In the Spirit of Compromise....

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

I can't even figure out how to respond. You are criticizing MY grammar? Even when I jumble the words around I can't guess what this was supposed to mean. Please say it in English.


I truncated "and actions" from the quote because there have been no actions. But this shows the mentality of the people we are dealing with here. You think I want to make friends with people like this? Besides the guy who claims to be a boater yet seems logged into this forum 24-7 and has not had a non-SL post since he joined (be HE is not a troll), I feel like I'm debating with a bunch of leg-breakers. And this behavior is supposed to help you with Concord? I disagree on what the best compromise is, so people are conducting covert operations to find out where I live and calling my home to harass, and you justify such outrageous behavior because I allegedly "have not offered one compromise" (that suits you).
I will say it again. The current law is a perfect compromise between the mayhem we had on this lake up until 2007 and the "Golden Pond" that nobody really wants or expects. It allows boats to go pretty darn fast (up to 45 mph) anywhere on the lake that is not restricted by some other pre-exisiting law, and it leaves almost all of the other lakes open to whatever behavior you guys deem "prudent". That sounds like a pretty fair compromise to me.
You guys want a compromise of the compromise, but that is not compromising, it is taking. The SL law is working just great. I was out on the lake for 6 hours this morning and saw one boat that might have been breaking it. The weather has been great for over 5 weeks straight now, so that is no longer an excuse. Crowds of tourists are back, so that is no excuse. Gas is much lower this year so that is no excuse. You guys simply cannot accept the fact that the SL was a good idea, has worked, and should be made permanent. We will never agree, and I will not suggest some "compromise" to take us back towards the troubles that got us here.
Harass all you want. I'll be back on the lake enjoying the civility in three minutes while you guys sit by your computers calculating my daily boating time to try to disprove it.

Broadhopper, Hope my grammar, text, and phrases were ok.

Elchase, please note I missed a key word and have edited it (and no, it was not a Fruedian slip). You should never be harrassed off line over an internet forum. If you are because of a SL debate, that is pretty disgusting.

Regarding the civility- it is Tuesday last time I checked usually not the busiest day of the week.

The reason that most of us regular runabout boaters take issue with your point of view is that you cannot get past the SL being some panacea that cures all that is bad. Some of the things I saw coming back in from Moultonborough Bay on Sunday headed through the buoys that lead to Suissevale were amazing (in view of MP I might add, but it was so busy that the wiser course of action on his part perhaps was to ignore).

I think more of us than you think could care less about a speed limit because our boats can barely exceed it- we do care that the more important rules need to be enforced and that those enforcement efforts should not suffer because MP is trying to catch the few boats speeding that are capable of doing so. I don't oppose a SL, I oppose the notion that it is going to fix anything.

I don't care what you say- whether a 14 foot jon boat with a 25 or a 7000 lb GFBL runs you over, you will be just as dead. But guess what, if either is a 150' away from me the only way I can be harmed is if he shoots me.

If your true agenda is to rid the lake of large boats, good luck with that. If that happens, the economy of the region will be decimated.

But again, you should NOT be harrassed offline- debated with here, certainly, even heatedly.

Regarding your time on the lake, I think most are envious. I hope you get 1200 hours in, I love seeing people enjoy our lake.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Elchase, please note I missed a key word and have edited it (and no, it was not a Fruedian slip).

Thanks Sir, your correction is noted and appreciated. My comments still hold though for those who gave the original post their "thanks". Maybe it speaks towards just who has been making the calls.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

If your true agenda is to rid the lake of large boats, good luck with that.

I have absolutely no agenda. I only want to preserve the status quo, which has been very civil and enjoyable. Preserving the status quo is the antithesis of an agenda. Those who want to see things go back to or towards the anarchy we had on the lake up until a couple of years ago are the ones with an agenda, and a sorry one, in my view.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

This thread is not your sounding board to oppose changes. You started a supporters thread to do just that. We (opposers) have stayed out of that per the web masters request, respecting what that threads intentions are.

I have stayed away from the opposers thread in respect for the webmaster's directive. He indicated that all threads except the opposers thread and supporters thread were open for both sides to debate. You want a monopoly on all threads except the supporters thread and that was not the rule as I understood, but I will certainly respect that if the moderator changes the directive. Meanwhile, the supporters thread is for people who enjoy the benefits of the current law and want to share their support for and positive anecdotes about it. I understood the opposers thread to be for people who are dissatisfied with the current law and want to share their opposition to and negative anecdotes about it, and suggestions for changing it. You seem to feel that this thread is only for people who are dissatisfied with the current law and want to share their opposition to and negative anecdotes about it, and suggestions for changing it. That to me sounds more like the description of the opposers thread, and I suggest that it is you, Sir, that is in the wrong thread. Who put you in charge?

