time it took to write or read them. IMHO.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Ryan, I’m been through this many, many, many times on this forum. You and others should really go back and read my posts, rather than just keep asking me the very same questions over and over again.

I want you to know, I respect your opinions. I did not join this forum to just "Debate Evanstar". The forum is a means for debate and when I see a flaw in one's logic, I feel the need to debate.

Honestly, I've read all of the posts surrounding this debate.
It was only recently that I felt the need to sign up and voice my concerns.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve already explained over and over why this is not a helpful suggestion. Go HERE and read for yourself, if you somehow missed my numerous posts of this.

I've also read your extreme opposition to the kayak flag, which IMHO is a pretty poor decision for somebody who is concerned about visibility with power boats travelling at Ludicrous Speed. (the way you describe captains travelling at 46mph reminds me of the "Spaceballs" scene where they are going "Ludicrous speed". [/Sarcasm]At least that's how my vision gets when I hit 46mph.[Sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve stated more than once that my sea kayak is nearly 16 feet long, so when a powerboat gets within 3 or 4 of my kayak lengths from me, they are much closer than 150 feet. Being less than a second away from a likely fatal collision is what I consider to be a close call.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Again, I’ve stated this over and over – so, either you guys are not getting this, or you’re just choosing to ignore what I post. It is my belief that unintentional violations happen because the operator is traveling beyond his abilities to see smaller boats in time, so if he is forced to slow down, he will be traveling at speeds that are now closer to his abilities. Plus when you are going slower, you have more time to react. That is a fact. Therefore the speed limit should greatly reduce the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

At 50MPH (~1% of the boats on any given day) one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.

The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

How are you possibly going to feel any safer?

No further questions.....today.

[tis]

Chris Craft. I am with you. I just can't read all the long posts. I skim them. I was taught that people lose you when you are not concise. Somehow that always stuck in my mind. But I have to admit, I admire those who take the time to read and write that much.

[VtSteve]

All you need to know is this.

Some people have drowned while boating, even falling off the Mount.

Some people have hit docks, rocks, even islands (they might be a bit drunk)

Some boaters are lax in their attention span, and don't pay attention to their proximity to others on the lake

PWC's, well the buzz around like little sea lice, many times coming way too close to boats to get a bigger wake. Many fall off them and get boo boos

There are several No Wake Zones on the lake. They are there for a reason, but some just ignore them.

While all of this is going on, the marine patrol apparently doesn't see any of it. BI sees the people going 90 in a NWZ and says we need speed limits.

What we need all over is enforcement, it really does work.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I've also read your extreme opposition to the kayak flag, which IMHO is a pretty poor decision for somebody who is concerned about visibility with power boats travelling at Ludicrous Speed.

fficeffice" />>>
>>
My decision is based on what is actually safest for me – which is based on hundreds of hours of experience on large lakes in my sea kayak. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Because if you had, you would understand the importance of balance and the effect of wind on a boat like mine. These are little tiny flags, on a short pole, with a surface area that is much less than one of my paddle blades – so they would not increase my visibility appreciatively from a distance. A flag that would be large enough and high enough out of the water to actually increase my kayak’s visibility would make my kayak totally unstable and would make self-rescues extremely difficult if not impossible.>>
> >
Most of the members of this forum could not even get into my kayak without tipping it over. You need to fit though a 19 inch wide cockpit hole (that’s the widest end), just to get into the seat – and then you need to figure out how to get your legs in there with you.>>


