Sound travels at night

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How is my logic flawed in any way? I stated: "The current rules are being enforced . . . " No law is 100% effective, 100% of the time - that's an impossibility - yet not being able to enforce laws 100% does not mean that we don't need more laws.

What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure?

Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief? (We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure? Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief?

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)

(We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)

I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"?

But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to. Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:

1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.

2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.

3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.

4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.

Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law

Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. You've sort of painted yourself into a corner all your own. Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)



I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?

For as many people to fabricate as much fear as they did to push this law through, then yes current laws are not being enforced enough. We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason. This law is an example of that and I can't wait for the cycle to end. There is no concrete proof there is a speeding problem, just fabricated fear and perception of a problem as a result. I sat in the hearing in Concord and listened to the same thing over and over again from the Pro crowd. Fear, I'm afraid, Fear I'm afraid. Big boats, I'm afraid. Sadly it worked.

You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.

Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

So if so-called high speed powerboats are coming within 64 feet or less from you, do you think the real problem is the speed they are traveling at is hampering their vision (again, at 64 feet!) and preventing you from being seen sooner or the utter lack of common courtesy or disobedience of the laws in place is the problem???

My experience on Winnipesaukee or on boats in general, which I can say is clearly a lot more than yours, is that most boats on Winni ignore the 150' rule. Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

The speed limit is not going to fix your problem. You are looking through rose colored shades and/or drinking the coolaid if you think you will be safer. Winnipesaukee in general this year is a ghost town compared to previous years, and it is not the speed limit that is pending quieting things down.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"? But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to.

I never said that – I happen to believe that most boating laws are not intentionally being broken by most boaters – which is, in itself, enforcement, since one of the definitions of enforcement is: “compel to behave in a certain way.” By your logic (since my logic is so flawed), a single unenforced violation of a law proves that a law is not being enforced. So, by that logic, no laws are being enforced in this country. So who’s logic is actually the most flawed?

Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:
1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.
2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.
3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.
4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.

I can follow the spirit of others posts just fine. The problem is that I disagee with them, due to my onw experience on the lake. Most posting members of this forum is so anti-speed limit focused that anyone who is supportive of a lake speed limit must have “flawed logic” or is “unable to follow the spirit of the other posts.”

1.) If the operator of a powerboat is traveling beyond his ability to see other vessels in time to remain clear of their 150 foot zone, that law is not protecting them. I contend that in these cases, the only real solution is to force boats to slow down.

2.) Where’s your proof that the NHMP is “operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget”? Or, to use your own words; “is this just your own belief?”

3.) Again, where’s your proof that this is so? Because I totally disagree with your conclusion, and one of my majors is Legal Studies. According to my professors, most people will try to follow most laws most of the time. And what is so “burdensome” about a 45mph lake speed limit?

4.) Times change. Laws that were sufficient in early times need to be updated due to changes in society, in the environment, in new technology, or because of new information. And it is much more difficult to amend an existing law than to enact a new law.

Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. . . . Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.

It is very easy to make allegations about others or to poke fun of others in order to discredit them. Yet you have not provided any proof at all to any of your own statements – all you’ve posted so far are just your own beliefs. Your post (#62) is nothing but a personal attack on me. Personal attacks are what several of the anti-speed limit members here resort to when they can’t out debate another member.

Perhaps most other members don’t feel like I need anyone to “come to my rescue.” Or perhaps they are not willing to become a target of the anti-speed limit members here. I get all sorts of email support from many non-vocal members here.

Originally Posted by EricP

We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason.

I was at the House Transportation hearing, where I testified. The “me” generation that I saw at the hearing was the anti-speed limit side. It has been stated over and over on this forum that a very small percentage of boats on winni can or do travel over 45 mph. Yet these “few” feel that they should have the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds, regardless of the negative impact this has on other boaters.

You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.

I have never bragged about my skills. I never even mentioned most of my skills or my background until my abilities and my qualifications were questioned (or often ridiculed) by other members here – often repeatedly. I never lie and I have never exaggerated my skills or abilities. I “ease up” when others ease up on me. If your abilities and skills were constantly being challenged, wouldn’t you try to stand up for yourself?

Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.

I did not quote the Chief Warrant Officer out of context – I provided the link to his article. Read the entire article. His points are just as valid for boaters on winni as they are for recreational boaters on any other large body of water in this country.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

I’ve clearly stated repeated that most of my close calls on winni with high-speed powerboats were the result of unintentional violations of the 150 foot law. That was very obvious by the operators’ reaction when they did finally see me (actually “us,” as I was with another kayaker every single time). Now you are mixing up my posts, because I clearly stated that the guy smiling as he swamped us on Squam was traveling slower than 40 mph and that his act was deliberate. (Some guys have a very strange way of flirting, so perhaps that was his intent.)

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I did not quote the Chief Warrant Officer out of context – I provided the link to his article. Read the entire article. His points are just as valid for boaters on winni as they are for recreational boaters on any other large body of water in this country.

It's a waste of my time to do so. We all know a speed limit will change nothing. You won't agree. I don't care. I'm done.

[Resident 2B]

Evenstar,

Regarding the comments of Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, he does not patrol waters with a 150' rule in place.

To be fair, I believe this is an important fact that has to be considered. This is somewhat like apples being compared to oranges.

The 150' rule is an important Lake Winnipesaukee rule and to compare a statement made by a respected CG professional who partols waters without the 150' rule to our lake is clearly unfair.

Just my opinion.

Enjoy your summer break!

R2B

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Costal Laker
Why doesn't some representative propose a bill to change that? Why not let people quiet their boats down at night and be rumbly by day? Ugh. It makes no sense.

You will never see that bill filed. Why? No payback. It's not sexy. People who don't boat could care less. Speed limits are a "no brainer" but a bill that would help rich people sleep at night in their lake front mansions, the rep would be seen pandering to wealthy out-of-staters while ignoring the plight of the hard working New Hampshire folk. Never mind that it actually would be something to improve the lake unlike the speed limits law!
If you want switchable exhaust you're better off petitioning the NHMP for a rules change.

Originally posted by VtSteve
Police CG presence? I'd give them an F overall for the busiest weekend of the year. Laws broken? Too many to count.

There is NO Coast Guard presence on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally posted by Evenstar
And I didn't say that you claimed that I did. But I am interested in where you (or anyone else visiting this forum) heard that "hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake." Who ever suggested that was happening?

Go back and look at most any of the posts written by APS!

[tis]

I admire you guys for taking the time and having the patience to write as much as you write. It takes a lot of time and thought to write that much. I would just get sick of (essentially) writing the same things over and over again. And as much as I think the speed limit is a foolish, unnecessary law, I wish almost every thread wouldn't turn into a speed limit argument. I would just ignore Evenstar and BI. I couldn't argue that much. My two cents ---not that anyone cares.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by tis

I admire you guys for taking the time and having the patience to write as much as you write. It takes a lot of time and thought to write that much. I would just get sick of (essentially) writing the same things over and over again. And as much as I think the speed limit is a foolish, unnecessary law, I wish almost every thread wouldn't turn into a speed limit argument. I would just ignore Evenstar and BI. I couldn't argue that much. My two cents ---not that anyone cares.

I have reached the same conclusion. Of course we'll all be back fighting in just about 2 years.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve clearly stated repeated that most of my close calls on winni with high-speed powerboats were the result of unintentional violations of the 150 foot law. That was very obvious by the operators’ reaction when they did finally see me (actually “us,” as I was with another kayaker every single time). Now you are mixing up my posts, because I clearly stated that the guy smiling as he swamped us on Squam was traveling slower than 40 mph and that his act was deliberate. (Some guys have a very strange way of flirting, so perhaps that was his intent.)

I am aware that took place on "Golden Squam", not on Winnipesaukee. I remember the post well. Its quite easy as all of your posts contain the same few points... "Unlimited speeds", "too close", "personal attacks", "skills", "spacial awareness", blah blah blah...

This post started about sounds at night, why are you dragging this into another kayaking rant??? You got what you asked for, I hope you feel safer now. I bet you won't and when you figure out that your concerns were not addressed by the speed limit, what next?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I am aware that took place on "Golden Squam", not on Winnipesaukee. I remember the post well.

The fact remains that you misquoted me. Please get your facts straight next time, before you accuse me of stating something that I didn't.

This post started about sounds at night, why are you dragging this into another kayaking rant??? You got what you asked for, I hope you feel safer now. I bet you won't and when you figure out that your concerns were not addressed by the speed limit, what next?

I'm not the one that brought kayaks into this thread - you can blame SIKSUKR for that.