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I ask the webmaster to assist

So do I.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by elchase

So do I.

All you wish is to get these threads shut down to further your agenda. I have been more the civil in all of my posts although you have baited everyone of them. Trolling gets you no where so you continue to pick a fight...

You have been asked very politely to go elsewhere concerning this thread. I have even suggested you start an argument thread but you continue to banter.

You are not only trolling you are beginning to define Troll...

Why do you continue to cause issues when as you can see people are actually in here trying to compromise? You obviously do not want to compromise so please be gone.

Oh the reason you don't is no one follows you....

You feel the GFB needs attention.. Look in the mirror.

[OCDACTIVE]

So lets get back to what this thread was started for.....

From what I have seen there has been a few specific compromises set forth.

Maybe VTsteve could get a poll going (I am not that great with computers)

1. Current law - Broads unlimited
2. compromised speed:
A. 50 day 30 night
B. 55 day 35 night
C. 65 day 35 night
D. unlimited day 30 night
(I believe I got them all, so I apolgize if I missed one)
3. limits in specific bays only.
4. No limits but keeping current verbage of current law eliminating the specific speed limits.
5. (for supporters) keep as is.
6. Keep Laws in place but unlimited over a specific distance
A. 300 ft
B. 500 ft
C. 1000 ft
7. Unlimited (no limits)

I think after reading back through all the "Non-compromising" posts this is all of them. Please point out if I missed any.

Anyone want to start the comments on what you think are the most plausible?

(and yes EL we know your answer is #5, so no need for comment)

[Just Sold]

Elchase
You have had your 30 seconds and then some and in that time you have driven your point home so deep that it is obvious that others who have posted in this thread and me have been worn out by your continual justification of your view and right to discuss the SL. We have heard you from the 3^rd post of this thread to now.
I respect your right to comment and be a part of this discussion but you have literally worn out your point so that it is now deader than dead. Please take a break and understand Ocdactive is right – let’s get back to what this thread is about – a discussion about compromise as it relates to the SL which you are definitely not in favor of and I know everyone understands that by now.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...(and yes EL we know your answer is #5, so no need for comment)

1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...Anyone want to start the comments on what you think are the most plausible...?"

The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.

[LakeSnake]

If a proposal is going to voted on I suggest that we some how "elect" two proposals in case the most popular gets shot down by the legislature out of the gate for some unforseen reason. Just always good to have a plan B on the ready. I'm not sure how to do that with the forum poll's? Maybe two seperate polls? (I'm out of school on the technical forum stuff)

[NoRegrets]

OCDACTIVE - Nice job at directing the thread to a summary and evaluation process.

How about this for a compromise?

Let the year finish and wait for next year to run its course. Maybe the weather and economy will change and we can collect more statistics we can all argue about.

At the end of that period let the debate start again.

Oh wait, that was what was supposed to happen so it really is not a compromise.

What happened? The process has been hijacked by whom for what benefit?

Now we must compromise to get back on track to an unfinished and agreed upon process.

Maybe we should fight to get back on track – sorry not much of a compromise!

PS. As a long time reader but embarrasing light contributer I really appriciate the effort many of you have done over the years to keep the content and discussions entertaining!

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).


The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.

WOW, I feel honored! APS is giving me credit for my idea of the Winnipesaukee only license! Unless of course, somebody else suggested it too. Today is going to be a good day

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Last I checked, this thread remains open to both sides for comments.

2) My vote (and the votes of ALL of my family, my tenants, and many other lakeside—but unrecognized—tenants) is the same: #5.

(But see below).


The previous suggestion for a reduction in exhaust noise was left off.

A promised reduction of "Exhaust Noise" could go a long way towards getting any compromise through legislation. (If, as opponents have contended, that noise was a factor in WinnFABS' "agenda").

I'll "liberalize" that compromise even more by adding that a boat that is inaudible at six miles distance will be granted unlimited speeds on Winnipesaukee. How about THAT?

Those that fail (and had exceeded 65-MPH) will pay a fee to the NHMP at the rate of $100 per decibel over the present 86dB limit.

A different thread's suggestion of a "Lake Winnipesaukee-only-license" sounds like another valuable piece to add to the compromises previously stated.

IMHO.

