What Speed Limit ????????

[Kracken]

Yosemite Sam,

Define GFB

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Yosemite Sam,

Define GFB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-fast_boat

"The dance or go-fast boat or van witsen is a high performance boat of a characteristic design. Originally designed for offshore powerboat racing team by Donald Aronow, the fast, powerful boats became notorious as the drug smuggling boat of choice in many parts of the world starting in the 1980s. These boats were used at first to smuggle cigarettes into Canada and therefore derived their nickname as the "cigarette boat". A company was formed later and trademarked the actual name "cigarette" as the preferred sea vehicle among the elite."

OCDACTIVE has a typical low end GFB.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-fast_boat

"The dance or go-fast boat or van witsen is a high performance boat of a characteristic design. Originally designed for offshore powerboat racing team by Donald Aronow, the fast, powerful boats became notorious as the drug smuggling boat of choice in many parts of the world starting in the 1980s. These boats were used at first to smuggle cigarettes into Canada and therefore derived their nickname as the "cigarette boat". A company was formed later and trademarked the actual name "cigarette" as the preferred sea vehicle among the elite."

OK. So Don Arronow have design boats for Magnum, Apache, Cigarette, Donzi, Formula and Eastern boats. The MP Enforcers are Eastern boats. So that means the MPs have GF boats. No wonder the Marine Patrol don't want the speed limits! They will have to buy new boats!

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-fast_boat

"The dance or go-fast boat or van witsen is a high performance boat of a characteristic design. Originally designed for offshore powerboat racing team by Donald Aronow, the fast, powerful boats became notorious as the drug smuggling boat of choice in many parts of the world starting in the 1980s. These boats were used at first to smuggle cigarettes into Canada and therefore derived their nickname as the "cigarette boat". A company was formed later and trademarked the actual name "cigarette" as the preferred sea vehicle among the elite."

OCDACTIVE has a typical low end GFB.

Told my old man who is 85 years young that the SL supporters wants to ban his 23' Eastern center console because it is considered a GF boat (Aronow designed). I have never seen him so smoking in decades! That's the price he will have to pay for sitting on the fence all these years.

I can see it now. Babe Gagnon of Silver Sands is going to be very busy filling Fountain orders when everyone who owns Aronow designed boats trade in. Fountains are designed by Reggie and not considered GFBL.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Told my old man who is 85 years young that the SL supporters wants to ban his 23' Eastern center console because it is considered a GF boat (Aronow designed). I have never seen him so smoking in decades! That's the price he will have to pay for sitting on the fence all these years.

I can see it now. Babe Gagnon of Silver Sands is going to be very busy filling Fountain orders when everyone who owns Aronow designed boats trade in. Fountains are designed by Reggie and not considered GFBL.

Don't you think you are getting a little carried away here? You guys are creating a chicken little "the sky is falling!!!" controversy where there isn't one.

Nobody wants to ban 23' center console boats. And I am unaware of any serious effort to ban GFBL's of any kind. We are only debating a SPEED LIMIT. A limit that the majority of power boats on the lake are capable of violating.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

How many times do I have to point out to you that THERE WAS NO SPEED LIMIT LAW IN EFFECT IN 2008?!?!? You keep telling us and telling us and telling us how civilized the lake was last year (2008) and I keep pointing out to you that there was no speed limit in effect in 2008!! HB-847 was introduced, voted on and signed by the governor in 2008, WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JAN. 1, 2009 to sunset on Jan. 1, 2011!!

So, if Lake Winnipesaukee was really so calm and civilized in 2008 AND there was no speed limit law in effect, we can only deduce that the current speed limit law really IS just a FEEL GOOD LAW because IT WAS NOT IN EFFECT IN 2008 and from everything I've read in your posts, you were still overjoyed with the so-called "results" in 2008!!!!

Elchase and his kind are not interested in facts, they appear to be disappointed that Lake Winnipesaukee was safe before speed limits and Lake Winnipesaukee continues to be safe today! I am going to reduce the amount of posts I write about this topic because it just feeds the beast, but I have changed my signature to quote a portion of an August 2009 Press Release issued by the NH Department of Safety to remind everyone that speed limits are not needed, the speed limits is a feel good law that costs the Marine Patrol time and money, and speed limits should be sunsetted!

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

you are one of the SL supporters that are actually here to debate without attacking everyone...

Ironically, this sounds like an attack on someone (I wonder who?). Stop attacking if you don't like to be attacked. What purpose did that statement have on a forum for people to post their opinions on a speed limit? What did it tell us about the SL? Stop getting personal.
[QUOTE=OCDACTIVE;111386]...little razzing...
And stop always trolling then trying to cover it by saying "I'm just razzing". It fools nobody. You are one of the biggest trolls here and everyone outside your little cult knows it.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

...I don't engage troublemakers or trolls

Yes you do, you do it with comments just like that one that you think have been disguised. But nobody is fooled. So stop being a trouble maker and a troll with these very transparent pokes. What did you gain for your cause with that statement? How it it add materially to this debate? Nobody else has been trolling or trying to make trouble. Try to take the high road. Your game of playing the nice guy while taking shots has gotten very old. But of course you will not see this because you have me on ignore (ya right).

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

So the SL supporters consider my little 22' 1988 Formula as a GFBL boat.

Who said? How would we even know? Have you told us how fast it goes or how loud it is? Tell us more about your boat if you want us to help you decide whether it is a GFBL. And stop telling us what "the SL supporters think" and tell us what you think. You had that one good civil post then went right back into the gutter.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Just what is exactly a GFBL boat?????

Originally Posted by Kracken

Define GFB

You guys really don't know? Come on...Sure you do. Its a boat that can Go Fast and Be Loud. You guys tell us that less than 2% of the boats on the lake can do over 45, so let's say those 2% are Go Fast boats. How fast can your boats go? How loud are they?

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

How many times do I have to point out to you that THERE WAS NO SPEED LIMIT LAW IN EFFECT IN 2008?!?!? ...... ... ......

Don't get so mad, it was just a slip. I'm surprised you couldn't see that. When I said "last year", I obviously was referring to last summer...of '09. Sorry I got you so upset. Now please calm down and think about last summer and what a wonderful one it was on Winnipesaukee without all the speeding about and associated dangers. That will soothe you.

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

I guess I fit into that catagory (according to you anyway) so I won't post anymore on Winnipesaukee Forum.See Ya

Sam, Don't let them do this to you. They almost did it to me. Stay the course. You are doing great. They chase supporter after supporter off these threads. Don't become another victim. We are enjoying your logical points of view. Please keep them coming.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Elchase and his kind are not interested in facts,

Haven't your parents put a block on your computer yet? Go back to the illegal fishing thread where you belong. Every time you post all anyone thinks about is the fool you made of yourself there. The adults are trying to have a civilized discussion here. Please go trolling somewhere else.