No, I didn't "get what I asked for." I want what the original bill included - which is speed limit on all NH lakes and a law that would not only last for two years. Winni is not the only lake in NH where speed needs to be regulated.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).
Which one of your skills lets you know how I feel? I won't challenge your credibility however that is one heck of an impressive skill. You also know how these "few" with fast boats feel. Wow.

Please note: I am NOT one of the "few" with a boat that travels at or over 45 mph (Let me qualify that to close any legal loopholes - My boat can go over 45mph downhill or when it's on the trailer towed behind a truck on the road) but it does not even get to 40 mph at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) on the Lake.

Since you are not one of the "few" I was talking about - my post had nothing at all to do with your feelings.

And I never stated that all high-speed boaters feel this way. But that was the impression that I got at listening to the anti-speed limit testimonies at the House Committee Hearing. It was very much about the "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes (and at this point in time the bill still covered all NH lakes) - it was not just about winni.

Originally Posted by Ryan

We'll just stop this one right here....your opinions of boating at high speeds are just that - opinions and cannot be portrayed as facts in a logical arguement.

What are you taking about? Opinions are often weighed in logical arguments - many court cases are decided on factoring in opinions as well as fact. It is a fact that the operators of those boats violated my 150 foot zone by a considerable amount - remember, I do have a witness, whose space was also violated. And, if it was possible to ask those operators, I am nearly certain that they would say that they didn't see us until the last second. My opinion in this case is backed up by my observations.

I heard it from the kid working a gas dock who spoke with an MP earlier that weekend.

So it is merely hearsay. Hearsay is not permitted as evidence in court.

In all honestly, it holds about the same water (no pun intended) as Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski and his report on cars and boats in Miami.

If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."

Originally Posted by rick35

The last thing I intended when I started this thread was to get redirected to another pointless discussion on speed limits.

Rick, this is the Speed Limit Sub-Forum - so you really can't expect the speed limit not to enter into posts here.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The fact remains that you misquoted me. Please get your facts straight next time, before you accuse me of stating something that I didn't.

Evenstar, I did not misquote anything. My post did not specify on which particular body of water your "incident" happened. I already made that clear in my last post as well. I knew it was Squam as I remember the original posting.

Maybe you should be the one to get it right before correcting me...

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Evenstar, I did not misquote anything. My post did not specify on which particular body of water your "incident" happened. I already made that clear in my last post as well. I knew it was Squam as I remember the original posting.

Maybe you should be the one to get it right before correcting me...

You clearly misquoted me, and you know it. The least you can do is be man enough to admit your error. You can deny it all you want, but you did indeed misquote me when you wrote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

You wrote that I said that the guy flew by - implying that the guy was going fast. I never wrote that.

I clearly stated that they guy who swamped us was likely going slower than 40 mph and that he intentionally violated our 150 foot zone. How is that particular incident a contridiction (which is what you are suggesting) to my statements that speeding boats have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone? The two are totally different incidents.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Here's what happens when you rely on 12 year old national stats to prove your point. First off, according to COMDTPUB P16754.10 in 1996 there were 8,026 boating accidents nationwide, not 5,174.

Here's what happens when you don't read a quote carefully:
Here's my quote again: "In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide." Of course there will be a smaller number for just boating collisions, since all boating accidents would also include non-collisions.

And, no matter how you try to dance around it, it is still a fact that "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”

Slower speeds = less collisions = a safer lake for everyone.

[Airwaves]

Orignally posted by Evenstar
Here's what happens when you don't read a quote carefully:
Here's my quote again: "In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide." Of course there will be a smaller number for just boating collisions, since all boating accidents would also include non-collisionsAnd, no matter how you try to dance around it, it is still a fact that "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”

Slower speeds = less collisions = a safer lake for everyone.

Here’s the funny thing, I still can’t come up with your former CWO’s number for 1996.

Looking at the USCG Statistics for 1996 there were 3,422 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object.

In 2006 the USCG Statistics show 2019 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object and for last year that figure was 2030

Your point that collisions are reduced as speed is reduced doesn’t hold up to the statistics. The statistics show as boater education increases accidents including collisions decrease.

BTW it also shows a rise in deaths associated with canoes and kayaks between 2006 and 2007 from 99 to 107!

http://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_stats.htm

Be careful of those SUV's speeding down Meredith Bay!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Here’s the funny thing, I still can’t come up with your former CWO’s number for 1996. Looking at the USCG Statistics for 1996 there were 3,422 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object. In 2006 the USCG Statistics show 2019 collisions with another vessel, fixed object or floating object and for last year that figure was 2030.

Your link doesn't work, and the online USCG accident statistics only go back to 1997, so I really would like to know where you are getting statistics for 1996.

Your point that collisions are reduced as speed is reduced doesn’t hold up to the statistics. The statistics show as boater education increases accidents including collisions decrease.

Is it not MY point, the point was made by a USCG officer.

How does the fact that boater education decreases the number of collisions prove that that number of colisions do not increase as speed increases????

BTW it also shows a rise in deaths associated with canoes and kayaks between 2006 and 2007 from 99 to 107!

And what exactly does that have to do with speed and collisions??? How many of those deaths were in rivers - in white water?

[Airwaves]

Sorry, my mistake this is the correct link:
http://uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_stats.htm
If you open the stats for 1997 you will find that it includes material from 1996.

Originally posted by Evenstar
How does the fact that boater education decreases the number of collisions prove that that number of colisions do not increase as speed increases????

The only things that can really be compared between 1996 and 2006 or 2007 is the number of boaters that took safe boating education classes either on a voluntary or mandatory basis increased, the number of registered boats increased, and the number of accidents and collisions decreased.

The number of states imposing a speed limit did not skyrocket and the only speed limit recognized by the USCG is excessive speed as defined by Rule 6 and under Rule 6 excessive speed could mean 5mph or 100mph depending upon conditions.

Even your favorite CWO says that as the number of boaters that take a NASBLA approved boating course incresease the number of boating accidents decreases.

Originally posted by Evenstar

And what exactly does that have to do with speed and collisions??? How many of those deaths were in rivers - in white water?

My point about the high number of deaths associated with canoes and kayaks is directly related to the fact that canoeists (is that a word?) and kayakers routinely do NOT take NASBLA safe boating courses. Therefor a lack of safe boating knowledge and practice, not speed, once again is linked.

NASBLA itself has begun looking into developing some kind of course for kayakers and canoeists because of the increasing popularity of the sport coupled witih the increasing number of deaths.

BTW, I tried to see what the percentage of registered boats involved in collisions were in 1996 vs 2006, unfortunately my calculator isn't strong enough, the number came up 0.00 both times.
********************************
Okay, I found another calculator. So in 1996, with 3,422 collisions involving 11,877,938 registered boats in the U.S. the percentage of registered boats involved in a collision appears to be: 0.000293653%.
In 2006 with 2,019 collisions involving 12,746,126 registered boats in the U.S. the percentage looks like 0.000158401%!

As I said, what does the collision rate nationally have to do with Lake Winnipesaukee? NOTHING

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You clearly misquoted me, and you know it. The least you can do is be man enough to admit your error. You can deny it all you want, but you did indeed misquote me when you wrote:

You wrote that I said that the guy flew by - implying that the guy was going fast. I never wrote that.

I clearly stated that they guy who swamped us was likely going slower than 40 mph and that he intentionally violated our 150 foot zone. How is that particular incident a contridiction (which is what you are suggesting) to my statements that speeding boats have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone? The two are totally different incidents.

I misquoted nothing. You are reading deeper into my post than needed, coming up with your own deductions on what I was implying. "Flying" is a pretty basic word and does not specify a specific speed in the context I used it in. Give it a rest. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than sit around and ponder this?

What it comes down to is if you are that scared to be on Winnipesaukee, there are plenty of other bodies of water to play on. Nobody is telling you to leave or limit your activities, yet you choose to try to limit others. Other than a kayak being hit at night that had no lights and no right to be out there at that time, when was the last kayaker or canoer hit (during daylight hours) in NH??? Are you truly in danger??? Doubt it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I misquoted nothing. You are reading deeper into my post than needed, coming up with your own deductions on what I was implying. "Flying" is a pretty basic word and does not specify a specific speed in the context I used it in. Give it a rest. Don't you have anything better to do with your time than sit around and ponder this?

Like I stated, you are not man enough to admit that you made a mistake and misquoted me. Apparently you feel that you have to resort to misquoting someone, in order to try to discredit them, when you can't out debate them.