APS, appreciate the comments (on both sides) however you can only beat a dead horse so many times... If anyone wants to post new fresh ideas then by all means go for it. Trying to derail the thread by trolling is what I meant by (no comment needed)

I also see you point of decibel levels. You have always been a proponent of sound restrictions. While I do not agree with them, I do recognize your position and applaud you for sticking to it over the years.

I can not speak for other GFBL boaters on the forum, however there are engines that can not go thru hub or under water exhaust. The back pressure would be too much. I have put Gibson Mufflers on my boat that brings the decible level down to "legal" standards on the lake. It used to be MUCH MUCH louder (music to my ears but I can understand not to everyone else on the lake)

What upsets me is I would be more then willing to also install captains call on my boat. Similar to silent choice. It allows for the engine to be further muffled under 2000 RPMS. This works very well when you are near shore, idleing through canals, or starting your boat at the dock. I would be more then happy to use it and still keep my mufflers on. However, our state legislatures, most of whom have never been on a boat, in their infinate wisdom banned switchable exhaust. While I see the other side (you always have that one guy who doesn't run mufflers with switchable) overall the lake would be a much quieter place. I see plenty of boats now that have no mufflers might as well allow switchable exhaust for those of us who will actually use it.

As for a Winni only license... I really don't think it would help the economy or is a realisitic idea. It is fine for those of us who predominently boat there but it could drive new comers away.. IMHO

[4Fun]

I agree with the noise issue. I am a gear head myself but there really is no reason for excessive noise. If you can hear a boat 2 miles away I say it is probably too loud.

I also suggest if GBFL boats were significantly quieter in the past there would be no speed limit today. It's the same with snowmobiles. If the noise is low people ignore them.

[VtSteve]

I like it

I don't mind a little noise. But straight pipes, dry pipes, whatever, is way too much on a small lake. It gets old real fast. Some lakes have banned the Captain's Call/Silent Choice, which is pretty stupid IMO, and defeats the purpose. The reason they did this is that it's a PITA to pull boats over for sound testing. I understand this. Maybe someone can chime in with their thoughts on how to better police this.

For licensing issues. The wonderful little certificate is a good instruction for all boaters, not just newbies. Winni is not the only waterway, so why not make it consistent? People need on the water tests, just as in cars. Perhaps a new business for some enterprising people, perhaps a new revenue stream for the MP. However it's done, another series of common sense procedures would have to be developed in order to accomplish this. Given the bureaucracy that exists everywhere, probably an ETA of around 2-3 years?

I envision someone taking their own boat, or a rental boat, out with an instructor. The applicant would then go through some basic maneuvers and try to pass the test, and more importantly, learn something. There could even be on the water instruction similar in fashion to driver's ed. Before everyone goes all crazy on this, let me finish.
It would cover

Navigation, charts, markers, buoys
Trouble spots, congested areas
NWZ's, bridges, harbors and bays
How to deal with traffic safely, how to plan your moves ahead of time
Best way to navigate through waves, rough water scenarios
Safety in watersports (always high on the list of injuries)
Safety in refueling
Docking, securing the boat properly
Anything else people can think of

This would impact everyone on the lake. The course instruction could be administered through the MP, Power Squadron, whomever. The fees would not only cover costs, but would also be structured to provide revenue for the MP, preferably in their in-between budget times.

I'll leave the details as to how and how much, what happens to boaters that are on the lake and time limits, etc... to people in the MP.

My first choice would be to start this up ASAP, and assign a date that every boater had to complete the course by, say 2011 or so. That would give the powers that be time to fine-tune the administration of the courses and such.

I think it would create safer waterways, more aware boaters, and quite possibly help the MP with their funding issues. I have no problem at all paying an extra $100 a year (just a WAG and not a serious number), towards this type of program. Maybe even factor in a (hire an MP to ride with you in your boat option).

Maybe with the additional ammo in their budget, the MP would also be able to effectively deal with the cowboys on the lake. It could also go a long way towards making all boaters more in tune with the real issues, and perhaps establish better rapport with the MP.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

What upsets me is I would be more then willing to also install captains call on my boat. Similar to silent choice. It allows for the engine to be further muffled under 2000 RPMS. This works very well when you are near shore, idleing through canals, or starting your boat at the dock. I would be more then happy to use it and still keep my mufflers on. However, our state legislatures, most of whom have never been on a boat, in their infinate wisdom banned switchable exhaust. While I see the other side (you always have that one guy who doesn't run mufflers with switchable) overall the lake would be a much quieter place. I see plenty of boats now that have no mufflers might as well allow switchable exhaust for those of us who will actually use it.