I was in Concord today. Met up with a buddy who is chairman of one of the House Committees. You guys would be amazed to know how many of our legislators are eavesdropping on this forum...and how badly you guys are coming off. You are blowing a great opportunity to make your case. While some of us are posting informatively about the dangers of high-speed boating...giving graphic examples of what happens when a boat going too fast plows into another, showing how often such accidents occur and how often they are fatal, you guys waste your posts doing nothing except complaining about those who disagree with you. Then I come home and read this stuff. You insult the grammar mistakes, the religious beliefs, the age, and everything else you can find out about a SL supporter, but you provide nary a single bit of evidence that multi-ton boats going at breakneck speeds on a crowded lake is not dangerous. It would really do you guys a lot of good to get back on topic and stop all the garbage.

[VtSteve]

I'm sure the smart legislators would have followed the posted links, just like I did. Upon reading the links, and any followups linked from there, they must be scratching their heads, wondering how in heck they got conned into such a legislation.

If they truly do read these threads, they must know by now that many of us that actually bring up actual events that seem to require enforcement, are so pillared by those that support the speed limit. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but some of the recent vindictiveness started after I posted a followup to a link posted by a SL supporter. I'm not even sure if they read the stories before they posted it. If an in depth discussion of all the posted articles on boat accidents was allowed, somewhere, my guess is that many of the SL supporters would not be interested in such a discussion.

We all want to be safe on the water and have a good time. We all know there are problems on the water, and there always will be. So some of us try to look at what's really happening, see the truth, and decide from there.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by elchase:

Haven't your parents put a block on your computer yet? Go back to the illegal fishing thread where you belong. Every time you post all anyone thinks about is the fool you made of yourself there. The adults are trying to have a civilized discussion here. Please go trolling somewhere else.

To quote your comrade in arms, Sunset on the Dock:

Fairly predictable, not terribly cerebral...if you don't like the message, call the messenger a troll.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by elchase

"...Sam, Don't let them do this to you...Stay the course. You are doing great...They chase supporter after supporter off these threads. Don't become another victim. We are enjoying your logical points of view. Please keep them coming..."

Oh NO!

Sam, you have contributed so much knowledge to this forum, you can't just up-and-leave. Everyone makes spelling errors, and such criticism has no place at a forum of ideas!

I hope my PM to you—and to a handful of other Supporters—didn't enter into this extreme outcome. It was meant only for us Supporters to quit the SL forum!

In the meantime, I think a full-dozen Opponents need to express their apologies—in full!
|
|
|

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Don't you think you are getting a little carried away here? You guys are creating a chicken little "the sky is falling!!!" controversy where there isn't one.

Nobody wants to ban 23' center console boats. And I am unaware of any serious effort to ban GFBL's of any kind. We are only debating a SPEED LIMIT. A limit that the majority of power boats on the lake are capable of violating.

Bear Islander it is good to have you back.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the "Majority" of the boats are capable of violating the Speed Limit. If we want to split hairs here, I guess you could say that. My boat is "capable" of breaking the law but it takes many factors to attain that feat. I outlined it in a prior post. Half tank of gas empty of passengers with a tailwind. I would argue that many of the boats that can "violate the limit" can only do so under perfect conditions as outlined above. I would hardly think that these are the people we are talking about anyway. The subject of this debate is and has always been targeted at the so named GFBL boats. Not my bowrider that is technically "capable" of breaking the limit.

FYI - I do not believe we will be banning any 23 foot center consoles... Yet. ha ha ha. As I said in another post we really don't know what could be next. Swim Caps? No Kayaking in the Broads? No Sailing at Night? Headlight Use on Boats? Give em an inch and.... Well you know the rest.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander it is good to have you back.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the "Majority" of the boats are capable of violating the Speed Limit. If we want to split hairs here, I guess you could say that. My boat is "capable" of breaking the law but it takes many factors to attain that feat. I outlined it in a prior post. Half tank of gas empty of passengers with a tailwind. I would argue that many of the boats that can "violate the limit" can only do so under perfect conditions as outlined above. I would hardly think that these are the people we are talking about anyway. The subject of this debate is and has always been targeted at the so named GFBL boats. Not my bowrider that is technically "capable" of breaking the limit.

FYI - I do not believe we will be banning any 23 foot center consoles... Yet. ha ha ha. As I said in another post we really don't know what could be next. Swim Caps? No Kayaking in the Broads? No Sailing at Night? Headlight Use on Boats? Give em an inch and.... Well you know the rest.

I think each law or proposed law should be evaluated at face value. To say that the SL is the first in a long line of laws is misdirection. Any future laws would need to go through the full legislative process. The legislature is not going to rubber stamp a swim cap law or GFBL ban just because they already passed the SL. It doesn't work that way and we all know it.

Why don't we argue the SL as it is written and not pretent it is more than it actually is. Telling an 85 year old man that his center console is about to be banned is hype, not reality.

The nighttime speed limit is 25mph. Most power boats on the lake can go faster than that. Therefore most power boats CAN violate the SL.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think each law or proposed law should be evaluated at face value. To say that the SL is the first in a long line of laws is misdirection. Any future laws would need to go through the full legislative process. The legislature is not going to rubber stamp a swim cap law or GFBL ban just because they already passed the SL. It doesn't work that way and we all know it.

Why don't we argue the SL as it is written and not pretent it is more than it actually is. Telling an 85 year old man that his center console is about to be banned is hype, not reality.

The nighttime speed limit is 25mph. Most power boats on the lake can go faster than that. Therefore most power boats CAN violate the SL.

Hey B.I. good to have your logic back on the boards... While I disagree with you from an ideological standpoint you are always very clear on your posts.

I think he was originally just trying to prove a point that we maybe on the virge of a slippery slope. Once the SL goes into effect whats next? It has been stated that the SL is just the beginning by more then a few supporters. That this is just a start on an overall agenda of banning particular types of boats.

While I agree that the 23 ft center consol will not be on the chopping block anytime soon, I see what his point was.

Once we begin to infringe on our freedoms by enacting laws to restrict personal liberties where does it end?

[jmen24]

If the legislature has members that read this forum and are eating what is being fed to them by the extremist supporters, then they should have realized by now that the next election will not fair well for them.

In my opinion, these are the last people that I want making laws in my state, and my campaign has been underway to remove people like this from office for awhile now.

Tell your buddy at the state house the voters are coming and this law is only one of the foolish things that they have done to bring this upon themselves.

I personnally believe that the citizens should be the ones voting on the bills being created in the state house, not the creators of the bills. But what do I know, I am just a tax paying, resident native of this state that has many friends of a similar feather.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by jmen24

If the legislature has members that read this forum and are eating what is being fed to them by the extremist supporters, then they should have realized by now that the next election will not fair well for them.

In my opinion, these are the last people that I want making laws in my state, and my campaign has been underway to remove people like this from office for awhile now.

Tell your buddy at the state house the voters are coming and this law is only one of the foolish things that they have done to bring this upon themselves.

I personnally believe that the citizens should be the ones voting on the bills being created in the state house, not the creators of the bills. But what do I know, I am just a tax paying, resident native of this state that has many friends of a similar feather.