[quote=Commodore;71244]My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar. What I believe is that, unfortunately, you believe everything you say and you keep saying it over and over again.
quote]
And your post isn’t any shorter than mine. As I explained, I am limited to the number of post I can make per day and I often have 6 of 8 posts that are directed at me – so this is that only way that I can respond to everyone. If you don’t like long post, don’t read mine. >>
> >
Look, I’m the one who was there and I know what I saw. And my best friend was with me, so I do have a witness for all the above events. It’s really annoying that guys like you complain about me repeating myself, while you and others keep questioning everything that I post. I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself if you guys didn’t keep ripping my posts apart.>>
> >
You guys refuse to believe me because doing so would be an admission that perhaps we do need a speed limit. So you continue to attack my ability to tell that a boat is traveling at high speed, claim that I can’t tell when a boat is within my 150 foot zone, or now you’re claiming that I can’t read anyone’s expression. Again, I was there and you were not. And my best friend, who was paddling just a few feet from me, saw the same thing as I did and came to the exact same conclusions.>>
> >
Power boats HAVE entered our 150 foot zone at high speeds – sometimes getting within 50 or 60 feet of us before they gave any indication that they saw us. And then their reaction made it very obvious that they finally did notice us. This is not like we were using our intuition, or the force, or anything else. It was extremely obvious to both of us!>>
> >
The other thing (and yes, I’m repeating myself again, because you’re ignoring this part again) is that we are not the only ones who have experienced this type of dangerous close encounter with high-speed boats. At the House Transportation Committee hearing last March, a number of other paddlers recounted nearly identical experiences. >>
> >
Speed is a factor. How can you state that it isn’t? Where is your proof that what I and many others state is not true?>>
> >
I never posted that you have traveled faster than your ability to see small boats in time to not violate their 150 foot zone, so I’m not attacking you in any way. But there are people who do operate powerboats beyond their abilities, and these people have made the lake very dangerous for smaller boats. >>
> >
I am not trying to start an argument with you or with anyone – I am merely giving my opinion why I feel that a speed limit is needed on all NH lakes. That is not trolling.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You guys refuse to believe me because doing so would be an admission that perhaps we do need a speed limit.

No,here's why we don't believe you.You make statements like this:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Most of the members of this forum could not even get into my kayak without tipping it over.

How arrogant is this statement?I know you think your extremely smart because you've told us many times but now you are going to tell us that you know the ability of everyone on this forum.You are your own worst enemy.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

How arrogant is this statement?I know you think your extremely smart because you've told us many times but now you are going to tell us that you know the ability of everyone on this forum.You are your own worst enemy.

No, my worst enemies are people who don't understand what I am posting, because they are in too much of a hurry to find fault with what I post.

Look, the only reason that I defended my intelligence, is because some members suggested that I was less than intelligent and that I'm a poor student. Neither is true. I'm a strawberry blonde, but that doesn't mean that I'm a dumb blonde. But I don't consider myself to be "extremely smart" either.

And there is nothing arrogant about my statment - it's just a very logical statement for two reasons:

1.) Most members of this forum are not experienced sea kayakers - and getting into a sea kayak without tipping it over takes some skill and practice. Sea kayaks are very narrow boats - it is nothing like sitting in a much wider recreational kayak.

2.) Purchasing a sea kayak is like buying jeans - and I'm a size 8. So I'm guessing that there many members here who could not fit into a pair of my jeans any better than they could fit into my sea kayak.

[Chris Craft]

I have to agree with Evenstar (oh boy did I just say that!! LOL) I think that the flag is not going to help and I can see how it can make it more dificult for a recovery. That is however just the products that I have seen posted on this site. That is not to say that there is not a better product out there that may work better then the stuff that has been posted. Maybe this is an oportunaty for some one to come up with a better mouse trap and then patition concord for yet another new law that requires what you have made and you are RICH!!!

My problem with the law is that quite honestly it does not solve any issues. I have driven boats fast, very fast. I have ridden in boats over 100 MPH. Not once have I come close to another boat at speed (except in poker runs). I can easily see anything and everything around me. The problem with people breaking the 150 foot rule is not speed it is either lack of knowledge of the rule OR innatention behind the wheel OR they just do not care. No speedlimit is going to solve either of those problems.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, my worst enemies are people who don't understand what I am posting, because they are in too much of a hurry to find fault with what I post. ...