What it comes down to is if you are that scared to be on Winnipesaukee, there are plenty of other bodies of water to play on. Nobody is telling you to leave or limit your activities, yet you choose to try to limit others. Other than a kayak being hit at night that had no lights and no right to be out there at that time, when was the last kayaker or canoer hit (during daylight hours) in NH??? Are you truly in danger??? Doubt it.

I am not scared to be on winni, if I was I wouldn't kayak there. But I am concerned with my safety there and more concerned for the safety of all paddlers on NH lakes that don't have speed limits.

It does not take a fatality to prove that allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds is an unsafe policy. My friend and I have have enough close calls with high-speed power boats to know that we have been in danger. And so have many other paddlers and other boaters. The fact remains that close calls are happening way too often - eventually there will be a fatality, and then perhaps you'll finally see the danger.

If the main lake is so safe for paddlers, then why won't you or any other member of this forum take me up on my offer to join me kayaking on it? My offer still stands.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If the main lake is so safe for paddlers, then why won't you or any other member of this forum take me up on my offer to join me kayaking on it? My offer still stands.

Perhaps people fear you are as tiresome to be around in person as you are on the forum. At least here most people can choose to ignore your tedious repetitive posts or just skim through them. Out on the lake I suppose an iPod would be the only way to escape your lectures and chicken-little routine.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Like I stated, you are not man enough to admit that you made a mistake and misquoted me. Apparently you feel that you have to resort to misquoting someone, in order to try to discredit them, when you can't out debate them.
I am not scared to be on winni, if I was I wouldn't kayak there.
Well, your memory is either very poor or extremely selective.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evenstar accuses Codeman of not being man enough to admit he made a mistake.Ryan apologizes to Evanstar for his mistake.Evanstar quoted here says she is not scared to be on Winni.Read it yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What right do you have to use your own definition for MY words to suit yourself!!! I was very specific about what I was writing about and I explained exactly what I meant. I defined my use of the word speeding in that old post, shortly after making it. And I also explained what I meant by the word swamping. (FYI: I bought my sea kayak last June – after I made that “swamping” post. My previous kayak was a day/light touring kayak, and I didn’t even have a spay skirt for that boat.)

Not that it’s any of your business, but I have a documented learning disability due to a severe head injury, which was the result of an accident I was involved in when I was little. The left side of my brain was badly damage, so language (especially writing) causes some real problems for me.

I work very hard at being clear in anything that I write. So it really frustrates me when you and others here try to add meanings to my posts that are not even in my words, or when you just ignore my explanations for what I honestly meant when I wrote my posts. I really don’t like being accused of lying or of changing my mind to suit my agenda. If you don’t get it yet my only agenda is safety for paddlers on NH’s lakes, and equal right to use our lakes – without feeling like we’re going to be run over. I'm not anti powerboat, anti PWC, or anti any other kind of boat.

I’ve always been completely open and honest about how much I’ve paddled on Winni. I have said many times that my paddling experience is mostly on other large NH lakes and on the Connecticut River. But HB-162 will affect all NH lakes and rivers.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience in anything than what I actually have.

It really doesn’t make any difference how many bad experiences I’ve had on Winni. The fact is that I did spend time kayaking out on the main lake last summer and I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph). I’m not exaggerating anything and I do honestly believe that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on, mostly due to the excessive speeds of some of the powerboats. And I’m not alone in having this opinion. My best friend was more scared out there than I was.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."

Here's what happens when you rely on 12 year old national stats to prove your point. First off, according to COMDTPUB P16754.10 in 1996 there were 8,026 boating accidents nationwide, not 5,174.

Ten years later in 2006 that number had dropped from 8,026 boating accidents to 4,967 according to COMDTPUB P16754.20

In the same time period the US saw an increase in the number of Registered boats of 358,184 from 11,877,938 to 12,746,126. So of 12,746,126 registered boats 4,967 were involved in reportable accidents in 2006. I'll let you do the percentage.

The number of registered boats does NOT include documented and unregistered vessels which according to one estimate in 1996 was about 8,000,000. I could not find an estimate of documented and unregistered vessels for 2006.

So with more boats there were nearly half the number of accidents in 2006 as compared to 1996.

Now, what does all this mean for Lake Winnipesaukee and a former CWO of a Coast Guard station in Florida's statements?

Absolutely nothing!

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."

Please accept my apology on this one. I thought we were talking about a specific body of water with rules and regulations for safe passage.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What are you taking about? Opinions are often weighed in logical arguments - many court cases are decided on factoring in opinions as well as fact. It is a fact that the operators of those boats violated my 150 foot zone by a considerable amount - remember, I do have a witness, whose space was also violated. And, if it was possible to ask those operators, I am nearly certain that they would say that they didn't see us until the last second. My opinion in this case is backed up by my observations.

You were trying to validate your logic using 4 points. Your first point stated that boaters travelling over 45 MPH are "travelling faster that their ability to see". Since using this in a logical arguement is completely subjective, it renders it essentially false and opinion-based.

Since your opinions could be used in court cases, let's bring this to the courtroom.
[Hypothetical Court Case]
I'm an attorney. You are on the stand:

ME: When was the last time you were in command of a motorized vessel at 45 MPH?
ES: Never
ME: While you were in command of this vessel, did you have any issues spotting smaller, non-motorized objects?
ES: {no response}
ME: No further questions your honor.
[/Hypothetical Court Case]

We also know that you have no concept of what it is like to navigate at 45MPH, regardless of how long your kayak is, what color you're wearing, or any of the super powers you've been gifted.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Please accept my apology on this one. I thought we were talking about a specific body of water with rules and regulations for safe passage.

What we were specifically talking about was that statement: "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”
If this is true nationally, it also applies to winni as well as to every other large body of water in NH. Boats on Winni are not magically exempt from statictics, just because you and others here want it to be.

You were trying to validate your logic using 4 points. Your first point stated that boaters travelling over 45 MPH are "travelling faster that their ability to see". Since using this in a logical arguement is completely subjective, it renders it essentially false and opinion-based.

Again, I stated that SOME boaters are traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time. It is therefor your burden to prove that this is not true for any boaters. Do you contend that every single boater who travels at speeds greater than 45 mph is never traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone?

We also know that you have no concept of what it is like to navigate at 45MPH.

And how do you KNOW that? Do YOU have super powers? Just because I'm a kayaker doesn't mean that I don't have any experience with operating a powerboat.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What we were specifically talking about was that statement: "It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.”
If this is true nationally, it also applies to winni as well as to every other large body of water in NH. Boats on Winni are not magically exempt from statictics, just because you and others here want it to be.

Actually, Winni is exempt, because we have a safe passage rule. If the safe passage rule did not exist, I would agree 100% that these statistics would also apply to Winni.
As an aside, thank you for getting rid of that posting lag. It keeps me busy at work.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Actually, Winni is exempt, because we have a safe passage rule. If the safe passage rule did not exist, I would agree 100% that these statistics would also apply to Winni.

NH's 150 foot rule does not make Winni exempt from the statistical fact that the number of collisions between vessels are reduced as speed is reduced. There are still collisions on Winni - yet if the 150 foot rule was followed 100% of the time by 100% of the boaters, collisions would be impossible. But that just isn't so.

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Perhaps people fear you are as tiresome to be around in person as you are on the forum. At least here most people can choose to ignore your tedious repetitive posts or just skim through them. Out on the lake I suppose an iPod would be the only way to escape your lectures and chicken-little routine.

It's really obvious that you are outmatched in trying to debate me, since your replies are now nothing more than personal attacks - why don't you follow your own advice and ignore me? Or, better yet, put a paddle where your mouth is and then try to keep up with me - or are you too much of a chicken?

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I would contend that not every driver in a car in a snowstorm travels at a speed proper for that condition. Yet we don't post speed limits based on the worst case conditon and the worst case driver. It's expected, demanded, that the driver be reactive to the situation presented to him/her. Neither I nor Ryan have any burden of proof to show that the worst case idiot won't see you in a kayak, laws are made for the reasonable man. What can we as a rule expect or not expect from a reasonable man.

I am not talking about speeds during bad weather - every close call that I have had on winni has been when visibility has been excellent. A "reasonable man" would not travel at high speeds on a lake that is shared by smaller, slow moving boats. If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - so laws are needed.

That some people don't pay attention means "we" ought to be working to remove those people from the boating public.

And how exactly do you do that?

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Evenstar accuses Codeman of not being man enough to admit he made a mistake.Ryan apologizes to Evanstar for his mistake.Evanstar quoted here says she is not scared to be on Winni.Read it yourself.

Look, I have some major language issues, but even I can't see how you come up with the "fact" that I'm supposedly scared to kayak on winni from that quote. If a person has a close call while driving, the incident likely scares them, but that doesn't mean that that person is scared to drive on the highway. There's a big difference between the two.