Many of the politicians who voted against HB-162 were in fact voted out of office. As far as HB-462 goes, maybe you should be thankful that the citizens of NH aren't the ones voting if you keep in mind their overwhelming support for a SL in the ARG poll (unless you feel we should exclude voters from Salem). We hear about our so called loss of freedoms and liberty in regards to HB-847 but in fact many of the lake's residents who support limits have felt a loss of some of their freedoms and liberties (i.e. freedom to enjoy peaceful recreation) and that's what was behind the push for these bills.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Many of the politicians who voted against HB-162 were in fact voted out of office. As far as HB-462 goes, maybe you should be thankful that the citizens of NH aren't the ones voting if you keep in mind their overwhelming support for a SL in the ARG poll (unless you feel we should exclude voters from Salem). We hear about our so called loss of freedoms and liberty in regards to HB-462 but in fact many of the lake's residents who support limits have felt a loss of some of their freedoms and liberties (i.e. freedom to enjoy peaceful recreation) and that's what was behind the push for these bills.

But Sunset, who paid for the poll. Look a poll has to be paid for by someone, I think we are all smart enough to know that any poll, not just this one is not an equal playing field. While I will agree with you that most of society are sheep when it comes to voting and having an opinion on a subject. But with a vote that is passed on to the citizens, each side has an equal opportunity to present their case (media has to allow equal time). You do not have that with a poll.

I do have one question based on your response. Is it the Lake's residents or the states residents that are pushing for freedom to enjoy the state's lake? Not all lake residents are state residents. I know, I know, the "poll" said the state agreed.

[gtagrip]

it's funny how in many of El's posts that he claims the majority of the boats on the lake or the boater's on this forum are GFBL owners. I think this is his way of pulling over the wool of the legislatures eyes in his many posts to which he is pandering to. One would hope that they are smarter than that!

As we all know, this is how legislature(for which most probably do not or may not have ever boated on the lake)were dooped into this SL law in the first place.

Is the legislature going to take a "field trip" to the lake to see exactly what type of boats make up the majority of boating on the lake? Probably not. So the propaganda is going to continue.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

it's funny how in many of El's posts that he claims the majority of the boats on the lake or the boater's on this forum are GFBL owners. I think this is his way of pulling over the wool of the legislatures eyes in his many posts to which he is pandering to. One would hope that they are smarter than that!

As we all know, this is how legislature(for which most probably do not or may not have ever boated on the lake)were dooped into this SL law in the first place.

Is the legislature going to take a "field trip" to the lake to see exactly what type of boats make up the majority of boating on the lake? Probably not. So the propaganda is going to continue.

I think you're being a bit sensational here. State legislators weren't dooped(sic) into anything. A lot of people for a long time could see the trend over the last 20 years where the lake was becoming more and more out of control on many levels. Many of the people in the lake's region had been trying to improve the situation for a long time and gave Winnfabs their support, wrote their legislators, went to hearings, and sent letters to the editor. All any legislator has to do is be alive to know about Winnipesaukee's reputation. People from all over comment all the time on the lake's cowboy reputation. People on other lakes in other states have acted accordingly for a better lake experience and fortunately their legislators listened too. I can't imagine that people made such a fuss about loss of liberty, wool being pulled over legislator's eyes, etc. when speed limits on roads were enacted.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I think you're being a bit sensational here. State legislators weren't dooped(sic) into anything. A lot of people for a long time could see the trend over the last 20 years where the lake was becoming more and more out of control on many levels. Many of the people in the lake's region had been trying to improve the situation for a long time and gave Winnfabs their support, wrote their legislators, went to hearings, and sent letters to the editor. All any legislator has to do is be alive to know about Winnipesaukee's reputation. People from all over comment all the time on the lake's cowboy reputation. People on other lakes in other states have acted accordingly for a better lake experience and fortunately their legislators listened too. I can't imagine people made such a fuss about loss of liberty, wool being pulled over legislator's eyes, etc. when speed limits on roads were enacted.

Sunset as you know I fully respect your posts. Thats no secret, even though we disagree.. but to compare speed limits to the roads is an extreme to say the least. when you are traveling at high rates of speed less then 5 feet from other motorists next to you then of course there needs to be limits. When you are alone in an area as wide open as the broads to draw a parallel between the two is a far stretch to say the least (no pun intended )

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Sunset as you know I fully respect your posts. Thats no secret, even though we disagree.. but to compare speed limits to the roads is an extreme to say the least. when you are traveling at high rates of speed less then 5 feet from other motorists next to you then of course there needs to be limits. When you are alone in an area as wide open as the broads to draw a parallel between the two is a far stretch to say the least (no pun intended )

I see your point but my point is that many would want some limits on the roads just like many want limits on the lake...this has fortunately been registered in Concord with our legislators regarding a SL on the lake.To say people have been duped is also a far stretch.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I see your point but my point is that many would want some limits on the roads just like many want limits on the lake...this has fortunately been registered in Concord with our legislators regarding a SL on the lake.To say people have been duped is also a far stretch.

I would say duped, speed limits on roadways are common knowledge, society gets that they are there and society understands why they are there.
When you ask someone if they think boats should have a speed limit, the natural reaction would be to agree that, "yes, boats should have a speed limit, I have one when I drive to work." You could get the same response from the same group of people, if you asked if the broads should have a minimum speed limit, there is one on the highway, so why not on the "heavily conjested" Broads.

[jmen24]

That brings up another point, speed limits on roadways have a dual meaning. They tell the driver that this is as fast as you should travel on the given roadway. They also tell the driver that this is how fast you should travel on the given roadway. This prevents vehicles from closing in on each other to fast, that is the reason for a minimum posted speed on highways.

Would your feeling be the same if a law was created for Winni, that stated boats had to travel at 45 day and 25 night. That would put the speed limit directly in line with roadway speed limits. Imagine asking someone that has no idea about boating that with a posted speed limit of 45mph that boats were also allowed to travel less than 10mph in the same area.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I see your point but my point is that many would want some limits on the roads just like many want limits on the lake...this has fortunately been registered in Concord with our legislators regarding a SL on the lake.To say people have been duped is also a far stretch.

I dont know about duped but misinformed may be a better word. I have spoken with a bunch of legislators and many were unaware as to the size of the lake no matter any congestion issues. Some had never heard of the 150 ft law. After explaining that these laws are already on the books they also felt that a SL is not needed. Many stated they are looking forward to seeing the data collected to see if speeding is an issue on the lake. With not 1 ticket issued then I think they will have their answer.

[Kracken]

The speed limit is actually just a symptom to a much bigger problem. Our legislators are not listening to their constituents. Law makers hardly ever do the right thing unless it coincides with them remaining in power. If you are looking to Concord or Washington for moral and ethical guidance, you are looking in the last place you will ever find it.

I don’t believe current members of the House and Senate will be replaced during the next election cycle due to their support of a speed limit. They will be voted out because they have lost touch with the people they are supposed to be representing.

I can’t speak for all the so called “cowboys” here but some do see the speed limit as just another example of what is going wrong. If you don’t think the sky is falling, look around.

It is doubtful we will see certain types of boats banned, that would be to obvious. The more likely scenario would be boating getting “nudged” slowly out of existence, by taxes, registrations and other fees. You don’t believe so? Wait until you open your 2010 boat registration and that is just the start.