Excellent topic. What steps would be needed to get the State to accept Captain's Call? I'll be the first one to step up and get this going. This is really a stupid rule and again shows that these lawmakers have no clue when they vote for these issues. Any suggestions would be welcomed and appreciated. LB

[BroadHopper]

If reducing exhaust noise will help with a reasonable compromise for speed limits, then I am for that. We just need to be reasonable as to how much we want to reduce the noise level. 5 DB sounds reasonable.

I'm not sure about licensing. I don't want to take away more resources from the MP. If the bill contains a clause that pays for this than I am OK with it.

As for raising the speed limit, are there any statistics that says the new limit is safe and reasonable? What is the best speed limit for day and or night? I was thinking if there is an average high speed of all mototrized boats manufactured in the US. We can use that number as a base for discussion. I can't find this information, but it doesn't mean it is out there.

The only reason I don't like the 45/25 numbers is that it is based on another lake. I don't think the legislature should apply it to Winnipesaukee!

[VtSteve]

I prefer not to get back into the speed limit itself. There never was anything factual or statistical to back it up, and several of the biggest proponents finally spit out exactly why they like it and support it. It becomes more of a cultural and philosophical issue, and it's time to move on from that.

It's pretty apparent, once again, that those that really want to have a safe lake, and get this issue over and done with, have many things in common. A very large segment would not oppose sensible noise limits. Most would allow for a slightly modified nigh time speed limit. And most everybody wants to assist in limiting as much as possible dangerous boaters and dangerous activities on the water. Most everyone would approve anything that got the MP what they need to do it. (this does not mean putting more boats on the water and throwing money at it).

I think an association of boaters should be formed that can act as the liaison between the Dept. of Safety and boaters. While it's nice that one very detailed response was posted to the board, many other complaints that cannot be whisked away will never be answered. Community groups have been interfacing with LEO's for many years. Why not a lake group? No, not the blowhard group with myopic agenda and culture wars). A real group that actually points out real issues and trouble spots. Develop some rapport between the community and the MP.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I think an association of boaters should be formed that can act as the liaison between the Dept. of Safety and boaters.

How about the gfbl's restart the engine on the NH Recreational Boater's Assn, and get its' website up and running again?


You know that for the last 35 years the NH Marine Trades Assn was a very successfull liason between a number of boat & marina businesses and some of the state legislators. The Marine Trades Assn made lots of political contributions in the range of 100-200-300, and a few in the 500-1000 dollar range to some of NH's 400 state reps and 24 state senators..

That liason system used to work just fine! What happened?

[VtSteve]

I'm talking about real discussion between the boaters and those that patrol them Less, not politics. There's absolutely no good information coming from the other group now, but I'll bet they're rubbing noses in Concord.

Many lake areas have boating clubs that have very strong connections with the LEO's on their waterways, and generate strong support through membership awareness, education, and full support of both the LEO's and the boaters at large. They're designed to answer and help resolve problems.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

If reducing exhaust noise will help with a reasonable compromise for speed limits, then I am for that. We just need to be reasonable as to how much we want to reduce the noise level. 5 DB sounds reasonable...

To make a reasoanble dent in the noise issue, I think you need a DB limit, but you also need an instant and simple measurement. Right now it's hard to make valid measuremnts and a lot of people just ignore the law.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by jrc

To make a reasoanble dent in the noise issue, I think you need a DB limit, but you also need an instant and simple measurement. Right now it's hard to make valid measuremnts and a lot of people just ignore the law.

Is that still true ? I thought there was a change to the dB testing that allows the officer to put a meter to the boat while at the dock. If the reading is too high a citation can be issued or a summons for the more formal test.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...0/270-37-a.htm

270:37-a Stationary Sound Level Testing Authorized. –
I. The director or the director's agent may use stationary sound level testing to determine marine engine noise levels for boats. Such testing shall be conducted while boats are stationary on the water according to test SAE J2005.
II. Noise levels in decibels for stationary sound level testing shall be established for a specific distance between the boat tested and the testing device, at levels which correlate with noise levels in decibels, as set forth in RSA 270:37.
III. Testing procedures for stationary sound level testing shall be measured according to procedures established pursuant to rules adopted under RSA 270:39.
IV. Any test conducted pursuant to this section shall be sufficient to establish a violation of RSA 270:37.
Source. 1989, 143:6, eff. May 17, 1989. 2006, 234:3, eff. June 1, 2006.