If you don't get it yet, I'm afraid that I just don't know how to explain it any better. The honest truth is that I am not scared to kayak on winni, if I was, I would not paddle there.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It's really obvious that you are outmatched in trying to debate me, since your replies are now nothing more than personal attacks - why don't you follow your own advice and ignore me? Or, better yet, put a paddle where your mouth is and then try to keep up with me - or are you too much of a chicken?

No, you're just not that interesting of a debate partner. Your whole world centers around your fear of kayaking on Winnipesaukee and your misguided thoughts on a "fair" resolution.

I find it mildly amusing that you continue to respond over and over and over again with the same material. My recent posts have just been low-effort attempts to keep you going (thanks for playing).

My disinterest in kayaking with you has more to do with you than with a lack of desire on my part to kayak on the lake. It would serve no purpose to me, other than being a giant time-suck. I spend plenty of time on the lake in my boat, and see many kayakers enjoying the lake along powerboats. I also see boneheaded operators on both types of vessel. I do not need to spend time on the lake with you to know that you are wrong.

I do very much appreciate your invitation though. You seem like a nice girl, a tad bit tightly wound with a touch of tunnel vision, but I'm sure you're tolerable in small doses.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am not talking about speeds during bad weather - every close call that I have had on winni has been when visibility has been excellent. A "reasonable man" would not travel at high speeds on a lake that is shared by smaller, slow moving boats. If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - so laws are needed.


And how exactly do you do that?

Nor am I talking about speeds in bad weather, apparently you're not understanding the concept of not letting the bozos of the world set the legal limits. Let me try once again. You're applying your own definitions of "high" (wrt speed) and "reasonable" in the above snippet. Your justification that speeds are too "high" and that some (your words) boaters don't see you (again an assumption on your part) in time. How would we determine just how "high" is too high and what's reasonable to expect from a person. Let me argue a hypothetical point just for bit and lets assume the numbers I'll use are true.

If 99.99% of all the boaters you come across see you and react sufficiently then it would be clear to me that it's reasonable to expect that you'll be seen and that the speeds have been sufficiently slow to allow that. If the reverse were true, that say only 10% of the boaters were seeing you and 90% were taking last second evasive action then it would seem that the ability to see and react to your presence is far beyond what I can reasonably expect of a normal human being. So what's the truth on Winni ?

I can't speak for every other boater out there. I can speak for mself and like I said before, kayaks maybe harder to see but that's relative. They are easy enough to see, assuming the Capt (a normal human, not Superman) is paying reasonable and proper attention, so that there's more than enough time to see, comprehend and react to avoid a collision at much higher speeds than your desired 40 mph or the enacted 45 mph. That we don't have scores of runover kayaks and canoes is testimony to this. Is there a speed that above which I can't reasonably expect a normal human to be able to avoid you in a kayak; yes of course. The infamous 130 mph cat would, if run at it's max speed, be going too fast. Were such boats (or even lesser ones) common on the lake I wouldn't have a problem with speed limits.

So to better understand whether you think there's a speed problem or an attention problem let me ask the follwoing questions. What distance do you think you're visible at under the conditions you mentioned above ? Is a boater, running say 60 mph and actually paying attention more likely to see and avoid you or more likely to miss you ?


With regards to your 2'nd point above .... that's a longer response than I have time for but it's worth considering by all parties. But basically the bonehead boaters need to be identified and penalized and that takes more work that a simple speed law but in 10 years I predict people will be clamoring for action along that line because the lake will be full of Capt B's towing kid on tubes ignoring all the commonsense rules and "we" will be asking where all the idiots came from*.

*assuming anyone can afford gas in 10 years. And in case you asked, the idiots come from a society where nothing more than medocrity is expected and excellence is disparaged.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

NH's 150 foot rule does not make Winni exempt from the statistical fact that the number of collisions between vessels are reduced as speed is reduced. There are still collisions on Winni - yet if the 150 foot rule was followed 100% of the time by 100% of the boaters, collisions would be impossible. But that just isn't so.

Apparently, you do not understand the context of the rule.

Boats (including all skicraft* or personal water craft for 3 or more persons) must stay at least 150 feet from other boats, swimmers, floats, marked swimming areas and the shore when traveling above headway speed. When closer than 150 feet a boat must slow to “no wake” or “headway” speed. Maximum headway speed is 6 miles per hour.

It's black and white. If you are within 150 of another vessel, there is already a speed limit to which you must adhere to. Why is this not good enough?

Lastly, if people do not heed the 150' rule, why would they even bother adhering to any sort of speed limit?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Nor am I talking about speeds in bad weather, apparently you're not understanding the concept of not letting the bozos of the world set the legal limits. Let me try once again.

Excuse me??? But that’s exactly what your post was about! A snowstorm isn’t exactly good driving weather:

I would contend that not every driver in a car in a snowstorm travels at a speed proper for that condition.

And I understand the concept just fine – I just don’t agree that it applies here – at least not to degree you claim it does. So don’t treat me like I'm an idiot. I might be blonde, but I’m not dumb.

You're applying your own definitions of "high" (wrt speed) and "reasonable" in the above snippet. Your justification that speeds are too "high" and that some (your words) boaters don't see you (again an assumption on your part) in time.

No, I’m not. I didn’t state a number in my previous post, all I wrote was “high speed”. I’ll leave it up to the experts to decide what that speed is. Personally I like 40/20 as the limits, but I’m willing to accept slightly higher speeds – if justification can be shown for higher speeds that outweighs the possible danger of those speeds. I do know that unlimited speeds (meaning no speed limit) is not reasonable – and that is exactly what I wrote in my previous post.

I can generally tell when boaters who are within my 150 foot zone don’t see us – which is really obvious by their reaction when they do see us. Notice that I wrote “us” – because I’m not the only one there – I have a witness, who saw the same reactions that I did. The only thing we don’t have is video proof – but generally having a reputable witness is enough.

So what's the truth on Winni ? I can't speak for every other boater out there. I can speak for mself and like I said before, kayaks maybe harder to see but that's relative. They are easy enough to see, assuming the Capt (a normal human, not Superman) is paying reasonable and proper attention, so that there's more than enough time to see, comprehend and react to avoid a collision at much higher speeds than your desired 40 mph or the enacted 45 mph.

The problem with your hypothetical point is that you neglect that fact (according to most of the anti-speed limit posters here) that only a very small percentage of boaters travel at speeds over 45 mph. Yet members of this tiny percentage of operators, have violated my 150 foot zone way too often when I’ve kayaked on winni. So, it would appear that visibility is a major problem with boaters who are traveling at high speeds. BTW, just how much personal experience do you have operating a boat on winni at speeds over 45mph? (which I’m only using since that will be the speed limit next year)

That we don't have scores of runover kayaks and canoes is testimony to this.

Yet the number of close calls that people have testified about is evidence that we do indeed have a dangerous problem. Again, lack of a fatal collision between a high-speed boat and a paddler does not prove that there isn’t a danger for paddlers. I’m very thankful that, so far, we’re been very lucky that no one’s been killed this way. But our luck isn’t going to hold out forever.

Again (and I really don’t know why I have to keep repeating myself – if you guys paid a little more attention to what I post, I wouldn’t have to post much at all):
Not every boater pays attention as much as they should.
Not every boater has perfect vision.
The glare from sun and spay can greatly reduce visibility.
Some boaters are impaired to various degrees by the alcohol they have consumed while boating.
Add all those together and we have potentially a major visibility problem.
Add high-speeds to any visibility problem and we have a potentially very dangerous situation.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Apparently, you do not understand the context of the rule. It's black and white. If you are within 150 of another vessel, there is already a speed limit to which you must adhere to. Why is this not good enough?

Because people are not perfect and boats still collide with other boats and even with islands.

Lastly, if people do not heed the 150' rule, why would they even bother adhering to any sort of speed limit?

Because, as I've posted over and over (so please pay attention this time), many of the 150 foot rule violations are unintentional, due to visibility problems. I've witnessed this myself way too many times. Do you actually believe that the operator of the boat that resulted in the recent fatality on the lake intentionally broke the 150 foot rule?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Because, as I've posted over and over (so please pay attention this time), many of the 150 foot rule violations are unintentional, due to visibility problems. I've witnessed this myself way too many times.

How many unintentional 150' rule violations due to poor visibility have resulted in collisions? I'm just curious. I haven't seen a survey on this one.
And don't give some USCG statistic from Miami, or Long Lake or any other lake that does not have such a rule in place to avoid these situations. You can also sort by BWI and delete those as well. Ceteris Paribus statistics are all that I am interested in.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Do you actually believe that the operator of the boat that resulted in the recent fatality on the lake intentionally broke the 150 foot rule?