And there is nothing arrogant about my statment - it's just a very logical statement for two reasons:

1.) Most members of this forum are not experienced sea kayakers - and getting into a sea kayak without tipping it over takes some skill and practice. Sea kayaks are very narrow boats - it is nothing like sitting in a much wider recreational kayak.

2.) Purchasing a sea kayak is like buying jeans - and I'm a size 8. So I'm guessing that there many members here who could not fit into a pair of my jeans any better than they could fit into my sea kayak.

You have enemies here? Questioning and debating is not a battle. I'm in no hurry to find the faults in your posts. I understand the words you use but don't always agree with you or follow the logic of your posts. Some of us may be in a hurry to point out inaccuracies for clarity not unjustified fault finding.

We do agree on some things. I'm too big, I could not get into your jeans or your kayak (even if I wanted to).

You've mentioned how sensitive your kind of kayak is and how much physical prowess and skill is needed to stay afloat and keep up with you on a paddling outing. Balance is very important to enjoy the sport as you do.

And you wonder why no one (other than Mee-n-Mac) has come forward to take you up on your offer to go kayak with you. You make it sound so un-inviting to the average person and I'm not referring to fear of fast boats.

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love love

[Ryan]

I just wanted to repost this for ES:

At 50MPH one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.
The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

I sat on the beach this weekend watching all of the reckless, speeding watercraft zipping across Saunders Bay. I even saw a few GFBL's polluting the environment and eroding the shorelines as they (expensively) got on plane.

With the above sarcasm aside, I also saw kayakers enjoying the lake simultaneously with all of these big "wild west" style bullies. I noticed, that from my chaise lounge I could easily spot kayakers off the shoreline. I could also spot kayakers probably close to 3/4 mile off the shore. Granted, I was not operating a vessel at speeds where my vision becomes all blurry and my better judgement compromised, but I think the point stands.

What I did not see all weekend was a single MP. Very surprising for a busy holiday weekend...It has been mentioned that MP presense makes boaters behave. (this was even listed as a reason to invalidate the speed study) It's possible they were doubled up at a post in the broads testing their radar equipment for 2009.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

You have enemies here? Questioning and debating is not a battle. I'm in no hurry to find the faults in your posts. I understand the words you use but don't always agree with you or follow the logic of your posts. Some of us may be in a hurry to point out inaccuracies for clarity not unjustified fault finding.

I was just responding to SIKSUKR’s accusation that I’m supposedly “my own worst enemy.”

Yet, on this forum I have been treated with so much hostility, that I often feel like others here see me as the enemy. Personal attacks are not allowed in debates – yet that hasn’t stopped many here from resorting to them, when they can’t out debate someone. For instance, I have repeatedly asked you to not use a distorted version of my signature, yet you continue to do so, even though you know that it upsets me – which is a direct violation of forum rules – but no one is enforcing those rules. So this is not a debate – it is more of a free-for-all, where some members are permitted to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

You've mentioned how sensitive your kind of kayak is and how much physical prowess and skill is needed to stay afloat and keep up with you on a paddling outing. Balance is very important to enjoy the sport as you do. And you wonder why no one (other than Mee-n-Mac) has come forward to take you up on your offer to go kayak with you. You make it sound so un-inviting to the average person and I'm not referring to fear of fast boats.

What I stated was that sea kayaks can easily tip over if you are not skilled in how to balance them properly. My offer was to rent or borrow a kayak and I’ll take you out on the main lake – I never said that you had to borrow a narrow sea kayak like mine and I never said that I wouldn’t wait for you. I just told Mee-n-Mac that I wouldn’t be staying near the shoreline and that he should expect a real workout. And I did state that we should wait until the water warms up, as I don't expect him or anyone else to own the cold water clothing that I use.