[4Fun]

Here's a comprimise. Ban all GFBL boats but allow GFBQ boats.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by 4Fun

Here's a comprimise. Ban all GFBL boats but allow GFBQ boats.

Can't be done... As I had mentioned there are performance issues. Even if I wanted to go underwater exhaust I couldn't. There are many boats like mine. However I am below the legal limits so it shouldn't bother you. Yes I do like the noise, but I am not oblivious to those around me that may not (including some of my own family members) so that is why I would love to install captains call to lower them even further.

[Woodsy]

I had ALOT of reading to catch up on! Darn being busy at work! LOL!

The original "COMPROMISE" to HB-847 was the 2 year "Sunset Clause" inserted into the bill to allow the NHMP to collect data on the enforcement of a speed limit from a practical "hands on" point of view. Is the speed limit necessary? How difficult is it to write a ticket? Do they hold up in court? Cost of enforcement? Cost of training? Etc...

WinnFabs has jumped the gun a bit (in poor taste I might add) by attempting to have HB-847 made into permanent law before the second year of data collection even begins. The NHMP would not even get a chance to compile and evaluate the data from this year (summer ‘09) prior to a legislative vote on HB-847! If anything they should have asked for (and been granted) a 1 year extension of the ‘Sunset Clause”. This idea was actually floated by the NHMP.

The problem I have with this is the same problem I had with the first go around…. SHOW ME THE DATA! No hard facts at all yet exist about the pros and cons of HB-847! But here we are debating if HB-847 the same way people debate if ghosts exist or not! No data or hard facts that ghosts exist, yet the debate rages!

In the spirit of compromise I started this thread. I still think a compromise can be worked out, but it will need input from both sides and the NHMP as they are the ones tasked with enforcement. It is really easy to sit back and write a law and task someone else with enforcing it. The problems arise when it comes down to actually enforcing the law.

I do kind of agree with Bear Islander on a couple of things… I think that a compromise can and SHOULD be worked out, and I think that anybody should BE SAFE canoeing or kayaking anywhere on the lake. Notice I said BE SAFE and not FEEL SAFE. There is a huge difference between the two. I think canoeists and kayakers WERE SAFE before the advent of HB-847. The accident statistics for NH prove this. We have no data that suggests even remotely that canoeists and kayakers are any safer now.

If it were up to Camp Directors, (in their perfect world) nobody else would be using the lake at the same time as the children. However that’s not the case. They have to SHARE the lake with everyone else, just like everyone else. The right of the children to be on the lake does not trump the rights of others to be on the lake. It is the job of the Camp Director to insure the safety of the children. I think that a child getting run over by any boat at any speed is a concern (and it very well should be a concern), I would be more concerned about the children in canoes kayaks & sailfish getting swamped or capsized by a huge wake. No child at any Children’s Camp on Lake Winnipesaukee has EVER been run over by a speeding boat! I am sure that swamping and capsizing due to large wakes (and the resultant injuries) is much more common occurrence.

To sum it all up…

I think the NHMP do a great job with the funding they are given. Yet we still see Capt. Bonehead driving every type of boat. Greater funding so that NHMP can mount “fly the flag” patrols in the congested areas more often. Nothing calms the waters like a NHMP boat just sitting there waiting to pounce! More NHMP patrols will mean more Capt. Boneheads stopped for other violations. Noise, 150’ rule etc…. Not too sure of where the funding should come from especially considering power boaters were just hit with an increase. I have a few ideas but they can be saved for another thread.

I think a statewide night time limit is without question a necessity. Night is when most of the serious accidents occur. I think 25 MPH is too slow and it adversely impacted lots of people. People can debate the number till the cows come home but my vote is for 30 MPH… it gives you leeway to 35 or so before you are in any real trouble with the NHMP.

I think a daytime limit is a waste of time… your visibility is measured in MILES! However, in the spirit of compromise my vote would be for a 65 MPH limit. This allows 99% of the boaters to use their boats as they wish. There are a handful of boats that can exceed 65, but no doubt they will limit their activities to the Broads as they do now.

You cannot have different speeds for different places… it becomes an enforcement nightmare for the NHMP. (Boater: I was past the appropriate marker when I was doing 65… NHMP: No you weren’t, from my point of view you were still behind it) It creates a he said-she said with no clearly delineated position. This option was bantered about during the original HB-162 debates and the NHMP was not at all interested.

Noise is an issue, and I think the noise laws should be strictly enforced! (See NHMP Funding above) Captains Call exhaust should be legal as long as you can pass the sound test BOTH ways (loud and quiet)!