#1 - Irrelevant - If you are concerned for your safety and the safety of paddlers on the lake, night navigation has nothing to do with this arguement.
#2 - In bad taste. I know you're chomping at the bit for the investigators to publicize their findings in hope that it supports your agenda. But let's wait until then before you draw any links.

[codeman671]

Evenstar- how many ACTUAL times have you kayaked on Winnipesaukee in the last few years, since joining this forum and since you started kayaking (and boating for that matter) in 2005? You build yourself up to be quite the pro for such a short time on the water, especially in a seasonal sport. If you say more than a 2-3 times a year at most I probably won't believe you anyhow...

I guess all of us with 20+ years of experience on the water just can't begin to compare. Some members on this forum even are in the marine industry as their careers.

Your cockiness is not impressing anyone. Maybe in case you haven't realized, some of us have already done the college thing, and graduated. Your super human qualities are not impressing anyone either. My vision is 20/10-20/15 (thanks to my super human ultra top secret powers afforded to me by Zyoptix ) and I can tell you that in real life, kayakers can be hard to see at any speed. Sun, shadows, glare, wind, waves, fog, traffic, rain, darkness, coloration, other distractions, etc all lend to this. Sure, in a perfect world you should be visible for a long distance but as we all know this is not a perfect world and conditions are not always as perfect either.

Oh yeah, we are all sucky debaters too... Gimme a break!

[twoplustwo]

alsadad, you rock!

[rick35]

Well done! You know when I started this thread it wasn't under Speed Limits. Someone moved it under Speed Limits and it has gone down hill from there.

On a positive note one of the best things about being on the lake are the nighttime sounds. The sound of loons calling out to each other is one of my favorites. You can tell when the Mount is heading back in from its last run of the day when you hear the rumble of the music from across the lake. Sometimes you can even hear the grind of the of the engine if its quiet enough. Frogs, now that's something I can do without. My wife's brother has a house next door which is next to a wet area. The sound of hundreds of fornicating frogs annoys the heck out of me all the way over at our camp. I can't imagine what its like when they're trying to go to sleep.

Rick

[EricP]

If you all would stop replying to evenstar's posts she'll go away and this insanity will end. HB847 passed, nothing will change, we all know this except for a few people, don't talk to them, then they'll have nothing to spin back at you.

[SIKSUKR]

All I can say is wow!!I quote Evanstar in her own words saying she is scared on Winni and she doesn't believe her own words!How does anyone debate with someone that does not even believe what their own words said?Can you see me hitting myself on the head with this 2x4?I'm done with this nonsense.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Ryan

How many unintentional 150' rule violations due to poor visibility have resulted in collisions? I'm just curious. I haven't seen a survey on this one.

There is no survey that I know of. And close calls are not recorded by any agency - so we have no way of knowing how often these happen either. But both do happen and we all know it. Some just won't admit it.

You can also sort by BWI and delete those as well..

And I suppose you also want to throw out any cases where the weather resulted in poor visibility, plus any cases where the operator had less than perfect vision, or any time that there's any chop on the lake, or any cases that happen on busy days, or any other case that don't support your argument. If a violation is unintentional - it is still just as unintentional no matter what other rules were broken or what the conditions were.

BTW: Ceteris Paribus is not even a legal term - it is a financial term. But it basically means "with all else being equal" and that's exactly what I have repeatedly stated: "With all else being equal, slower speeds are safer."

#1 - Irrelevant - If you are concerned for your safety and the safety of paddlers on the lake, night navigation has nothing to do with this arguement. #2 - In bad taste. I know you're chomping at the bit for the investigators to publicize their findings in hope that it supports your agenda. But let's wait until then before you draw any links.

More excuses! You and others here seem to think that the 150 foot rule is all we need to protect us - like it's the Holy Grail or something. In truth it doesn't always protect us and not all violations are intentional. The accident that I cited is just one example of an unintentional violation.

How is what I posted "in bad taste" in any way? This accident happened a while ago - so I really don't see why we can't start discussing it when it applies. So do you actually believe that the published findings are going to state that the operator was intentionally breaking the 150 foot rule? Because my point was that this was obviously an unintentional violation. I never mentioned any assumed speed in this case, as you seem to be suggesting.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Evenstar- how many ACTUAL times have you kayaked on Winnipesaukee in the last few years, since joining this forum and since you started kayaking (and boating for that matter) in 2005? You build yourself up to be quite the pro for such a short time on the water, especially in a seasonal sport. If you say more than a 2-3 times a year at most I probably won't believe you anyhow...

I've never claimed to be a pro at anything - and I've never "built myself up" in any way. All I've done is just honestly state my training, my actual abilities, and my experience - and I only did that when members here accused me of not being capable.

Why is it that I constantly have to prove myself to you guys? I never lie - yet I'm accused of lying here all the time - mostly because my views are inconvenient to what you chose to believe about the actual dangers that paddlers face on the lake. Since you've already stated that you probably won't believe me, I see no reason to answer your question, since you'll just accuse me of lying.

I guess all of us with 20+ years of experience on the water just can't begin to compare. Some members on this forum even are in the marine industry as their careers.

Experience in large-fast powerboats lets you see one side of the issue. Experience in kayaking on large NH lakes lets you see another side. I have never questioned the experience of the power boaters on this forum - but that doesn't mean that you know what it is like to be out on a lake lake in a sea kayak.

I may not have as many years of experience in boating as some of you, but I have paddled more miles on large NH lakes (an on the ocean) than most of you - and, as far as I know, I'm the only member of a top-ranking collegiate sailing team on this forum - which means I currently spend a lot more more hours on the water than most of you. (We are on the water 5 or 6 days a week, from the end of Aug through mid-Nov and from the end of Feb though mid May (or mid June when we make it to the Nationals)

Your cockiness is not impressing anyone.

How am I being "cocky"? Is it just because I disagree with your views? Or is it just because I can defend myself from all the personal accusations against me here? Or is it because I refuse to let you guys intimidate me or force me off this forum - just because you have no tolerance for anyone here who doesn't share your views?

Maybe in case you haven't realized, some of us have already done the college thing, and graduated. Your super human qualities are not impressing anyone either.

I'm a collegiate athlete, and my brain is different than the average person - both are actually true - and, again, I only disclosed both when I was accused of not having certain abilities or skills - I'm not trying to impress anyone - but just defending myself against false accusations here. I'm also an older college student, so I'm not the college kid that you think I am. (I'm twice as old as my sailing coach, to say nothing of my teammates.)

My vision is 20/10-20/15 (thanks to my super human ultra top secret powers afforded to me by Zyoptix ) and I can tell you that in real life, kayakers can be hard to see at any speed. Sun, shadows, glare, wind, waves, fog, traffic, rain, darkness, coloration, other distractions, etc all lend to this. Sure, in a perfect world you should be visible for a long distance but as we all know this is not a perfect world and conditions are not always as perfect either.

And that in my point! If power boat operators have trouble seeing kayaks, doesn't it make sense to enact a speed to slow down the fastest boats - so that they will have more time to see us and to avoid our 150 foot zones? (I don't have perfect vision, yet, in decent conditions, I can see kayaks up to a mile or more away - so there is really some relationship between speed and ability to see kayaks).

Oh yeah, we are all sucky debaters too... Gimme a break!

No you don't all "suck" at debating - just some of you who don't seem to understand that personal attacks are not allowed in debates.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

All I can say is wow!!I quote Evanstar in her own words saying she is scared on Winni and she doesn't believe her own words!How does anyone debate with someone that does not even believe what their own words said?Can you see me hitting myself on the head with this 2x4?I'm done with this nonsense.

I tried really hard to explain the difference between being scared by a close call and being afraid of kayaking on winni. If you still can't understand the difference between the two - than perhaps the 2X4 will help, because I'm at a loss as to how else to make you understand this.

[B R]

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
Evenstar- how many ACTUAL times have you kayaked on Winnipesaukee in the last few years, since joining this forum and since you started kayaking (and boating for that matter) in 2005? You build yourself up to be quite the pro for such a short time on the water, especially in a seasonal sport. If you say more than a 2-3 times a year at most I probably won't believe you anyhow...

you answer:

I've never claimed to be a pro at anything - and I've never "built myself up" in any way. All I've done is just honestly state my training, my actual abilities, and my experience - and I only did that when members here accused me of not being capable.