Originally Posted by Ryan

I just wanted to repost this for ES:
At 50MPH one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.
The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

And I need to repeat my question, because my last reply on this never made it past the moderator: “Why are you using 50 mph, when boats on winni travel much faster than that?” Even the MP speed study recorded boats traveling faster than 50 mph.

And, even the difference between 40 mph and 50 mph is nearly a second – which could easily be the difference between a close call and a fatality. On Squam a 40 mph speed limit has never resulted in my 150 foot zone being violated unintentionally by a powerboat – that has only happened on large lakes that do not have a speed limit.

With the above sarcasm aside, I also saw kayakers enjoying the lake simultaneously with all of these big "wild west" style bullies. I noticed, that from my chaise lounge I could easily spot kayakers off the shoreline. I could also spot kayakers probably close to 3/4 mile off the shore. Granted, I was not operating a vessel at speeds where my vision becomes all blurry and my better judgement compromised, but I think the point stands.

And I have been out in my kayak the past two weekends (not on winni) and didn’t have any close calls with a single powerboats. But that doesn't prove anything and it doesn’t mean that I won’t have any close calls this summer, nor does your observation prove that there won’t be close calls on winni between kayakers and high-speed powerboats.

I never stated that all powerboat operators were a dangerous threat to paddlers – but some are. And there will likely be more close calls this summer, because some powerboat operators will be traveling faster than they should be.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And I need to repeat my question, because my last reply on this never made it past the moderator: “Why are you using 50 mph, when boats on winni travel much faster than that?” Even the MP speed study recorded boats traveling faster than 50 mph.

I used 50 as a speed that is above the 2009 speed limit. I used 40 as a speed that is below the 2009 speed limit.
To utilize real life examples, I'll use 62MPH which was the maximum speed recorded on (only) 3 separate boats in the speed survey.

At 62 MPH the powered vessel collides w your kayak in 1.64 seconds.
At 40 MPH the powered vessel collides w your kayak in 2.55 seconds.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And, even the difference between 40 mph and 50 mph is nearly a second –

Actually, it's nearly 1/2 second.
The difference between 62mph and 40mph is nearly 1 second.
IMHO I'm not sure 1/2 second or even 1 second is enough time to perform an evasive maneuver to avoid a 16 foot kayak while travelling faster than one's 'ability to see'.
You have no idea what that operator's intentions were when you were swamped on Squam. Please stop trying to convince me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And I have been out in my kayak the past two weekends (not on winni) and didn’t have any close calls with a single powerboats. But that doesn't prove anything and it doesn’t mean that I won’t have any close calls this summer, nor does your observation prove that there won’t be close calls on winni between kayakers and high-speed powerboats.

My observations had more to do with the fact that I could spot small vessels nearly 1 mile away. So even at 'unlimited speeds' it is not one's ability to spot smaller vessels, it's not speed, it's either ignorance of the rules or alcohol, which make up 'nearly' 100% of the causes of accidents on lakes in NH.

[2Blackdogs]

Evenstar,

Are you aware that the Speed Limit forum would be silent without your defense of sea kayaks?

The issue isn't sea kayaks. You could give it a rest.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I was just responding to SIKSUKR’s accusation that I’m supposedly “my own worst enemy.”

– which is a direct violation of forum rules – but no one is enforcing those rules. So this is not a debate

And I need to repeat my question, because my last reply on this never made it past the moderator: .

You need to look in the mirror.You constantly complain about members breaking the rules and nothing being done about it.But you just posted that some of your own posts are being moderated so it seems the webmaster is doing his job and finds that YOU are breaking the rules.Do you think it might be you that is out of line?Will we now hear the conspirosy theory?I think my post you refer to stands on its own now.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I will have to join Skipper in agreeing with ES. I am quite sure that even if I could fit in your Kayak the center of gravity would be about a foot above the water line. Three seconds later the laws of physics would equalize the situation.