Woodsy

[Rattlesnake Guy]

This post is not for or against APS comment on not hearing a boat at a distance of 6 miles. After doing a bit of refresher on the non linear function of sound I have prepared a chart that shows the sound you would expect a boat that is just at the 82dB state level.

Although the decay of sound over distance is one that requires little debate as it is well known, the effect of reflections could be debatable. It comes down to what the concept of "not be able to hear" means. A boat at the current law of 82dB at a distance of 50 feet would be expected to be about 27 dB at 6 miles. About the sound of your refrigerator or a quiet computer fan.

[jrc]

OCD, there are cost, performance and noise tradeoffs. Within reason you can have the same power with less noise by spending more. But that also adds weight so you loose useful performance. All this just makes tuning the boat more interesting.

The problem with noisy boats is that the exhaust and noise points the wrong way. In order to get a nice strong sound for the driver, people behind the boat have to deal with rediculous noise.

I know the law has change with regards to measuring, but I still don't see any enforcement. I was in the Weirs channel behind a boat this spring and at idle I could not hear people talking in my boat.

The MP need a sound gun. You point it at the boat, it measures the noise and distance, calculates the effective sound and presto, pass or fail.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by jrc

OCD, there are cost, performance and noise tradeoffs. Within reason you can have the same power with less noise by spending more. But that also adds weight so you loose useful performance. All this just makes tuning the boat more interesting.

The problem with noisy boats is that the exhaust and noise points the wrong way. In order to get a nice strong sound for the driver, people behind the boat have to deal with rediculous noise.

I know the law has change with regards to measuring, but I still don't see any enforcement. I was in the Weirs channel behind a boat this spring and at idle I could not hear people talking in my boat.

The MP need a sound gun. You point it at the boat, it measures the noise and distance, calculates the effective sound and presto, pass or fail.

I do agree with you that it can be done at a price. I did put on some of the heavier / costly mufflers. They have no moving parts so that it does not cause unnecessary back flow, however they do keep the sound below the legal limits. The only issue is that they stick out close to 18 inches and almost got in the way of my hydro steering.

What I am driving at is it can be done to current standards, however it can become very difficult if not impossible to go lower based on manufactoring standards.

I agree we need more enforcement, but I disagree that nothing is being done. I have seen 2 times in the past year that people were questioned due to their pipes. (not my boat) but I was in one that was.

Also, in one case they were sent to have it tested.

Somewhat ironic however, one testing element is to go by a dock at full throttle with an MP officer in your boat while it is being measured at the dock.
Why measure at full throttle if it is over 45mph?

Isn't that Nonapplicable now?

[NoRegrets]

I am not sure about this year but 3 years ago a friend was stopped for noise and had to go over to Guilford for a sound test. The MP was polite and set up an appointment for the following Saturday.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

This post is not for or against APS comment on not hearing a boat at a distance of 6 miles. After doing a bit of refresher on the non linear function of sound I have prepared a chart that shows the sound you would expect a boat that is just at the 82dB state level.

Although the decay of sound over distance is one that requires little debate as it is well known, the effect of reflections could be debatable. It comes down to what the concept of "not be able to hear" means. A boat at the current law of 82dB at a distance of 50 feet would be expected to be about 27 dB at 6 miles. About the sound of your refrigerator or a quiet computer fan.

That's the trouble with the measurement of sound: The boat I hear at six miles is certainly not making the sound of my computer's fan! Nearly all boats in the offending category continue to make their distinctive noise even when passing behind either Rattlesnake Island and Welch Island!

When it comes to noise, anyone lakeside can readily detect the "sympathetic vibrations" occurring in a sundeck's wood platform made by the passing "legal" noisemaker.

"Noise" needs to be tightened up on this lake—not "readjusted" by the commercial interests responsible for our present dilemma.

IMHO.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...In the spirit of compromise I started this thread. I still think a compromise can be worked out..."

Why can't I call this the "Woodsy-Compromise"?

If you're selling an item for $200, and I make an offer of $100. "You say, 'in the spirit of compromise' let's make it $225".

What "tweaking" of 45/25 results in the compromises that we've been seeing on these pages? "A Compromise" would be 75/15!

(Try getting that one passed)

BTW: One sensible compromise would be to permit "Unlimited speeds" everywhere on the Lake between Labor Day and Memorial Day.

(Many could "live" with that one!)

