Speed limit permanent to be filed!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

In what way was that "accident" speed related ... in the sense that the SL, if followed, would have been applicable and prevented the "accident" ?

[Pineedles]

Do you mean that if the speed of the boat was under 25 mph that there would have not been a death? Or do you mean there would not have been a crash? Or, are you saying that last year's posts by some folks, said that a crash like occurred would have nothing to do with speed? I'm confused.

[fatlazyless]

Here in New Hampshire, a 25 year old male can kill 3 people and badly injure a forth and the New Hampshire supreme court can declare him to not be a negligent car driver because "for some unknown reason he strayed across the center line for two seconds on Route 49 in Thornton in June 2006 and struck head-on, two Harley Davidsons with two married couples."

It can be somewhat reasonably argued that three deaths are three times worse than one death.

If and when the NHRBA president's trial goes to court, it will be interesting to watch the legal chess game that plays out between the Belknap county attorney and the defendant. Any verdict is possible now, considering what happened with the Thornton catastrophe?

[Bear Islander]

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

[SIKSUKR]

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

Liberal crap?? Guess it depends on point of view. They remind me of birthers.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

[VtSteve]

It would appear ELCHASE, that you aren't paying attention. Many people have responded to threads this year indicating that the same problems that existed before, exist today. People have pointed out and described specific incidents on the lake, quite a few of them I might add, where they did not feel safe and have had to alter their boating style to protect themselves.

I know it's convenient to focus on what you consider to be fast enough in a boat, opinions vary. But this quote from you is a prime example of not getting it.

Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

It is Broke, and no, people cannot feel safe anytime on the lake. Anybody can go to Winfabs and read their propaganda. But people that share your viewpoint as stated, do not and will not participate in discussions of these problems. I might reiterate an rather inconvenient truth, again. A very select few people on these forums own boats that can do 60 mph, or even 50 mph. What you don't want to admit is that this is not the issue. You can say it is, but that does not make it so. The MP themselves know this, most everyone does. If you have a beef with the people themselves or their boats in particular, state so. Everyone discusses these things pretty freely, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Participate in the Captain Bonehead thread and make us believers. There are obviously many out there that do not share your belief that all is safe and wonderful on the water. Perhaps you should at least show an interest in their stories?

At least give some consideration to what's being said about unsafe boating on the lake as it is today.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

What is your problem? You are so fixated on a speed limit. Please reread what I wrote. What I said was that there is no question in my mind that the speed limit was not relevant that night-25MPH, no way, she should have been at headway.

I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

What is your problem? You are so fixated on a speed limit. Please reread what I wrote. What I said was that there is no question in my mind that the speed limit was not relevant that night-25MPH, no way, she should have been at headway.

I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!!

I'm sorry but you either don't understand my point, or you do not understand what the speed limit law says.

The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this....

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

45/25 is only one part of the current law.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but you either don't understand my point, or you do not understand what the speed limit law says.

The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this....

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

45/25 is only one part of the current law.

BI- my response was to Elchase. You and I were saying the same thing, I believe. My point was that the SL could have been 15 MPH and on that night it would have been too fast for the conditions.

[MAXUM]

As I have posted before on this very subject, no law(s) can ever legislate responsibility. I don't believe the speed limit is making the lake any safer than it was before, nor is it stopping those who want to go fast from doing so. After all the lengths I've seen stupidity taken in regards to operation far exceed the amount of laws that could potentially be written to forbid each and every discreet act. Additionally I might add that most of the idiotic behavior I've witnessed had little to do with speed and more to do with throwing any kind of prudent judgment right out the window.

The last thing I think anyone wants to see is a bunch of legislators in Concord that become "ban" happy as exhibited by our neighbors south of the border. Please enough is enough... a simple reckless provision is enough if enforced.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by elchase

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

Well since Elchase refuses to elaborate on the unfounded pieces of data "80% of NH residents want this law" (in the supporter thread) which I have been told was a poll taken. I have to ask:

Where and whom did the poll, and how were the questions worded? Were these people polled a good sampling of boaters or just residents without boating experience? Not to mention it is again difficult to say 80% of the population from a poll because sampling does not constitute a unbiased % of the population. That would be like saying, lets not hold elections, lets just go by this Poll conducted by CNN.....