Why is it that I constantly have to prove myself to you guys? I never lie - yet I'm accused of lying here all the time - mostly because my views are inconvenient to what you chose to believe about the actual dangers that paddlers face on the lake. Since you've already stated that you probably won't believe me, I see no reason to answer your question, since you'll just accuse me of lying.

__________________________________________________ ___

Codeman asks you how many times you've actually kayaked on winnipesaukee and this is how you answer him? can you answer a direct question? how many times have you kayaked on winnipesaukee? (hint: this requires a number and not much else).

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And I suppose you also want to throw out any cases where the weather resulted in poor visibility, plus any cases where the operator had less than perfect vision, or any time that there's any chop on the lake, or any cases that happen on busy days, or any other case that don't support your argument. If a violation is unintentional - it is still just as unintentional no matter what other rules were broken or what the conditions were.

I just want cases that would be prevented by a speed limit alone, and not covered by another law already on the books. Thanks.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me??? But that’s exactly what your post was about! A snowstorm isn’t exactly good driving weather:

The post was about how to go about setting up proper speed limits and the concpets involved. The snowstorm was an example to illustrate a concept that when it comes to autos we don't set the speed limit based on how safely someone who doesn't perform up to an expected standard can drive.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And I understand the concept just fine – I just don’t agree that it applies here – at least not to degree you claim it does. So don’t treat me like I'm an idiot. I might be blonde, but I’m not dumb.

I've not treated you like an idiot at all. When I've think you've not understood what I've said, I've tried to restate another way so as to be clear. I really don't care if you are dumb and/or blonde, I've only ever tried to debate your position and areguements. If I've had to restate things numerously you might want to try to answer the points raised directly. In this case you might try to start by explaining why you'd take the degree of sobriety in account in setting the lake's speed limit but not do so when setting the speed limit for the road.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, I’m not. I didn’t state a number in my previous post, all I wrote was “high speed”. I’ll leave it up to the experts to decide what that speed is. Personally I like 40/20 as the limits, but I’m willing to accept slightly higher speeds – if justification can be shown for higher speeds that outweighs the possible danger of those speeds. I do know that unlimited speeds (meaning no speed limit) is not reasonable – and that is exactly what I wrote in my previous post.

You've stated numerous times that boats on Squam, being limited to 40mph, present a comfortable enivironment. Boat on Winni are too fast and run at "high" speed. It doesn't take much to deduce your position that speeds in excess of 40 mph are "high" (though you might find 45 acceptable and presumably not "high"). If you care to, put a number on a speed you think is too fast to be allowed and therefore "high".

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can generally tell when boaters who are within my 150 foot zone don’t see us – which is really obvious by their reaction when they do see us. Notice that I wrote “us” – because I’m not the only one there – I have a witness, who saw the same reactions that I did. The only thing we don’t have is video proof – but generally having a reputable witness is enough.

If I'm to accept this statement on face value, it would seem you have boaters who aren't seeing you until they are closer that 150' away. Again let me ask, do you think that you were visible more than 150' away IF the boaters in question had bothered to look your way ? Why is it you can see kayaks a mile away but these people can't see you ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The problem with your hypothetical point is that you neglect that fact (according to most of the anti-speed limit posters here) that only a very small percentage of boaters travel at speeds over 45 mph. Yet members of this tiny percentage of operators, have violated my 150 foot zone way too often when I’ve kayaked on winni. So, it would appear that visibility is a major problem with boaters who are traveling at high speeds. BTW, just how much personal experience do you have operating a boat on winni at speeds over 45mph? (which I’m only using since that will be the speed limit next year)

You've not mentioned how many times your 150' bubble was bursted by boaters who you think were going less that 45 mph ? This is a pretty routine thing for me and I'd expect it to be so for you as well. Sometimes I can't tell if the person every bothered to look my way (I didn't see their head aimed my direction) but overwhelmingly they do look my direction and then continue to do what they do. Your experience seems to be completely different from mine and in ways that aren't accountable to any visibility differences. I've underlined the part above because again you're making a deduction that it's visibility that's the reason and not something else. Indeed in an earlier you post you were more believable when you said it was visibilty or that they were doing it deliberately. You infer from their reaction that didn't see you but I've got no way to know whether

FWIW : I generally don't run at max speed but for those times I have, I'd say perhaps 50 - 100 hrs at something over 45 mph in a boat. How many hours do you have as "Evenstar" in a powerboat > 18' in length ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yet the number of close calls that people have testified about is evidence that we do indeed have a dangerous problem. Again, lack of a fatal collision between a high-speed boat and a paddler does not prove that there isn’t a danger for paddlers. I’m very thankful that, so far, we’re been very lucky that no one’s been killed this way. But our luck isn’t going to hold out forever.

Again (and I really don’t know why I have to keep repeating myself – if you guys paid a little more attention to what I post, I wouldn’t have to post much at all):
Not every boater pays attention as much as they should.
Not every boater has perfect vision.
The glare from sun and spay can greatly reduce visibility.
Some boaters are impaired to various degrees by the alcohol they have consumed while boating.
Add all those together and we have potentially a major visibility problem.
Add high-speeds to any visibility problem and we have a potentially very dangerous situation.

Because people are not perfect and boats still collide with other boats and even with islands.

Because, as I've posted over and over (so please pay attention this time), many of the 150 foot rule violations are unintentional, due to visibility problems. I've witnessed this myself way too many times. Do you actually believe that the operator of the boat that resulted in the recent fatality on the lake intentionally broke the 150 foot rule?

I'm going to leave out the whole colliding with islands at night for another post as it's a different issue than the 45 mph limit. So to synopsize your position, because some, not all (your words) boaters are paying proper enough attention and some mght be drunk and sometimes the conditions (sun, glare, etc) aren't perfect, the speed limit should be set to force all boaters to a speed where the people who boat irresponsibly are unlikely to run you over. Those people who actually do pay attention, who can see you the mile away you can see other kayakers, who slow down when the sun is in their eyes, who aren't BUI .... well just too bad for them ... yes ? I want to be sure I have your position correctly understood because you've made what seems to me to be conflicting posts about whether someone can be responsible and boat at "high" speeds (on a lake with other slower vessels on it) and that some, but not all, "high" speed boaters are to blame. Again is it possible for normal human beings to boat at, and I'm arbitrarily picking a speed above 45 but not hugely above it, say 60 mph without putting at undue peril people like yourselves in kayaks ? I'm asking to determine if you think we have a few (or many) problem boaters who don't pay sufficient attention or that the practice ("high" speed) is, all by itself, unsafe.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The post was about how to go about setting up proper speed limits and the concpets involved. The snowstorm was an example to illustrate a concept that when it comes to autos we don't set the speed limit based on how safely someone who doesn't perform up to an expected standard can drive.

The thing is, autos on the highway don’t have a 150 foot rule (as many of the anti-speed limit group keep bringing up whenever anyone states that speed limits on lakes is no more restrictive to an individual’s right than highway speed limits are).

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake. Yet you are actually suggesting that it’s the same as enacting a speed limit based on the worse possible weather conditions – the two concepts are totally different.

If I've had to restate things numerously you might want to try to answer the points raised directly. In this case you might try to start by explaining why you'd take the degree of sobriety in account in setting the lake's speed limit but not do so when setting the speed limit for the road.

I have answered points directly on this forum – way better than most of the anti-speed limit crowd – who just ignore the inconvenient points that they are unable to dispute.
For example: If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

You've stated numerous times that boats on Squam, being limited to 40mph, present a comfortable enivironment. Boat on Winni are too fast and run at "high" speed. It doesn't take much to deduce your position that speeds in excess of 40 mph are "high" (though you might find 45 acceptable and presumably not "high"). If you care to, put a number on a speed you think is too fast to be allowed and therefore "high".

I already did that in my previous reply. I see no reason to repeat myself.

If I'm to accept this statement on face value, it would seem you have boaters who aren't seeing you until they are closer that 150' away. Again let me ask, do you think that you were visible more than 150' away IF the boaters in question had bothered to look your way?

I can’t tell WHY those operators didn’t see us before they were practically on top of us. But I do know that, if they were going slower, they would have had more time to see us and to avoid us. Basically they were traveling faster than their ability to see us in time – for whatever reason.

Why is it you can see kayaks a mile away but these people can't see you ?

Mostly because I’m moving at much slower speeds. Slow down any boat to 5 or 6 mph, and anyone with decent vision would be able to see kayaks just as far away as I can.

You've not mentioned how many times your 150' bubble was bursted by boaters who you think were going less that 45 mph? … I've underlined the part above because again you're making a deduction that it's visibility that's the reason and not something else. Indeed in an earlier you post you were more believable when you said it was visibilty or that they were doing it deliberately.