If you think you are safe because you don’t own a GFB…think again.

[Airwaves]

Duped is a good way to describe what happened in Concord. If as Sunset on the dock claims;

A lot of people for a long time could see the trend over the last 20 years

Then they would have seen the following...taken from that group of "what do they know' boating experts, the United States Coast Guard!

2. DETAILS
2.1. Background
In 1973 reported recreational boating fatalities totaled 1,754 nationwide—an annual fatality rate of approximately 27.7 per 100,000 numbered boats. By 2004, even though the number of boats more than doubled in the interim, reported fatalities declined to 676 (a 61% reduction)—equivalent to an annual rate of 5.3 fatalities per 100,000 numbered boats (an 81% reduction compared to 1973)

If, as Sunset on the dock suggests, legislators had seen the trend they certainly would have seen a major improvement in safety on the waterways. So how did HB847 (I don't know what HB462 was) get approved? Lies and fear mongering that continue today!

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I can't imagine that people made such a fuss about loss of liberty, wool being pulled over legislator's eyes, etc. when speed limits on roads were enacted.

Are you sure?

The National Maximum Speed Law in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 mph. This law was modified in 1987 to allow 65 mph limits on certain roads.

The law was widely disregarded by motorists. Most states subversively opposed the law, ranging from proposing deals for exemption from it to minimizing speeding penalties.

This cap was intended to reduce gasoline consumption by 2.2% in response to the 1973 oil crisis.

Where's the bit about safety?????

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Are you sure?

The National Maximum Speed Law in the United States was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 mph. This law was modified in 1987 to allow 65 mph limits on certain roads.

The law was widely disregarded by motorists. Most states subversively opposed the law, ranging from proposing deals for exemption from it to minimizing speeding penalties.

This cap was intended to reduce gasoline consumption by 2.2% in response to the 1973 oil

Where's the bit about safety?????

I suspect you know I was referring to when speed limits were first enacted. As far as who paid for the poll, "Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?" could have been paid for by Santa Claus and the results would have been the same. The wording was simple, direct, and required a yes or no answer. Hardly an inflammatory question.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I suspect you know I was referring to when speed limits were first enacted. As far as who paid for the poll, "Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?" could have been paid for by Santa Claus and the results would have been the same. The wording was simple, direct, and required a yes or no answer. Hardly an inflammatory question.

I'm confused? You said people were not upset when the speed limit in the roads was enacted. Facts state otherwise.

What the heck does that have to do with Santa Claus?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I suspect you know I was referring to when speed limits were first enacted. As far as who paid for the poll, "Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?" could have been paid for by Santa Claus and the results would have been the same. The wording was simple, direct, and required a yes or no answer. Hardly an inflammatory question.

Where's the speed limit on Lake Sunapee and Winnisquam? Or was this just a "special interest group" for Winnipesaukee?

And yes, someone paid for the poll and I doubt it was Santa Claus.

[OCDACTIVE]

[QUOTE=gtagrip;111503]Where's the speed limit on Lake Sunapee and Winnisquam? Or was this just a "special interest group" for Winnipesaukee?

[QUOTE]

Again this goes back to why the law was requested to begin with as a 2 year test. The Winnfabs were trying to "prove" that speeding was an issue. They didn't push for all the lakes in NH because it would not have gone along with their "testing".

Please keep in mind this law was a TEST. We will see the data taken from this Test and that is how it will be determined if speeding is an issue.

Since not 1 ticket has been issued it has so far from the test zones to 1 full year on the entire lake proved speeding is NOT an issue.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think each law or proposed law should be evaluated at face value. To say that the SL is the first in a long line of laws is misdirection. Any future laws would need to go through the full legislative process. The legislature is not going to rubber stamp a swim cap law or GFBL ban just because they already passed the SL. It doesn't work that way and we all know it.

Why don't we argue the SL as it is written and not pretent it is more than it actually is. Telling an 85 year old man that his center console is about to be banned is hype, not reality.

The nighttime speed limit is 25mph. Most power boats on the lake can go faster than that. Therefore most power boats CAN violate the SL.

Yes... and No. Bear Islander this law on its Merits is exactly what is wrong with government. This law is the poster child for what is wrong. I couldn't possibly write words here to illustrate how strongly I feel. Misdirection is not what I am trying. I am directing you, I am imploring that you please look at the facts. Take the emotion out of it. Take the "feelings" and "Circumstantial and subjective evidence" out of the equation. Look at the cold hard facts. I have never in my life seen a law actually pass based on feelings. This is that law. So misdirection is a very unfair comment. I am merely telling you that on face value this law is based on no facts. So this would pave the way for more laws based on feelings and no facts to be passed. That is my point. I am not trying to deceive or misdirect anyone. I am trying to point everyone to look at what their government is capable of doing. Legislating on fear. That is a VERY dangerous thing.

I feel very strongly about this as you can tell. I can assure you again that I personally do not lose or gain with this law. I merely subscribe to the theory that the government should be held to a higher standard. The government is in place to solve existing problems. They are not there to waste taxpayer dollars on initiatives like this, because one or two legislators wanted to make a name for themselves all in the false name of safety. If they cared, truly cared they would take steps toward increased awareness and education. They would increase funding for Marine Patrol. But NO why would they do that. It's not nearly as sexy as the SL law. They are getting far more mileage and press from this debate and this law. If they went the other way they would be getting little to no press and what press they would be getting is negative due to increased spending. Do you see where I am coming from here? You can call me cynical but I see it differently. I've spent many years around politicians and I have been on the inside. I know exactly how it works. This has nothing to do with safety for these people.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Yes... and No. Bear Islander this law on its Merits is exactly what is wrong with government. This law is the poster child for what is wrong. I couldn't possibly write words here to illustrate how strongly I feel. Misdirection is not what I am trying. I am directing you, I am imploring that you please look at the facts. Take the emotion out of it. Take the "feelings" and "Circumstantial and subjective evidence" out of the equation. Look at the cold hard facts. I have never in my life seen a law actually pass based on feelings. This is that law. So misdirection is a very unfair comment. I am merely telling you that on face value this law is based on no facts. So this would pave the way for more laws based on feelings and no facts to be passed. That is my point. I am not trying to deceive or misdirect anyone. I am trying to point everyone to look at what their government is capable of doing. Legislating on fear. That is a VERY dangerous thing.

I feel very strongly about this as you can tell. I can assure you again that I personally do not lose or gain with this law. I merely subscribe to the theory that the government should be held to a higher standard. The government is in place to solve existing problems. They are not there to waste taxpayer dollars on initiatives like this, because one or two legislators wanted to make a name for themselves all in the false name of safety. If they cared, truly cared they would take steps toward increased awareness and education. They would increase funding for Marine Patrol. But NO why would they do that. It's not nearly as sexy as the SL law. They are getting far more mileage and press from this debate and this law. If they went the other way they would be getting little to no press and what press they would be getting is negative due to increased spending. Do you see where I am coming from here? You can call me cynical but I see it differently. I've spent many years around politicians and I have been on the inside. I know exactly how it works. This has nothing to do with safety for these people.