I have no problem with a supporter and opposer threads where people feel "safe" to discuss their own thoughts without opposition. What I have an issue with is people making remarks that go unquestioned that others can then go back and contitute as "fact".

The old saying " I read it on the internet / paper so it must be true " comes to mind.

I also invite elchase to answer the questions posed by myself and other posters that have been posed since the intial posts.

Is this a case of "Ring and Run"?

[Kracken]

Ocdactive,

There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts.

Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone…

There is a presence I’ve not felt since….

I think somebody is BACK

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Ocdactive,

There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts.

Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone…

There is a presence I’ve not felt since….

I think somebody is BACK

LMAO!! very funny..

I understand no discussions no debates, however it shouldn't give your free rain to just post any piece of data and not state where it is from or how it was derived.. Otherwise anyone could turn and start making up %'s and posting them in the opposers thread as well.

Later on someone could go back and think they are accurate or others (not going to name names) could go and use many different pieces of different threads to try to prove a point.

I am just looking for checks and balances.

If you want to make your own thoughts and opinions known and state them there I am all for that and I believe that is what the ideology was for their inception. However if you go there to start pushing an agenda and making statements from others, data, facts, or supposed truths from others then you should be able to be called out on them.

I think that if we can not question these so called facts then the moderator should have anything not "opinions" or "personal experiences" removed from those threads.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I am just looking for checks and balances.

The checks and balances are all the other threads in this sub-forum that are open to you.

How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters?

I'm not seeing much productive discussion about the topic. This is not what I had in mind when I reopened it.

[OCDACTIVE]

[QUOTE=webmaster;102175]

How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters?

QUOTE]

Thank you Webmaster,

You have helped get to the heart of the topic. There is very little NEW data available. That is why I am very sceptical of data quoted in many of the posts and why see it as something to contest.

The 2 year trial law with a sunset provision was designed so actual data could be recorded on the "whole" lake and not just some test areas with "actual" consequences. This was the base line arguement for the intial law in the first place.

Now legistlation is trying to be hammered though where it has been stated on both sides that "data has yet to be collected".

This is why it is imperative to discuss the issue.

Without data, you are correct only the old arguments from past threads are there to be checked.

I am simply making sure that people do not quote information from the past without basis to do so now that it has been put back on the table.

There has already been data posed by the opposers (see Mee n Macs research) which show we are serious about discussing the topic at hand and not just rehashing old arguements.

Needless to say this is a very heated and controversal issue which will always lead to spirited debate that some take very personally because it directly effects their lifestyle at the place they have come know and love, no matter what side of the argument you are on.

[fatlazyless]

As most everyone knows, there is really no such thing as permanent for a law passed by the New Hampshire legislature. As the winds of state politics shift around the political compass, what gets a pass one year, can do a complete come-about and get repealed in the next year.

For many years up till November 2006, the Republicans were large and in charge at the NH State House. Also for many years, the NH Marine Trades Association, a lobbying group supported by a number of NH boat dealers, was a consistant contributor to Republican candidates across the state.

Not to worry.....things are definately looking up for the Republicans here in NH......witness the big Jeb Bradley, state senate win that took place last spring. How do you think Jeb will be voting if this current speed limit sunset scuttle makes it to the senate? Jeb will be saying that it is simply a solution look'n for a problem....and then pocket that NHMTA thousand dollars contribution! Not to worry!

Hey...when the kayak connected businesses want to contribute to a Democrat....all the Dem politicos want is a box of granola and some yogurt....different strokes for different folks.....ahem

[Kracken]

change you can believe in.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by elchase

I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

Speed is a Relative Term.

45mph in your boat maybe fast.

45mph in my boat is just a tad over cruise speed and the superior hull design makes it seem as you are only going 25mph.

Yes Speed is Addictive!!!!

I agree 100% with Safe Boating for everyone on the lake and I have done so for the last 10+ years. I am fanatical over the 150 rule and would never do a high speed blast in one of the bays or with boat traffic in the area.