ES, is the flag issue with the interference the the device imposes to a righting event? I am not suggesting that you should ever use one but if the pole pivoted in a way so that if the boat tipped over it would point straight back so it was both out of the way and rotationally neutral, would that open the option for more users?

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, my worst enemies are people who don't understand what I am posting, because they are in too much of a hurry to find fault with what I post.

What classification do you give to the boaters driving faster than their ability to see? Why are people who don't understand your logic worse than the out of control speed freaks bearing down on you and your little kayak?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

1.) Most members of this forum are not experienced sea kayakers - and getting into a sea kayak without tipping it over takes some skill and practice. Sea kayaks are very narrow boats - it is nothing like sitting in a much wider recreational kayak.

2.) Purchasing a sea kayak is like buying jeans - and I'm a size 8. So I'm guessing that there many members here who could not fit into a pair of my jeans any better than they could fit into my sea kayak.

I'll join with Sea Que and RS about your number 2. I wouldn't get in your jeans or your kayak either. Besides, I would rather spend a leisure afternoon floating around a bay on my inflatable swim mat instead of watching you not get run over by boaters going too fast to see you.

Say, how about a head strap with a strobe light on top for you to wear?

[Chris Craft]

Not to get the topic back on track or anything but does anyone know if this has passed into law yet? I thought that the Gov. had to move before Tuesday?

[Ryan]

I know I have accepted the fact that come ice-out 2009, I'm going to have to obey the 45MPH speed limit.

It will be a drastic change from the, er, unlimited speeds, um, of 25-35mph to which I am accustomed to travelling.

This will help me to see smaller vessels to avoid violating their 150' zone and improve my 'ability to see' in general.

Here's looking forward to an unchanged 2009.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I know I have accepted the fact that come ice-out 2009, [color=teal]I'm going to have to obey the 45MPH speed limit.]/color]

It will be a drastic change from the, er, unlimited speeds, um, of 25-35mph to which I am accustomed to travelling.

This will help me to see smaller vessels to avoid violating their 150' zone and improve my 'ability to see' in general.

Here's looking forward to an unchanged 2009.

Ironically, if most people interpret the Lake speed limit as they do the interstate speed limit, you will have to repower your boat to be able to do a minimum of 45 mph or risk being run over from a faster boat, any one of the 770,000 boats utilizing the Lake.

And the opponents think the speed limit will not improve the economy - engine repowers are mucho $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[BroadHopper]

I have to agree with Ryan. I normally plane around 30 mph. I get the best gas mileage. Going the spped limit of 45 will increase my gas mileage. I just can't understand the kayakers who needs a speed limit. Don't they have to go 45 too?

[fatlazyless]

Not being all that familiar with the New Hampshire legislative process, what's the delay? Both the Senate chamber and the Governor's office are located in the same building, the New Hampshire State House. So, what happened to HB 847? Did it somehow get lost during delivery? Has HB 847 been hijacked while enroute from the Senate to the Governor?

Talk about a delivery on a very slow boat that takes over two weeks to move across the State House. Probably the delivery boat ran out of gas, and then hit a rock.....should have been a kayak delivery....slow & steady wins the race!

[Commodore]

My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. It seems that you keep tabs on close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.


How many times will you claim faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats.

If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law. More sense or a sense that the Marine Patrol will catch them boating improperly?

It is my belief that a speed limit law will help reduce the unintentional violations. We know what you believe, we don't agree with you.


Other boats have intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. I actually pull one violator over with my kayak – much to the amusement of the MP that I reported the incident to. And you got bow numbers and the MP did what?

My point is that some high-speed powerboats (boats going over 45 mph) have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone All together now, because they were going to fast to see me. You know this because of the look on their face. And I’m 99% sure that this was not intentional, because I had a very good look at their expression when they did finally notice me. We are not 99% sure.


The forum rules are something that all members agree to follow. I did not make up the rules – they are very clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I know what a personal attack is.