I don't know HN, and I don't want to Rush to conclusions here, but some of this talk is starting to sound an awful lot like a certain AM talk radio host, you know, the thrice divorced drug addict who espouses family values and makes millions with his fear mongering. I just think you're reading a little bit more than is warranted into the SL debate and perhaps getting a bit off topic. You know many people wanted this speed limit. It's not a figment of anyone's imagination that people joined Winnfabs, wrote their legislators, or showed up at hearings in favor of a SL. To be dragging this kind of nonsense into the discussion just makes me think perhaps dialogue on this thread is becoming a bit wacky.

[Bear Islander]

WOW! Not one speeding ticket written. That is great. I was hoping the SL would work but never imagined it would work that well. After all, the purpose of the SL was to keep boats under 45/25. If NO tickets were written then the law is doing EXACTLY as it was intended.

For years the opposition has been asking to see the evidence that a speed limit could work, now we have that proof. And it was accomplished without anyone, Marine Patrol included, having to go to court or pay a fine. A win, win all around.


Hazelnut - There were reams of information supporting the SL. Tourist complaints, lost business, deaths, noise, water quality reduction, camps unable to send out boats etc. You may not agree with these, but to say these arguments don't exist? come now! Many businesses INCLUDING MARINAS came out for the SL.

Your solution is increased education and Marine Patrol funding. Great ideas that are not going to happen. Better an imperfect solution that can be implemented, than a perfect solution that we will NEVER see.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WOW! Not one speeding ticket written. That is great. I was hoping the SL would work but never imagined it would work that well. After all, the purpose of the SL was to keep boats under 45/25. If NO tickets were written then the law is doing EXACTLY as it was intended.

For years the opposition has been asking to see the evidence that a speed limit could work, now we have that proof. And it was accomplished without anyone, Marine Patrol included, having to go to court or pay a fine. A win, win all around.


Hazelnut - There were reams of information supporting the SL. Tourist complaints, lost business, deaths, noise, water quality reduction, camps unable to send out boats etc. You may not agree with these, but to say these arguments don't exist? come now! Many businesses INCLUDING MARINAS came out for the SL.

Your solution is increased education and Marine Patrol funding. Great ideas that are not going to happen. Better an imperfect solution that can be implemented, than a perfect solution that we will NEVER see.

BI this was completely predicted.

If you read back in the older threads when this was being discussed it was being argued that the test zones yielded no data because the fast boats just avoided them. It was said then that if the whole lake was to be tested we would see much different results. It was argued on here and at our state house as the reason for implementing a two year test.

Opponents back then said this would happen. As soon as it was shown that speeding was not a problem supporters would immediately start claiming "look how well it worked"... and you just did that...

It is a catch 22, and it is going exactly as planned. Frankly I believe that supporters planned this from the start. That this "test" was a hoax to get speed limits implemented so that they could say either A. wow look at all the tickets issued! See this is why we need it. or B. wow no tickets, it must be working...

You can't have it both ways.

Winnfabs argued for the 2 year TEST to "PROVE Speeding is a problem". They dismissed the test zone data and argued for the 2 year test because THEY SAID NOT OPPONENTS that a 2 Year test would "YIELD DIFFERENT RESULTS THEN THE TEST ZONES".....

Well it didn't...... so are you saying they were using this as a hoax to get it implemented? Or were they wrong and the data proves that they are not needed?

Again you can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I'm sure the smart legislators would have followed the posted links, just like I did.

They did.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Upon reading the links, and any followups linked from there, they must be scratching their heads, wondering how in heck they got conned into such a legislation.

They are not. In fact, they say just the opposite. The links helped them understand how dangerous going fast in a boat can be and how widespread the problem is. It helped them appreciate how special last summer was on Lake Winnipesaukee. Or at least that is what every legislator I have talked to except one has said to me.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

some of the recent vindictiveness started after I posted a followup to a link posted by a SL supporter.

The recent vindictiveness started when one of your group blasted me in a hate-filled and unprovoked attack for sic'ing a spelling error in a report I linked, and wrongly criticized my grammar, calling me "smarmy" while making a comical grammatical boner himself. It continued with my justly angry response and your unprovoked personal follow-up attacks. It did not start "after" your follow-up. Your follow-up exasperated it. You had no cause to jump into that fray and cannot disown your contribution now.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

some of us try to look at what's really happening, see the truth, and decide from there.

We sure do. And some of us will not see the truth so long as it interferes with their selfish desire to have fun at the expense of the rest of society.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The vast majority of accidents do not occur at very high speeds. Collisions between boats occur because of inattention, breaking safe passage rules relating to distance, lookout, etc.. Many of the worst accidents and collisions involve alcohol, like it or not.

Most fatal collisions involve at least one boat that was going too fast. And being drunk is not a good excuse for driving too fast. Boaters should be limited to safe speeds whether they are sober or drunk.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Nobody will stick up for a reckless cowboy (usually), but now people have to do more than just remain silent.

Several of your group are boasting openly on this forum about their law-breaking and several of the others are "thanking" them for it. I've not seen a single case where one of you has chastised your buddies and said "While we might not agree with it, it is the law of the lake right now and we should respect it until the matter is finally resolved...otherwise we are looking just like the unruly cowboys they say we are". Being silent towards (and afraid of?) the reckless cowboys that brought this problem on you seems to be what you guys do best.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Rights and privileges have to be earned, and they can be taken away because of the actions of a few.

Amen

Originally Posted by VtSteve

This is why I suggested a strong group of boaters should form a liaison with the MP, an alliance if you will.

Just be careful if your alliance includes the scofflaws who have been bragging about their disobeyence of the law on this forum. I will be the first to publicize any alliance of the MP and a group of the very law-breakers they are supposed to be policing. It will make a great series of letters to the local editors. The public tends to want its law enforcement agencies to be allying with the law-respecting side of society, not with the criminal side.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I'm surprised that not many have delved into the aspects of even a few of the accidents posted here by some. Contained within many of the articles is a microcosm of what the problems are on today's waterways.

I hope and expect that we all have looked at the links I have been providing, even those staying silent. I believe that any impartial reader of reasonable intelligence will come away feeling that boats going very fast are dangerous and that we can't just leave it up to every pilot to decide for himself what speed is appropriate, because there are just too many out there who have proven incapable of making that decision properly, and it is usually the innocent bystander who pays the price.

Originally Posted by jmen24

If the legislators...are eating what is being fed to them by the extremist supporters ...these are the last people that I want making laws in my state, and my campaign has been underway to remove people like this from office for awhile now. ...this law is only one of the foolish things that they have done to bring this upon themselves.

Good rant. I’m sure your version of diplomacy helped make up a few minds in Concord.

Originally Posted by jmen24

I personnally believe that the citizens should be the ones voting on the bills being created in the state house,

Our legislators are citizens and were elected by citizens. What other form of government do you prefer? The vast majority of NH citizens recognize the sense of reasonably limiting boat speeds on a crowded lake and would vote for the SL. So we'd likely have one even in the pure democracy you espouse.