HOWEVER, Speed Limit or No Speed Limit if I am in the Broads all alone and I feel it is safe to do so 50mph to 60+mph will occur often...


Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around?

[OCDACTIVE]

Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....

I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits:

"Have you ever been in a performance boat??"

It is apples and oranges.

Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys.

I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident.....

I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe.

If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat.

It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it.

On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc.

Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner.

It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....

I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits:

"Have you ever been in a performance boat??"

It is apples and oranges.

Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys.

I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident.....

I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe.

If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat.

It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it.

On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc.

Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner.

It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution.

Yes, I have been in a performance boat. I have operated a performance boat. Many years ago I worked on an offshore race boat. The company I own was involved with the the power boat races held on Winni years ago. I LOVE speed. My hope is that some time next year I will be able to go MACH 4. Sorry if this doesn't match the stereotype you have in your mind.

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, I have been in a performance boat. I have operated a performance boat. Many years ago I worked on an offshore race boat. The company I own was involved with the the power boat races held on Winni years ago. I LOVE speed. My hope is that some time next year I will be able to go MACH 4. Sorry if this doesn't match the stereotype you have in your mind.

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

Yes we know but for reasons that had little to do with speed.

[pm203]

It is absolutely incredible that Rep Pilliod and his supporters would file such a bill so early and only after a few months of actual boating season. It really shows what they are really made of and their true intentions. One can only hope that the people see them for what they are and hopefully question any further bills on their agenda. Their total lack of respect for the state and abuse of their powers for personal pleasure is unacceptable. Good moral fiber seems to be in short supply when it comes to this group and their actions.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

It is absolutely incredible that Rep Pilliod and his supporters would file such a bill so early and only after a few months of actual boating season. It really shows what they are really made of and their true intentions. One can only hope that the people see them for what they are and hopefully question any further bills on their agenda. Their total lack of respect for the state and abuse of their powers for personal pleasure is unacceptable. Good moral fiber seems to be in short supply when it comes to this group and their actions.

Filing now isn't really that early. A bill filed now will go to the legislature this winter and possibly be signed by the Governor next spring. If you wait another year to file it would probably mean the current speed limit would expire BEFORE the new bill becomes law. That would be very confusing.

If the current speed limit is to be extended then the only reasonable way to do it is for the the speed limit to be renewed before it expires in about 16 months.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Filing now isn't really that early. A bill filed now will go to the legislature this winter and possibly be signed by the Governor next spring. If you wait another year to file it would probably mean the current speed limit would expire BEFORE the new bill becomes law. That would be very confusing.

If the current speed limit is to be extended then the only reasonable way to do it is for the the speed limit to be renewed before it expires in about 16 months.

BI is right... that is why we need a compromise bill filed instead of this one.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

Do you believe in a compromised limit though. I could deal with what Woodsy stated a 65/35 type limit. Although to be fair Woodsy said 30 at night I disagree and think it should be a strict 35. I think one of the best posts I've seen in all of this was his post stating how many boats on the lake can actually go over 65 in the first place. Not many in case your keeping score.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Do you believe in a compromised limit though. I could deal with what Woodsy stated a 65/35 type limit. Although to be fair Woodsy said 30 at night I disagree and think it should be a strict 35. I think one of the best posts I've seen in all of this was his post stating how many boats on the lake can actually go over 65 in the first place. Not many in case your keeping score.

I could live with 55/35.

I don't see how the number of boats on the lake that can go over 45 changes anything. Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I could live with 55/35.

I don't see how the number of boats on the lake that can go over 45 changes anything. Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA.

Oh man we are sooooo close I feel like a car salesman here but you give me 5 one way and I'll give you the other 5. How's 60/30 sound to you? I'd consider that a compromise. Not that it amounts to a hill of beans because I don't think the NH Legislature reads the forum.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

... I don't think the NH Legislature reads the forum.

I know for a fact that some of them do.

[jrc]

Of course BI, you have honestly reported your motivation for a speed limit for some time.