I have clearly stated that our 150 foot zone has been intentionally violated at speeds under 45 mph – only at higher speeds has this happened unintentionally. Again, I clearly posted why it was obvious to US (not just me alone) that these particular high-speed boaters didn’t notice we were there until the last minute. You weren’t there – we were – we know what we saw.

Again you question my honesty, when I’ve stated that I never lie. Those other times when we couldn’t tell if they saw us, were other incidents completely.

FWIW : I generally don't run at max speed but for those times I have, I'd say perhaps 50 - 100 hrs at something over 45 mph in a boat. How many hours do you have as "Evenstar" in a powerboat > 18' in length?

I’m guessing that my team's crew boat is a bit over 18 foot long – and I’ve spent many hours on that boat, while working on all day regattas. And I've spent a fair amount of time on other larger powerboats as well. I honestly have no idea of the number of actual hours. But that is not even relevant here, as I’ve never claimed to have much experience in a power boat and have even clearly stated that I don’t. My experience that is revelant is in paddling a sea kayak on NH lakes and having seen first hand how dangerous high-speed powerboats can be to smaller, slow vessels like kayaks.

So to synopsize your position, because some, not all (your words) boaters are paying proper enough attention and some mght be drunk and sometimes the conditions (sun, glare, etc) aren't perfect, the speed limit should be set to force all boaters to a speed where the people who boat irresponsibly are unlikely to run you over. … Again is it possible for normal human beings to boat at, and I'm arbitrarily picking a speed above 45 but not hugely above it, say 60 mph without putting at undue peril people like yourselves in kayaks ? I'm asking to determine if you think we have a few (or many) problem boaters who don't pay sufficient attention or that the practice ("high" speed) is, all by itself, unsafe.

My point, which you are again ignoring, was that high speed is a major impairment to a boater’s ability to see smaller boats (like my kayak) in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – for whatever reason. Slowing down the high speed boaters will give them more time to see us.

You can't just exclude the irrisponsible boaters and normal good weather conditions (like sun and spray). As I've posted a number of times: If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - people are not perfect and even experienced boaters still collide with other boats and even with islands (and not just at night).

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

The "evidence" is your opinion. Factual accident data for actual accidents that have taken place in NH are not from speeds higher than 45mph. Add Long Lake into the mix all you want, but he was driving drunk and since he was already was ignoring that more serious law, a speed limit would not have prevented it from happening.

When traveling at higher speeds, I tend to pay more attention to my surroundings and feel that I actually would have a better reaction time than if cruising along at 30mph, enjoying the scenery and talking with occupants. My focus is more on my driving and what lies ahead, instead of what my wife and kids are doing when seated behind me.

How many times have you actually been on Winnipesaukee? It is my experience that the people most likely to run you over here are the slower boaters that are not paying attention. Boats that will not be affected by a speed limit. Why limit those than can go faster? I do not see them as the problem.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Add Long Lake into the mix all you want, but he was driving drunk and since he was already was ignoring that more serious law, a speed limit would not have prevented it from happening.

Sorry but that is wrong. #1) so should we eliminate all speed limits on the roads of NH because you think drunks won't obey them? Ask any cop about the frequency of drunk drivers who try to stay under the radar so to speak and are picked up for some other violation while driving slowly. #2) so this would have applied to Long Lake, though I suspect a speed limit might have encouraged him to launch his boat elsewhere, possibly some place less congested. Do you also want to repeal laws in NH relating to rape or murder because drunks won't obey them either? Here lies the flaw in your logic.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Sorry but that is wrong. #1) so should we eliminate all speed limits on the roads of NH because you think drunks won't obey them? Ask any cop about the frequency of drunk drivers who try to stay under the radar so to speak and are picked up for some other violation while driving slowly. #2) so this would have applied to Long Lake, though I suspect a speed limit might have encouraged him to launch his boat elsewhere, possibly some place less congested. Do you also want to repeal laws in NH relating to rape or murder because drunks won't obey them either? Here lies the flaw in your logic.

Your comparison is the flaw...Rape and murder? Give me a break. I am not asking for existing laws (that make sense) to be repealed, I am asking for new laws that are not proven as needed to be instituted as a "feel good" measure. Big difference between speed limits, rape and murder. You are talking ticketable offenses vs. serious felonies with potential capital punishment depending on where it takes place and the gravity of the situation.

The accident EVIDENCE that exists based on HISTORICAL events/accidents are not indicating speed being an issue. This has been covered time and time again. Look at the last 5 years and tell me what accidents have been attributed to speed exceeding the proposed limit. And don't toss out Littlefield as your example, even if the suggested 28mph could be 100% proven it was not the speed that caused the accident. With the actual history showing accidents happening at slower speeds how can you honestly sit here and say that speed is the issue causing the accidents?

The Long Lake incident could have happened whether or not a speed limit was in place. And congestion? Where did that come from? I doubt highly that the lake was congested that night. Performance boats are not leaving Winnipesaukee due to congestion...I own 4 boats and a jet ski that will exceed 45mph (mostly not by much) and don't think for a second that 45mph will make me leave. Don't think for a second that it will make every performance boat leave. Boats don't have to be performance boats to be deadly either...

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake.

If the Captain is breaking rule A, what makes you think he is going to heed rule B?
Let me take this one step further:
If the MP cannot effectively enforce rule A, what makes you think they are going to be able to enforce rule B?

Can you honestly disagree that if we were to better enfore the current rules the lake would be safer?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

Yes. BWI trumps speeding any day, boat or car.
Speeding in a car you get a ticket. BWI in a car you get arrested/lose license/court fees etc.

How many 'high speed' BWI accidents have there been?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The thing is, autos on the highway don’t have a 150 foot rule (as many of the anti-speed limit group keep bringing up whenever anyone states that speed limits on lakes is no more restrictive to an individual’s right than highway speed limits are).

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake. Yet you are actually suggesting that it’s the same as enacting a speed limit based on the worse possible weather conditions – the two concepts are totally different.

What's not different is that we expect, no ... demand that drivers, be they in cars on in boats, adapt their speed to be proper for the conditions regardless of the posted limits. In other words there's a degree of judgement placed squarely on the shoulders of the operator. We don't post limits on the road that say (for example) 35 mph is the max permissible speed limit on I-93 because that's the limit when it's snowing or foggy or because that's what "we" think is the safe speed for someone who's had too much to drink. The limit posted assumes good conditions and requires the operator to adjust according when the conditons are not. When you introduce sobriety or glare or sun angle into your discussions as to why the speed limit should be so artificially low (IMO) then you open yourself up to the arguement that we don't consider these things when we set speed limits on the road. Why are you including them as factors to set a low speed limit ? Would you be consistent and use then as factor to lower speed limits on our roadways ?

I'd accept your point as being consistent w/HB847 if you stated that it can't be reasonably expected that any boater, even one paying proper attention and not impaired by drugs or alcohol, travelling in excess of 50 mph presents a likely danger of overrruning you if you, in your kayak, were in their path.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have answered points directly on this forum – way better than most of the anti-speed limit crowd – who just ignore the inconvenient points that they are unable to dispute.


For example: If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

I wouldn't necessarily include speed as a factor because there are many thing you can do in complete safety when sober that you can't do when drunk. If a drunk piles his boat into another at 60 mph, I can't conclude from that that it's beyond a reasonable expectation that a sober person would have been able to do 60 mph in the same situation and not hit the other boat ... or have decided that 60 mph was too fast for that situation and not being going that fast too start with. Drunkeness interferes with both your ability to perceive and react to situations and your overall judgement. If drunks routinely ran of the I-93 at 65 mph would the logical conclusion be that we need to reduce the speed limit in order to reduce the number of drunks running off the road or would the more rational conclusion be that since non drunks don't generally run off the road at 65 mph and drunks do, that it's the drunkeness that's the problem and not the speed in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I already did that in my previous reply. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Earlier on I saw you post that you hadn't set a number to "high". I must have missed when you did.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can’t tell WHY those operators didn’t see us before they were practically on top of us. But I do know that, if they were going slower, they would have had more time to see us and to avoid us. Basically they were traveling faster than their ability to see us in time – for whatever reason.

{in reply to why ES can see akayak at a mile but a "speeding" boater can't, ES said}

Mostly because I’m moving at much slower speeds. Slow down any boat to 5 or 6 mph, and anyone with decent vision would be able to see kayaks just as far away as I can.