Originally Posted by jmen24

I am just a tax paying, resident native of this state that has many friends of a similar feather.

But unfortunately for you and your feathered friends, you are in a minority on this issue.

Originally Posted by gtagrip

it's funny how in many of El's posts that he claims the majority of the boats on the lake or the boater's on this forum are GFBL owners.

Please show us just one of these many posts where I claim the majority of the boats on the lake are GFBL owners. In fact, I've pointed out over and over again that those boats that can exceed 45MPH represent a tiny fraction of the boats on Winnipesaukee. It just seems like there are more of them because they are so loud, scary, and oftentimes obnoxious.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

to compare speed limits to the roads is an extreme to say the least.

Exactly. Cars have brakes. Cars have rubber tires that give traction with the road. Highways have lane markings. Highway surfaces are flat and unchanging. All the cars are going in the same directing and going almost the same speed. Cars have headlights, brake lights and directionals, etc, etc, etc. If anything, it is far more sensible to have speed limits for boats than for cars.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Lies and fear mongering that continue today!

Go back to your illegal fishing thread if you want to see lies and fear-mongering.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

With not 1 ticket issued then I think they will have their answer.

Those many legislators I've spoken with (except one) have said they felt that the lack of tickets agrees with the witness accounts that the lake was much slower and more civil last summer and that the SL had the intended result. They say they have seen enough already to make the SL permanent and don't need to bother seeing another year to decide. They now recognize the glitch in the legislative process that the 2-yr provision overlooked and realize now that the law must be made permanent during this session...all except for one rep so far.

Originally Posted by Kracken

Our legislators are not listening to their constituents.

I think they are listening to most of them, they are just not listening to the tiny fraction that feels boating at unlimited speeds is right for a crowded lake.

Originally Posted by Kracken

The more likely scenario would be boating getting “nudged” slowly out of existence, by taxes, registrations and other fees.

The sky is falling!...The sky is falling!

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Where's the speed limit on Lake Sunapee and Winnisquam? Or was this just a "special interest group" for Winnipesaukee?

The citizens did not seek a SL on only Winnipesaukee. The original bill was for all lakes. It was the House Committee that amended to Winnipesaukee-only as a COMPROMISE, to appease the GFBLers on the other lakes.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Again this goes back to why the law was requested to begin with as a 2 year test. The Winnfabs were trying to "prove" that speeding was an issue. They didn't push for all the lakes in NH because it would not have gone along with their "testing".

Wrong again. The citizens “pushed for” a permanent SL on all lakes. The committee COMPROMISED it down to 2-yrs on just Winnipesaukee. We, the people of NH, have always held that a permanent SL on any crowded lake is simply a matter of common sense. But if the residents of other lakes don’t want to fight, then why should we fight for them?

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

We will see the data taken from this Test and that is how it will be determined if speeding is an issue".

Speeding was not an issue last summer. That's the point. Only one speeding ticket had to be written. Most boaters respected the law. The Speed Limit worked.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I have never in my life seen a law actually pass based on feelings".

Many laws, maybe most, are passed based on “feelings”.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

one or two legislators wanted to make a name for themselves all in the false name of safety… This has nothing to do with safety for these people.

It took a lot more than one or two legislators, in fact, a landslide majority of legislators passed the law, then the Governor signed it. They all agreed that it had EVERYTHING to do with safety.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Winnfabs argued for the 2 year TEST to "PROVE Speeding is a problem".

Winnfabs wanted a permanent SL on all lakes. The 2-yr COMPROMISE came from the House committee. Arguments based on a defective premise are defective by definition. And the summer of 2009, where only a single boat was caught exceeding 45MPH, proved that a speed limit is the right thing, is effective, and is obeyed. Apparently, only the few of you ignored the law and chose to exceed the limit. Shame on you. But it was still a great summer anyway.

[Airwaves]

elchase is right about the following to a point:

Winnfabs wanted a permanent SL on all lakes. The 2-yr COMPROMISE came from the House committee.

Or at least that the initial proposal was for all bodies of water in the state, (HB162) however they couldn't get the support they needed (they lost the vote) because few legislators wanted to go back to his/her boaters that vote and say that they supported a law that is not needed because of the whim of a few people that don't like High Performance Boats.

So the next attempt was targeted at Lake Winnipesaukee (HB847). After a campaign of complete distortion and lies the 2 year test period was the compromise.

The 2 years was to give supporters time to show how the US Coast Guard and NH Marine Patrol don't know what they are talking about in their assessment of boating in NH while they (supporters of this solution in search of a problem) know what's best as they continue to spin the results to try to show how the lake is safer today than in the past while the number of accidents because of speed remains the same, zero.

I am especially enjoying reading the spin on how a teenager that gets blind drunk, steals his mothers boat then plows into an island in the dead of night would have been prevented from doing that if there were only a speed limit in place at the time!

The disappointment that they have to search all over the world for these stories then try link them to Winnipesaukee because of the lack of relevant accidents on Winnipesaukee must be overwhelming.

As for Safety? Wasn't it elchase that called the Safe Passage law in NH foolish or silly? I guess he has no problem with a boat passing within 10 feet of him as long as it is only going 45!

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

elchase is right about the following to a point:

Or at least that the initial proposal was for all bodies of water in the state, (HB162) however they couldn't get the support they needed (they lost the vote) because few legislators wanted to go back to his/her boaters that vote and say that they supported a law that is not needed because of the whim of a few people that don't like High Performance Boats.

So the next attempt was targeted at Lake Winnipesaukee (HB847). After a campaign of complete distortion and lies the 2 year test period was the compromise.

The 2 years was to give supporters time to show how the US Coast Guard and NH Marine Patrol don't know what they are talking about in their assessment of boating in NH while they (supporters of this solution in search of a problem) know what's best as they continue to spin the results to try to show how the lake is safer today than in the past while the number of accidents because of speed remains the same, zero.

I am especially enjoying reading the spin on how a teenager that gets blind drunk, steals his mothers boat then plows into an island in the dead of night would have been prevented from doing that if there were only a speed limit in place at the time!

The disappointment that they have to search all over the world for these stories then try link them to Winnipesaukee because of the lack of relevant accidents on Winnipesaukee must be overwhelming.

As for Safety? Wasn't it elchase that called the Safe Passage law in NH foolish or silly? I guess he has no problem with a boat passing within 10 feet of him as long as it is only going 45!

Airwaves,

You tell it like it is!!

R2B

[jmen24]

El, could you please give the names of the legislators that you have talked with. I will take it in a PM if you do not want to post the information here.

[Bear Islander]

Unfortunately for the opposition, this is one of those rare instances where you can have it both ways.

A low ticket count argues FOR a SL. A high ticket count argues FOR a SL.

It may not be fair... but it is true!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Unfortunately for the opposition, this is one of those rare instances where you can have it both ways.

A low ticket count argues FOR a SL. A high ticket count argues FOR a SL.

It may not be fair... but it is true!

I can see your argument but again it is against what the winnfabs and what the legislators logic was.

They felt the speed zones were irrelevant because they said the fast boats avoided them.

They pushed for the entire lake to "prove" that there is a problem.