I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. You know this because you read people's faces. You know what they think by their facial expression That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation! A violation is a violation.

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone Once again, why do you think we need this speed limit because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. Boater is violating a current law. No need to add another law. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. There could be no other reason for the look on their faces?

This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). Excellent visibility where you can spot a kayak a mile away but other boaters can not see you if they boat over 40 or 45 mph? This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.” That is not a logical conclusion.

Well it is not my just opinion - it is clearly stated in the forum rules: “No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!” I asked you to please not use a distorted version on my signature. Yet you continue to do so – even though you know that this upsets me. It upsets me the way you continue to say boats go faster than their ability to see. It upsets me to constantly hear the same irrational reasoning for this speed limit. Now you know it upsets me you will stop because That is trolling, according to the definition given in the forum rules. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

What I believe is that, unfortunately, you believe everything you say and you keep saying it over and over again.


Comments in red by The Commodore.

[Chris Craft]

Evenstar: First your point about you getting hurt more in your boat then me in mine if we get hit by the same boat I am sure you can see is very flawed. It is the low stance of the boat that allows the other boat to travel up and over our boats should we ever be hit. It has nothing to do with the weight. Now your boat may break in half and mine may not but I assure you the damage to the occupants and boats would be substantial.

Now your point about the Squam incident... First back in 04 or when ever it was you pointed out that the guy was laughing at you as he passed. Well how are you sure that the other people that have come close to you (violated your 150 foot rule) also did not have the same mentality. When I first went up to the lake I did not know about the 150 foot rule and did go to close to a friend of mine. He explained the rule to me that I had no idea about and from then on I obayed the rule. You could also just be running into every jerk on a boat. They come in all shapes, sizes, powers, speeds. I was anchored at a beach and I had a sail boater hit me and actually claim that he had the right of way!! He actually said that since he was a sail boat that I had to get out of his way! Speed had nothing to do with that incident stupidity had everything to do with it. Again those same people are going to not know the laws and will still come way to close to you. Speed limits do not fix this problem for you.

Lastly let the owner of this board decide what is or is not against the rules of the board. Just about every post on this forum is moderated. He has read them all. I would assume that if he thought that they were against forum rules he would either edit them or not post them. Everyone needs to lighten up on this board and have a little more fun.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No I didn't. Others make it an issue by trying to us my signature against me.



I explained my signature. No member has the right to take another forum member's post and twist it in a way that pokes fun at the other member. That is hateful and it is trolling - which is in violation of the rules of this forum. I'll "give it a rest and move on," just as soon as others here do. I'm the one being made fun of, not you.


Size is more than just length. My kayak is only 22 inches wide and it weighs only 50 pounds. If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.


That is not true and you know it! You are just taking my post out of context again (just like you did in #251 in the "Life after speed limits" thread).

In my very next post,#43 (which was posted way back on April 4, 2005!), I wrote: "That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!

I also explained this in my reply to your former accusation:


Hazelnut, you have no business posting these sort of posts,as they are in direct violation of the forum rules: "Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."

Why is it that I have to constantly defend myself on this forum???

Spin spin spin spin spin I am soooo dizzy spin spin.

Evanstar you lied and said it never happened on Squam yet when I post YOUR words that clearly state somebody came within 40 feet of you VIOLATING YOUR 150 FOOT ZONE I am attacking you???????? Enough is enough. You are bordering on troll posting now. I move to have you moderated again because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

[jrc]

Let her talk, it only helps. If her argurements are all they have...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Why is my signature suddenly an issue? It was never meant to be an insult to anyone - so please don't take it that way. It doesn't state that boaters love their boats more than anything else or that they only love their boats. It does not state that kayaks are not a type of boat. It does not state that kayakers don't love their kayaks.

You are the one that made others signatures an issue. They have a right to use whatever they want as long as it meets forum regulations for decency, even if it does poke some fun at yours.

Give it a rest and move on.