I going to address this more below but when was the last time you were in a car, doing say 65 mph, and couldn't see a mile down the road because of your speed ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have clearly stated that our 150 foot zone has been intentionally violated at speeds under 45 mph – only at higher speeds has this happened unintentionally. Again, I clearly posted why it was obvious to US (not just me alone) that these particular high-speed boaters didn’t notice we were there until the last minute. You weren’t there – we were – we know what we saw.

Again you question my honesty, when I’ve stated that I never lie. Those other times when we couldn’t tell if they saw us, were other incidents completely.

I now understand why others here have given you a rough time. What utter crap, I have never, NEVER, questioned your honesty nor accused you of lying. I have questioned your judgement and last I checked we were all human and capable of being MISTAKEN or wrong w/o it being a lie. If you can't distinguish between someone questioning your perception of why the event unfolded the way it did vs them saying you're lying then our discusssion is over. You must think you're infallible. I don't doubt you are certain that the events happened for the reason you state, that doesn't make it true.

BTW just how many times has an unintentional violation of your 150' zone happened on Winni ? Are we talking 2,3 5 times over a few years or 30, 40 50 times over a few years ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’m guessing that my team's crew boat is a bit over 18 foot long – and I’ve spent many hours on that boat, while working on all day regattas. And I've spent a fair amount of time on other larger powerboats as well. I honestly have no idea of the number of actual hours. But that is not even relevant here, as I’ve never claimed to have much experience in a power boat and have even clearly stated that I don’t. My experience that is revelant is in paddling a sea kayak on NH lakes and having seen first hand how dangerous high-speed powerboats can be to smaller, slow vessels like kayaks.

So is it all high speed powerboats or just some (which are dangerous to kayaks). I'm trying to get a simple, straight answer along the lines of what I asked above. I asked how much time you've spent behind the wheel of a power boat, at something above displacement speed, to gage whether you have enough experience to judge what a power boater can or can't see.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My point, which you are again ignoring, was that high speed is a major impairment to a boater’s ability to see smaller boats (like my kayak) in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – for whatever reason. Slowing down the high speed boaters will give them more time to see us.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I'm outright challenging it. Tell me the physical reasons why someone at high speed has diminished ability to see you. You seem to be contending that because some boaters apparently didn't see that all can't. You support this by making the assumption, without supplying any underlying reasons, that speed is somehow responsible. I don't say that slower won't give them more time, I do say that once a person has been given sufficient time enough has been done. Littlefeild had in excess of 30 seconds to ponder what that light was in front of him and still ran of the Hartmans. You can give the inattentive boater more time but it's no guarantee they'll notice you.


Search as I might, I couldn't find any conclusive tests on kayak visibility (not radar related) however it's something that I can envision being emperically determined so unless you can introduce some other evidence I remain unconvinced that your kayak is rendered nearly invisible to an attentive boater, "high" speed or not. I will give some thought as to how the truth can be ascertained.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You can't just exclude the irrisponsible boaters and normal good weather conditions (like sun and spray). As I've posted a number of times: If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - people are not perfect and even experienced boaters still collide with other boats and even with islands (and not just at night).

Your trying to twist what I've been discussing when using the term reasonable into something other that intended. I haven't said nor implied that all people are "reasonable" by any definition of the word. What I have tried to say is the law shouldn't restrict what can be reasonably expected that a normal human (not Super Man) can do. If a normal human, using a reasonable (not superhumanly good nor negligently bad) degree of prudence and vigilence can pilot his/her boat at XX mph without running over a kayak lying in their path I don't see why their should be a speed limit below XX mph. It's that simple. If your problem comes down to people being irresponsible and inattentive, to the point of being negligent then that has to be addressed on it's own. You may think that slowing the negligent boater down will save you but I think that at some point in that boater's career his negligence will catch up with him/her resulting a tragedy. I've found it's best when solving problems to attack the root cause and not apply bandaids. Besides it's the fair thing to do. I don't care to punish person W for person Z's misdeeds.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

There are many things on life I don't "need". Who even says I need to go 45 mph, why not 30 mph ... slower is safer yes ? The Govt should not be in the business of restricting we the people to what it thinks we "need". Restrictions should be the minimum necessary to accomplish what has hopefully been determined to be a truly needed goal. When the Gov't determined that 55 mph was the maximum speed you "needed" to travel at did you agree with it ? If the Gov't dictated that your car or boat's color should be either safety yellow or safety green because it would improve it's visibility and thus safety. Would you agree with it ? Because you don't "need" a car or boat's color, you just want it. I'm challenging what I think is an artificially low number for the speed limit same as I would challenge any other such artificial restriction. It's not about "need".

[Chris Craft]

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats. There are a number of people that read this board that know both people on both boats. They are all good people. It was a tragedy for sure. I am sure a lot more will come out in the trial this fall.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats. There are a number of people that read this board that know both people on both boats. They are all good people. It was a tragedy for sure. I am sure a lot more will come out in the trial this fall.

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Again, I stated that SOME boaters are traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time. It is therefor your burden to prove that this is not true for any boaters. Do you contend that every single boater who travels at speeds greater than 45 mph is never traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone?

You're asking the wrong question. I would contend that not every driver in a car in a snowstorm travels at a speed proper for that condition. Yet we don't post speed limits based on the worst case conditon and the worst case driver. It's expected, demanded, that the driver be reactive to the situation presented to him/her. Neither I nor Ryan have any burden of proof to show that the worst case idiot won't see you in a kayak, laws are made for the reasonable man. What can we as a rule expect or not expect from a reasonable man. We don't make laws so that drunks, nor the careless nor the reckless are "safe" at the stated limit. Speed limits, if needed, should be based on what can a normal person, not Superman but not a 1 eyed drunken 90 year old sailor either, can do. In 30+ years of boating I've yet to have a canoe or kayak pop up from seemingly nowhere in front of me. While kayaks are less visible than boats let's not get carried away here. I can't recall the last time I didn't see a kayak at 1000' distance. That some people don't pay attention means "we" ought to be working to remove those people from the boating public. If the Littlefield case shows anything, it shows just how much time you can give to the careless boater and still end up with a collision.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

2.) Where’s your proof that the NHMP is “operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget”? Or, to use your own words; “is this just your own belief?”

When I say "appears to be", most rational people would understand that I am making an observation and not necessarily submitting something as evidence.

Once again, you read things through your own blinders and filters.

[rick35]

The last thing I intended when I started this thread was to get redirected to another pointless discussion on speed limits. Every argument that could be made has been made. I have an oppinion on that but since it at least one other poster has voiced it I have not repeated it. If I may, the original intent was to discuss inconsiderate boaters who don't realize or care that sound carries at night. I'll even include inconsiderate (and stupid) boaters who have no regard for safe passage.

Hope everyone has a great day on the lake today. I'm stuck at home doing home repairs.

Rick

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I was at the House Transportation hearing, where I testified. The “me” generation that I saw at the hearing was the anti-speed limit side. It has been stated over and over on this forum that a very small percentage of boats on winni can or do travel over 45 mph. Yet these “few” feel that they should have the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds, regardless of the negative impact this has on other boaters.

Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).
Which one of your skills lets you know how I feel? I won't challenge your credibility however that is one heck of an impressive skill. You also know how these "few" with fast boats feel. Wow.

Please note: I am NOT one of the "few" with a boat that travels at or over 45 mph (Let me qualify that to close any legal loopholes - My boat can go over 45mph downhill or when it's on the trailer towed behind a truck on the road) but it does not even get to 40 mph at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) on the Lake.

I am one of the MANY who believe that additional speed regulations are NOT needed on Lake Winnipesaukee. One of the MANY without a FAST BOAT that feels this way. In spite of what you claim, I do NOT "feel" that anyone has the right to travel at UNLIMITED SPEED on the Lake. OF course I don't believe that it is legal to travel at UNLIMITED SPEED on the Lake - there are regulations regarding safe speeds already - but that has been discussed and discussed so many times that I'm disgusted.

Anti 45/25 mph speed limit law does NOT mean advocating Unlimited Speed - Unlimited Speed is not currently legal anyway. Can you tell how I feel now? Nevermind, no answer is necessary. I have no desire to debate with you. I just want to set the record straight.

On topic, there are also laws about SOUND LEVELS which address sound - no need for speed limits to regulate SOUND. Better (modified) sound laws would be nice though.

kayakers love water --- boaters love lovers

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).

- there are regulations regarding safe speeds already - but that has been discussed and discussed so many times that I'm disgusted.

Skipper -
If you are going to post "Points of Information" you should check and see if they are correct. There was no kind of "regulations regarding safe speeds" before HB847. This lie is often repeated yet not true. There was no "reasonable and prudent" regulation. However there is one now. It is called HB847. If you are a "Skipper" you should know this.