Whether it be the zones or the entire lake it has been shown it isn't a problem. So why a redundant law?

[DEJ]

I respectfully disagree BI. This simply shows that the speed study the Marine Patrol did which showed hardly anyone went over 45 was accurate. A low ticket count backs that up. Clearly a law was not needed since there was and there is no speeding issue.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Unfortunately for the opposition, this is one of those rare instances where you can have it both ways.

A low ticket count argues FOR a SL. A high ticket count argues FOR a SL.

It may not be fair... but it is true!

Are you/were you a politician? Just kidding.

Of course you know I feel the exact opposite. The data is the data and I know many Supporters have tried, in vain, to spin it to prove that a SL was/is needed. This is another area where the numbers just don't support the argument. There have been no tickets issued because the percentage of boats traveling at, what has been arbitrarily deemed, a "high rate of speed" is and has always been so small. It wasn't a problem and it still isn't a problem. Again I will state a very important fact here, we are targeting a minority to solve the majority of problems on the lake. What a waste of time, energy and resources.

You may think that you can have it both ways but it just doesn't work that way. The position of the opposition has remained steadfast. Speeding wasn't a problem on the lake and it holds true in the face of this new law. The numbers support the argument without interpretation. The Marine Patrol Director himself has confirmed this statement in the past. I trust his judgment.


May 31, 2009

Most family, single-engine vessels do not go any faster than 40 or 45 miles per hour. An additional engine will certainly propel the boat to exceed the speed limit; however, most recreational boats do not go faster than 60 miles per hour.

"Barrett said that, from the experience from the pilot program Marine Patrol implemented last summer, there is not a large number of boats that exceeded the speed limit.

"I don't think that the fact that it's now in effect is going to make any monster change," said Barrett.

[Bear Islander]

If no boats are going over the speed limit, then nobody is being inconvenienced by a speed limit.

On this forum we repeatedly hear from boaters that the SL is unfair to them. That it limits their ability to enjoy the lake in their way. That the SL is ruining the lakes area economy. If no boats are going faster than the speed limit, how can this be possible?

You can't have it both ways!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If no boats are going over the speed limit, then nobody is being inconvenienced by a speed limit.

On this forum we repeatedly hear from boaters that the SL is unfair to them. That it limits their ability to enjoy the lake in their way. That the SL is ruining the lakes area economy. If no boats are going faster than the speed limit, how can this be possible?

You can't have it both ways!

The arguement is that it is mayham on the lake and safety is being compromised. If this is only effecting a small few boats that can exceed the limits then how can it be mayham unless it is another problem. Not speed.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If no boats are going over the speed limit, then nobody is being inconvenienced by a speed limit.

Not true BI. The Marine Patrol is being inconvenienced and tax payer dollars are being wasted enforcing a law that has been clearly shown is/was not needed.

[jmen24]

For me, its about adding law after law, that only impacts the overall rights of the residents and visitors of our state. This law brings nothing to the table in the way of boating safety, this years record proves that. If no tickets have been issued, then we are looking in the wrong corner for a winner.

BI, if you want to push for a 1/4 mile or larger NWZ around the camps that you speak of, I would stand behind that, that would be about creating a safety zone around our children and would be enforcable, it would not matter the type of boat being used either. But to say that the speed limit has created a safer lake is creating a false sense of security that still puts these camps and children at risk.

Your points and concerns on the subject are valid, you do not seem bent on eliminating one type of boat on the lake, because that was the style of boat that killed a friend. It seems to me that you stand behind this law because this is the best that has been presented to help you with your concerns. I may be wrong, but that is what I have gathered.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If no boats are going over the speed limit, then nobody is being inconvenienced by a speed limit.

On this forum we repeatedly hear from boaters that the SL is unfair to them. That it limits their ability to enjoy the lake in their way. That the SL is ruining the lakes area economy. If no boats are going faster than the speed limit, how can this be possible?

You can't have it both ways!

VERY good question. It lead me to do some serious thinking. I am not kidding or being sarcastic by the way. Sometimes these conversations turn sour because of the lack of vocal inflection, tone, etc.

So, I'm sitting here asking myself why the heck do I care? What is it to me? I've repeatedly said that this law does not personally affect me one way or the other. Yes, I happen to have some friends with Fast Boats. For the record I went for a ride on one of their boats once this summer. Personally I enjoyed the ride but after it was over I was like "yeah that was fun but what an impractical boat." This coming from a father of three who enjoys all the cabin space of his bowrider complete with bathroom, sink, and coolers. It all goes back to the sentiment "to each their own."

I really can't see myself ever owning that style of boat. It doesn't fit my lifestyle. I do happen to like looking at them and I appreciate the owners that are passionate about them. Just like some people who don't own motorcycles and never intend on buying one but just the same enjoy looking at them and appreciate the owners who are passionate about them. Of course then there are the haters. For the record I am not lumping you in with them. They are out there though. Those people who do not understand people's passions outside their own small world. These people seem to be gaining control over our society now. These are the people that want a law to ban anything THEY deem offensive. Everything in the world is offensive to them and they have zero tolerance for anything outside the scope of their narrow vision. Where do I fit in? Well I'm not a huge fan of really, really loud boats, bikes, stereos or cars. However, I can tolerate some noise, some bikes, boats, cars sound really sweet. A select few push the limit and ruin it for everyone. FYI, one of the loudest boats I heard this summer was an old wooden Chris-Craft. I appreciated that this boat has probably been on the lake longer than my entire extended family. Anyway, my feelings on that subject are that there are already laws on the books to address offensive behavior in terms of noise.

Initially I supported a Speed Limit. I swear to god I did. If there is a way to search the old threads before we migrated to this new system you will see that I actually raised the issue of having a Speed Limit on the lake SEVERAL years ago. I remember that at one time we could search the old forum. Does anyone know if we can still do that?

Back then, when I raised the issue I was on the defensive and quite a few people were adamant about the fact that the lake didn't need a speed limit. Similar to today. So I dropped it. I really can't pinpoint when I changed my mind and I can't say if it was one particular issue or not. I think I just couldn't resolve the issue based on my ideology. I feel pretty strongly that laws should be put in place based on facts not emotion. Laws should directly address problems. So I read some, researched some, listened to both sides, listened to neighbors, talked with friends, and finally arrived at my position. I went from supporting the law, to not really caring, to getting really passionate about opposing the law. In the end I do not personally lose here.

So now the question at hand: I'm reading between the lines here but the question you might ask me is, if it doesn't inconvenience me, or any of us for that matter, why should we care.

For me it is a political matter. I have stated it several times in this thread. Maybe I expect too much from elected officials. Maybe I should just accept it and move on. Maybe we should all just accept any and all laws coming out of the statehouse. Again, I just can't do it. The beauty of the USA is that we CAN question the motives of politicians. We CAN participate in discussions like this. We SHOULD hold our elected officials to a higher standards. I will never be convinced that this law was created out of necessity. I will always believe that this initiative does not address any of the problems with the lake. I believe truly that a group of politicians were swayed by fear and emotion.