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...The problem I have with this is the same problem I had with the first go around…. SHOW ME THE DATA! No hard facts at all yet exist about the pros and cons of HB-847! But here we are debating if HB-847 the same way people debate if ghosts exist or not! No data or hard facts that ghosts exist, yet the debate rages...!"

I have no difficulty refuting ghosts, but too often I perceive that some "drivers" don't pay attention to what lies directly in front of them. (Namely, my boat!)

While trying not to sound like Clint Eastwood, I ask myself, " Do I feel lucky today?"

Unfortunately, the answer would be "yes": It is only through luck that I can boat safely. I perceive that my luck has increased, mostly because fewer opportunities for mischief exist this season.

This year, while I perceive boating traffic is 'way down from last year, I've managed to make myself safer through pro-active warnings. I'm also perceiving that the vast majority of boats are observing the new speed regulation during the daylight hours. (At least when I'm out there observing—I currently have a houseful of guests).

One missed opportunity to collect DATA occurred late Tuesday evening, when I announced to the gathering of my clan outdoors at our BBQ dinner:

"Something noisy and bad is approaching".

The reverberations of the sundeck that alerted me were caused by an all-white ~48' GFBL (at about 60-MPH), which appeared to be a brand-new design.

It drove noisily past the four families who rent this neighborhood's newest lakefront cottages, and pulled a stunt directly in front of my own gathering.

I don't think I've ever seen such a stunt pulled by something so large, so fast, and so noisy. It silenced all lakefront discussions in my neighborhood while engaged in starting a "donut" directly in front us! When I thought he was going to do a 180º and turn back, he completed a 270º at high speed, slowed and "parked" at our newest McMansion—A stunt worthy of a Jet-Ski!

No supporters of a compromise were made that evening!

Maybe "Opponents" can figure out who your own worst enemies truly are.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Notice I said BE SAFE and not FEEL SAFE. There is a huge difference between the two. I think canoeists and kayakers WERE SAFE before the advent of HB-847. The accident statistics for NH prove this...We have no data that suggests even remotely that canoeists and kayakers are any safer now..."

1) "Stats" are collected for collisions over $2000: How many kayaks are exempted from "stats" by a $2000 threshhold? (An "exact" number, please).

Hmmm. Could it be every last one of them is going uncounted?

2) Today, many are hugging the shoreline untill they perceive the necessity to cross to other shorelines.

3) Just minutes before RG Gal and RG Guy arrived here on the 20th, I watched a kayaker skirt a large group of young kids swimming about 150' from shore. She (the kayaker) gave them another 100' without a thought of any danger to herself—and why should she?

4) Seen the latest fashion statement in kayaking?

A kayaking neighbor (from Camp Ossipee) showed up this month with a flourescent orange hat with flourescent orange paddles. What is it, do you suppose, he "feels"?

IF, as you say, "you can see for miles", why would a kayaker try to look like an endangered roadside worker?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...I would be more concerned about the children in canoes kayaks & sailfish getting swamped or capsized by a huge wake..."

Canoes and kayaks are growing in numbers, but the Sailfish have disappeared. Although Sailfish can still be fabricated by the DIY-er, I haven't seen one on this lake in decades.

Alton's "Camp Kabeyun" has the Sailfish's successor, the Sunfish—a much safer and even more visible boat. But even that camp's boats and kids are still endangered by "drivers" who operate irresponsibly using tons of iron, steel, and fiberglass.

For another matter, why attempt to demonize cruisers (or those super-wakemakers, MP-11 and MP-7 boats) to benefit the GFBL "image"? Does a 27' BAJA towing a raft or wake-boarder on this lake make no wake?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...To sum it all up…I think the NHMP do a great job with the funding they are given...Nothing calms the waters like a NHMP boat just sitting there waiting to pounce!

They're not in front of my place in the numbers of last year—and they're certainly not pouncing!

So just where are they gathering data? It's not here!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Many could "live" with that one!)




One missed opportunity to collect DATA occurred late Tuesday evening, when I announced to the gathering of my clan outdoors at our BBQ dinner:




The reverberations of the sundeck that alerted me were caused by an all-white ~48' GFBL (at about 60-MPH), which appeared to be a brand-new design.

It drove noisily past the four families who rent this neighborhood's newest lakefront cottages, and pulled a stunt directly in front of my own gathering.

I don't think I've ever seen such a stunt pulled by something so large, so fast, and so noisy. It silenced all lakefront discussions in my neighborhood while engaged in starting a "donut" directly in front us! When I thought he was going to do a 180º and turn back, he completed a 270º at high speed, slowed and "parked" at our newest McMansion—A stunt worthy of a Jet-Ski!