But others have a different motivation:

Originally Posted by elchase

We had a good chuckle today when some clown in a huge offshore boat got taken down a few pegs by the MP.
...The guy was clearly starved of attention as a child and was showing the world that the speed limit was not going to cramp his style. ... Now he's crawling along with his tail between his legs .... What good is going so fast if nobody can see you?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by jrc

Of course BI, you have honestly reported your motivation for a speed limit for some time.

But others have a different motivation:

Very well said... While I do not always agree with BI, he has always stayed true to his beliefs. Some of which I personally feel are unfounded but that is what discussions and debates are for....

As mentioned others have a completely different agenda and are not willing to particiapte in civil conversations.

[EricP]

Well if they read the forum then they apparently don't care to listen to the majority and instead fall victim to the fear factor, which is unfounded. They should also know they won't get my vote next time and hopefully others here will let them know where their votes are going. I sat in the public meeting in Concord and couldn't believe what I was hearing, mostly rhetoric and catch phrases, like the wild west, and such. Anway I hope this move gets defeated as wellas those who voted it in, I don't want to be represented by people who can't see through the bs.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Very well said... While I do not always agree with BI, he has always stayed true to his beliefs. Some of which I personally feel are unfounded but that is what discussions and debates are for....

As mentioned others have a completely different agenda and are not willing to particiapte in civil conversations.

Absolutely agree. I am on opposite side of the SL law but totally respect BI as he makes no bones about how he feels. This man has gone on adventures that I will only dream about. Big respect factor there.He knows very well my passion for this issue in the past two years.When he went on his Antarctic excursion this winter, I followed it and e-mailed him. He was gracious enough to return the mail from below the Antarctic circle without any attitude. I had a little different attitude myself after that. Fight the good fight and above all, keep it civil because yes, people think different than me. I don't quite understand that yet though!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA.

Which of course you know has nothing to do with safety or speed. It is in place to stop sonic booms, it's a noise ordinance.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Which of course you know has nothing to do with safety or speed. It is in place to stop sonic booms, it's a noise ordinance.

Who said a speed limit is only about safety?

Water quality, tourism, fair distribution of public resources, erosion, noise, conservation, loon mortality, children's camps, the direction the lake community is headed in. These are all reasons to have a speed limit.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around?

Answer: The NH State Legislator is being harmed. You're defying them, and they can't stand that. Besides, sometime in the far distant future, maybe even 100 years from now, an accident might occur that could be blamed on speed, and if they could just prevent that one accident from happening, then their time on this planet will be justified.

That's the true dream of all nanny's.

Now please, put your bright yellow head cap back on and sit down and read a nice book today. DON'T venture out into the real world where some harm, somewhere, might come to you. Our nanny legislators will use any harm as an excuse to put forth additional laws -- "for the children's sake".

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

Answer: The NH State Legislator is being harmed. You're defying them, and they can't stand that. Besides, sometime in the far distant future, maybe even 100 years from now, an accident might occur that could be blamed on speed, and if they could just prevent that one accident from happening, then their time on this planet will be justified.

That's the true dream of all nanny's.

Now please, put your bright yellow head cap back on and sit down and read a nice book today. DON'T venture out into the real world where some harm, somewhere, might come to you. Our nanny legislators will use any harm as an excuse to put forth additional laws -- "for the children's sake".

.....

Well they must be really mad, because Friday I saw several go fast boats in the broads traveling in the 60-70mph range(one looked alot like me). There was not another boat within 1500' feet when I saw them doing it, but I am sure some type of horror or emotional scarring occurred!!!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

Absolutely BI, I might only add that somewhere between staying still and under 25 mph would be the ideal in that situation. If you Had to be on the lake that night, headway speed and more than one lookout would be the safe way to go.

People have been cited in traffic accidents for doing 50 mph or so on an interstate in a snow storm. Too fast for conditions. It's been used in many courts in boating accidents as well, successfully.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

Yup and would have been since 1981 ....


270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/...0/270-29-a.htm


However all of this skirts the question as to how this incident speaks to relevance of the 25 MPH limit. It doesn't. "Reasonable and prudent" was an attempt by those opposed the HB162 to stop a set MPH limit. It was rejected as such and only included in HB847 as an adjunct to the 25 MPH limit. As such it's redundant with the RSA above.