Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Who said anything about HB847 limits?

Airwaves has some point to make about the 2006 statistics. He asks how many involved speed. The problem, like I said, is that he is using his own definition of speed. If he wants to know how many involved speeds over 25/45, then that is a different answer.

He knows all this very well, he is trying to make some kind of point that escapes me. However I have answered his question as asked.

He also has claimed that ALL accidents have a speed listed by number which they clearly do not. I don't think there is a link to this data. Only a synopsis put together by Woodsy.

Personally I think you are splitting hairs here. Airwaves probably meant how many accidents involved speed in excess of HB847 limits. Because he didn't spell that out you answer 44 accidents involve speed. So now let's go one further because Airwaves missed that and determine how many of those were in excess of HB847 limits. After all, in the spirit of debating this foolish law, this is after all the real point of it all. So I guess I am mentioning HB847 because it was implied but not spelled out.

If a boat is moving and involved in an accident then speed was involved, it was moving and therfore had some speed assocaited with that movement, anyone will agree with that. Point is HB847 will probably not have had any bearing on most of those accidents. I will not guess how many because I don't know the speed details. But it's my opinion that if there was a significant number of those accidents that actually involved boats traveling at speeds above the limits set in HB847, the Pro crowd would be all over those stats. This leads me to believe that the majority of those accidents did not involved speeds in excess of HB847 limits. This is reasonable logic on my part. So for you to cite 44 accidents in the same veign as an HB847 debate is misleading and irrelevant to the discussion of why we need a speed limit. If HB847 had been in place for all 44 of those accidents most would not have been cited for speeding as a violation of that law.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by EriP
Personally I think you are splitting hairs here. Airwaves probably meant how many accidents involved speed in excess of HB847 limits. Because he didn't spell that out you answer 44 accidents involve speed. So now let's go one further because Airwaves missed that and determine how many of those were in excess of HB847 limits. After all, in the spirit of debating this foolish law, this is after all the real point of it all. So I guess I am mentioning HB847 because it was implied but not spelled out.

Oh, I was very specific and you are quite right, I used THEIR 45/25 speed limit as the benchmark. BI and crew know it and I spelled it out quite clearly in HIS thread "N.H. among worst for boating accidents" check it out.

The link to the 2006 NH Boating Statistics provided by Woodsy is in that thread as well as listed under it's own thread so you can check yourself and not take my word for it.

You'll also discover that some of the "accidents" listed appear to have been caused by rafting boats or damage by waves/wakes at the dock. NH requires reporting damage over $2000. That's not much damage and is listed as a "boating accident". I wonder if those are the ones that couldn't attributed to speed? I quess we'll never know.

[Islander]

Airwaves has been very specific. He is asking about 2006 Winnipesaukee accidents involving speed.

That is the answer he has received.

Airwaves these little games you want to play are over. The Governor signed HB847. You lost. Move on.

In about two years these arguments about statistics might have meaning again. Personally I think your chances of winning in two years is about zero. Let's wait and see. Bye.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

Airwaves has been very specific. He is asking about 2006 Winnipesaukee accidents involving speed.

That is the answer he has received.

Airwaves these little games you want to play are over. The Governor signed HB847. You lost. Move on.

In about two years these arguments about statistics might have meaning again. Personally I think your chances of winning in two years is about zero. Let's wait and see. Bye.

HB847 will not make the accident rate any lower than it is. Why? Because the baseline is ZERO. I have asked a zillion times on here for yourself, BI or anyone else to post the statistics of accidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25. There was one...the Littlefield incident, which we all know was caused by alcohol.
So how can HB847 improve this? You can't get any less than zero.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

HB847 will not make the accident rate any lower than it is. Why? Because the baseline is ZERO. I have asked a zillion times on here for yourself, BI or anyone else to post the statistics of accidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25. There was one...the Little field incident, which we all know was caused by alcohol.
So how can HB847 improve this? You can't get any less than zero.

WOW!

Again with the zero accident lie! When you post that you should add all your qualifications, boat on boat, no alcohol, New England only, no other laws broken, fatalities only etc. Plus you should read the stats Airwaves keeps talking about, he has a couple more for you in 2006 alone.

So the high performance boats that flipped they don't count why? The fatal on Winnipesaukee last summer doesn't count why? No alcohol there except I have been told parental error is the excuse to ignore that one. And the Long Lake double fatality how is it we can ignore that one. Not to mention this years fatality.

Does that all add up to zero?

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).

[VtSteve]

"Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now)."


Darn the torpedos, full steam ahead!

So no accidents will support your cause, and many accidents will support our cause, and you'll include your silly law just because.

Just think, if all boats were removed from the lake, your wish would be granted. You'd still give credit to HB847.