No supporters of a compromise were made that evening!

Maybe "Opponents" can figure out who your own worst enemies truly are.



For another matter, why attempt to demonize cruisers (or those super-wakemakers, MP-11 and MP-7 boats) to benefit the GFBL "image"? Does a 27' BAJA towing a raft or wake-boarder on this lake make no wake?


They're not in front of my place in the numbers of last year—and they're certainly not pouncing!

So just where are they gathering data? It's not here!

You must certainly have loved our discussions of the dangerous boaters, the Boneheads, even from last year. And yes, I agree, peer pressure should come from those that "Should" realize who their worst enemies are. Same as always.

How about that enforcement?

Most of us don't condone that type of activity APS. I know for sure that, strictly speaking for myself, I'm as always as careful as I can be out in large sections of water, so as not to get complacent. I spotted a rowboat while on the Mount last Saturday. He was about a mile and a half East of Glendale in the open water. A kayak would have been much harder to see. I worry about things like that, so I'm overly cautious. But if the day ever comes when I can't see a sailboat from afar, I'll hang up my boat keys for good (or check into Lasix)

Believe it or not APS, many of us aren't that far off in what we want, and how careful we are. Certainly, there are differences in perspective, but not the reality. I think you'd be surprised at how cautious and responsible most of the SL opponents are on this board. I for one, know that my eyes couldn't keep up (safely), with an 80 mph boat anymore. I also know that when I was a little guy, I had the common sense not to row or paddle in the middle of the lake.

Somewhere in the middle, lies true wisdom.

[Kracken]

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

LOL,,,, Best not get him started... He does fine without egging him on.

[Kracken]

I am not trying to get him started I was just curious if that was the boat.

If I was trying to rile him up I would point out a 25 foot boat would actually be responsible for 1.6 acres.

For a 25 foot boat to be responsible for an acre then we would have to change the 150 rule to a 117 foot 6 inch rule.

OK so it’s a slow day at work.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

That's funny, because this boat has a quiet exhaust set-up and is extremely quiet. In fact, at idle, you can hardly hear it. As far as the reverberations APS heard ? He should stay away from gaseous type foods.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Acres,

Was the boat that made reverberations through your sundeck this one?

I saw this boat today, it's about 50' long, and was roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin with a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feeling of being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by pm203

That's funny, because this boat has a quiet exhaust set-up and is extremely quiet. In fact, at idle, you can hardly hear it. As far as the reverberations APS heard ? He should stay away from gaseous type foods.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I saw this boat today, about 50', roaring past Governor's Island. It's huge and has an enclosed cabin wih a sunshine roof, just like an expensive car. Could be it even has air conditioning and heat.


Small boats give you a feelng a being close to the water. Large boats with huge noisy engines give you a feeling of detachment from the water. It's was so big and fast that it was like in a totally different league than all the other nearby boats. A good one for Arnold in a"Terminator" movie....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Like the differance between an F-18 fighter jet, and a little Piper Cub airplane......totally different league......and another reason why the legislature and governor are likely to revisit the 45-25 speed limit.

Amazing. Is that boat in a "Totally different League" or what? So is the boat huge and noisy or can you hardly hear it? Not many boats I've ever seen with closed canopies are quiet, but maybe some are. So Less, what's the crime today? Was he Detached from the water? Do you think his Karma is not good enough for yours? Maybe we could have a law that measures the closeness a boat is to the water.

[OCDACTIVE]

Hey guys,

I think we are having two discussions here. Maybe I should start a thread Sound Levels in relation to SL. That might help focus our attention on the SL themselves.

I think this is also where a lot of "gray area" occurs. Many people have no problem with boats that go fast, they have an issue with the noise the can make. If that is the case I would like to hear from supporters of the speed limit (in that thread that sound is there major issue not limits)

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by elchase

My comments still hold though for those who gave the original post their "thanks". Maybe it speaks towards just who has been making the calls.

I have been trying to ignore you, but you troll better than I am able to ignore. For the record, my thanks was for adding the bold-ed word "NOT" and it was added after 3:00 PM today. It was not for the original post. I do not support any illegal actions or threats. In the future, please refrain from changing the intend of anything I say.

You really are a piece of work and do everything you can to stir things up. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why you are still able to post, since you add no value to the subject discussion of this thread while breaking at least a few of the forum rules.

Please, get yourself a life!

You are now back on ignore, so do not bother replying.

R2B.