What a silly nation we have become.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Islander

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).

Also we need to wait for the outcome of investigations of the Diamond Is. accident. People on this forum have stated that if the boat is shown to have been going 25 MPH or less, then HB 847 would be of no benefit. On the other hand, if a boat(especially with a very experienced driver) going 25 MPH can cause such massive damage, lower night limits could be appropriate. Many feel that 25 MPH at night was too high a compromise and that limits similar to Squam would have been better.

[Airwaves]

I’m tired of being called a liar by the speed limits crowd a group that refuses to back up their barnyard expletive!

Here is the posting from BI’s thread in which I clearly spelled out my criteria for “speed” .....low and behold there is also the number 47 speed related accidents the speed limit crowd says occurred on Winnipesaukee in 2006.

I've bolded my comment on the criteria for speed so that the speed limit crowd doesn't have to look too hard!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6070

In post #5 of that thread you will find a link to the 2006 stats provided by Woodsy.

Anyone feel safe yet?

Quote:

I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.

[VtSteve]

Why go back to trying and justify speed limits with stats that don't justify your case? It's about congestion, some people don't like that crowd, less boats, erosion, wakes, whatever.

An idiot ran up on another boat at a moderate speed at night and an innocent person was killed. That's unfortunate, and really unfortunate that it happens more than once. The very sad part about it, is that more anti speed limit people fully understand the problem, and want to eliminate it as much as possible. Even sadder, is that many whom I will not name, wouldn't be talking about accidents that don't happen to involve their least favorite boats.

I've read about countless accidents over just the last 2-3 years on this board alone (I researched to see what's going on back then). PWC accidents, swimmers drowning in open water, all kinds of stuff. Not very long threads though.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

The attached drawing shows that it has a rather large impact if you count the square miles that are a half mile from shore.

Your drawing took a lot of effort, shows the scope of the problem, and gives better meaning to both sides regarding our respective spaces. I examined it for some time. Thanks for producing it.

Too bad that so many middle-finger confrontations occur outside of "The Playground".

You were overgenerous to the fastest boats, however. Many islands were cut in half, shoals were ignored, and our lake's most recent victim, Diamond Island, nearly disappeared.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

An idiot ran up on another boat at a moderate speed at night and an innocent person was killed. That's unfortunate, and really unfortunate that it happens more than once.

You could even say it was a slow speed, since both were traveling in the same direction.

In darkness, Might overcame Right.

Still, we lake dwellers would like to become accustomed to fewer injuries, safer lakeside yards, fewer close calls, fewer deaths, and for being noticed as living, sentient beings while on open waters.

The Governor agrees.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

You could even say it was a slow speed, since both were traveling in the same direction.

In darkness, Might overcame Right.

Still, we lake dwellers would like to become accustomed to fewer injuries, safer lakeside yards, fewer close calls, fewer deaths, and for being noticed as living, sentient beings while on open waters.

The Governor agrees.

Darn nice of him too. So what am I to discern from your post above? Is it a larger boat that's the problem at slow speeds? "Fewer deaths" on Winni would be around zero, which is ideal in my book.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

WOW!

Again with the zero accident lie! When you post that you should add all your qualifications, boat on boat, no alcohol, New England only, no other laws broken, fatalities only etc. Plus you should read the stats Airwaves keeps talking about, he has a couple more for you in 2006 alone.

So the high performance boats that flipped they don't count why? The fatal on Winnipesaukee last summer doesn't count why? No alcohol there except I have been told parental error is the excuse to ignore that one. And the Long Lake double fatality how is it we can ignore that one. Not to mention this years fatality.

Does that all add up to zero?

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).

WOW yourself.
Again I will ask this. Of those accidents you cite, which one was caused by a speed in excess of 45/25? And keep in mind we are discussing accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee, not Long Lake.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by chipj29

WOW yourself.
Again I will ask this. Of those accidents you cite, which one was caused by a speed in excess of 45/25? And keep in mind we are discussing accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee, not Long Lake.

You'll never get a straight answer from Islander. He is too busy gloating over what he feels in a personal victory, rubbing it in as much as he can. I find it better to ignore anything he says and won't respond to his posts. He doesn't get it, never will and isn't worth your time or mine.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

WOW!

Snip

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).

I should know better .....

Perhaps a more likely scenario "might be" that things change very little. A small percentage of boats still go fast in open water. The risk of an accident continues to be present and the rate stays low. (+/- 1) The mater remains one of opinion, perception, emotion and speculation.

Fortunately we don't have a statistic that can be statistically improved. If we had 5, 10 or 20 speed related accidents a year, it would be easy to judge the impact of the pending test. This is not likely to change anyone's position.