I see this whole initiative as a huge waste of time, money and resources. It is distracting the focus from what could really work to make the lake safer. Why don't they fund the Marine Patrol adequately. Why don't they crack down on boater licensing. I would favor making all certificates obtained online invalid! That would affect me! I'd have to take a proctored exam. We have laws on the books to address every single problem ever raised on this forum. This law does not specifically address anything. Whether or not you choose to believe it the Director of the Marine Patrol stated that

"there is not a large number of boats that exceeded the speed limit."

This was said before the Speed Limit was enacted.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If no boats are going over the speed limit, then nobody is being inconvenienced by a speed limit.

On this forum we repeatedly hear from boaters that the SL is unfair to them. That it limits their ability to enjoy the lake in their way. That the SL is ruining the lakes area economy. If no boats are going faster than the speed limit, how can this be possible?

You can't have it both ways!

To use your logic then, if the majority of boats are not capable of breaking the arbitrary 45mph law, then why do we need it? Waste the legislature's time and money on it. Seems redundant to me.

[Kracken]

I stated the other day that our elected officials are not listening to their constituents. I also stated that behavior in this country is being modified or “nudged” in certain directions.

I was promptly told that our elected officials ARE listening and I, along with others are promoting fear mongering and acting like Chicken Little.

Before I draw the ire of my fellow “cowboys” I would like to state this post is not for the person who likes to make his own little editorial postings that take statements out of context and provide links to unrelated boating accidents. It has become very clear that that individual does not respond when he is found in error so pointing it out once again would be meaningless. This post is for the members who don’t have knowledge of the “nudge” reference.

Cass Sunstein is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He was the author of a book called Nudge in which he states his theory about behavioral economics where the government can use incentives, or “nudges”, rather than heavy-handed regulation to drive behavior.

An example of a nudge:

Cass Sunstein believes it is immoral to eat meat. His solution is not to outlaw steak but to make it so expensive that it takes it out of reach for most Americans (nudge). Well how do you achieve that? Simple, dramatically increase the cost of feed for the cattle producers and tax their grazing land as commercial property. After all cattle producers are minorities in this country and increasing their costs exponentially will not get the public outcry that a 300% tax on meat and poultry would.

Can you draw a correlation between this and the speed limit?

[BroadHopper]

The heartland senators wants to raise the ethanol in gas from 10% to 15% so that the farmers can get more govt subsidies for raising corn. Everyone knows by now that the carbon footprint for ethanol production was a lot higher than gas itself. Also cost a lot of money to produce. That is why the govt is subsidising the program.

They send the 'feel good' to the taxpayers that it is good for the US because we use less gas. In reality it is raising food prices and our tax dollars.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WOW! Not one speeding ticket written. That is great. I was hoping the SL would work but never imagined it would work that well. After all, the purpose of the SL was to keep boats under 45/25. If NO tickets were written then the law is doing EXACTLY as it was intended.

And what if there were 1, or 10 or 100 tickets issued? What would that have proved? And don't say, it did the same, because you can't have it both ways.

[NoBozo]

There are some people of the Liberal persuasion who very well CAN... "Have It Both Ways". It is their birthright. Remember...."I voted FOR it, ...before I voted AGAINST it"....or was it the other way round? It dosn't really matter you see. I think it was Senator John Kerry (D) Mass. NB

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hazelnut - There were reams of information supporting the SL. Tourist complaints, lost business, deaths, noise, water quality reduction, camps unable to send out boats etc. You may not agree with these, but to say these arguments don't exist? come now! Many businesses INCLUDING MARINAS came out for the SL.

Your solution is increased education and Marine Patrol funding. Great ideas that are not going to happen. Better an imperfect solution that can be implemented, than a perfect solution that we will NEVER see.

BI,
I know you have never wavered from your original position. I am trying to say we should hold our government to a higher standard. I refuse to accept an imperfect solution. If we roll over and let the government dole out imperfect solutions at every turn we'd be in some kind of mess... Wait I think we are in one aren't we. I also refuse to accept that education and increased funding is outside the realm of possibility.

As for your reams of information it confirms my point of the law being based on emotion and feelings rather than facts. A central point in my argument against the law.
Tourist complaints - Opinions of tourists, not facts.
Lost Business - What proof did they offer, again not factual. Who lost business?
Water Quality - Again not a fact for a reason to have a Speed Limit. If they are trying to rid the lake of boats and blaming water quality on a minority population of boats I have a huge problem with how they are going about it.
Noise - Agreed, Enforcement needed, still no fact as to why we need a SL.
Deaths - We've all gone this route before. Lets agree to disagree. I still do not see how the SL would have prevented any death on this lake in the past 20 + years. A drunk boater isn't going to give a rats behind how fast they are traveling. Again increased enforcement of existing laws take care of this one.
Camps Unable to Send Boats - Not a fact, a choice. In fact the SL has still not addressed this problem. Plenty of uneducated captains disobeying existing 150 foot safe passage laws. Again we blame the minority population for the problem. I favor extra large camp zones on the water.

I never said these arguments don't exist. These arguments are not direct facts that lead one to believe that a Speed Limit is needed. The law does absolutely nothing to address any of the concerns directly. I know your stance and I understand where you are coming from. I just completely disagree with it. Take the problems you outlined and come up with individual solutions for each problem. The SL is not a magic bullet. All this law has done is target a minority population on the lake and blamed them for all that ails Winnipesaukee. It is so wrong. We have taken a giant leap backward.

[BroadHopper]

I have been saying all along. But the staunch supporters and opponents blindingly go about their business attacking everyone but the boneheads. The issue that has brought us to this in the first place! Why can't we take a look at the existing laws and see their merits and faults. Then take a look at what the feds use to control waterways in the name of safety. After all, Why reinvent the wheel???
I believe this approach will provide a great compromise and lick the problem(s) to boot! Have it done right the first time!

I would like to ask the political science departments at UNH to take a look at the NH and Federal boating laws. And take a look at the arguments set forth be Wiinfabs, NHRBA, NH Bass Federation and NH Lakes Association. Also take a look at the Winnipesaukee.com speed limit forum and see where there is a common ground to move forward on. Having folks 'outside the box' give us an honest opinion of what will work. The political science dept can also conduct a statewide poll with an unbiased intelligient view of what people want. This will be a great exercise in democracy for our future lawmakers and provide an honest view of what other people thinks should be good for NH boating.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander it is good to have you back.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the "Majority" of the boats are capable of violating the Speed Limit. If we want to split hairs here, I guess you could say that. My boat is "capable" of breaking the law but it takes many factors to attain that feat. I outlined it in a prior post. Half tank of gas empty of passengers with a tailwind. I would argue that many of the boats that can "violate the limit" can only do so under perfect conditions as outlined above. I would hardly think that these are the people we are talking about anyway. The subject of this debate is and has always been targeted at the so named GFBL boats. Not my bowrider that is technically "capable" of breaking the limit.

FYI - I do not believe we will be banning any 23 foot center consoles... Yet. ha ha ha. As I said in another post we really don't know what could be next. Swim Caps? No Kayaking in the Broads? No Sailing at Night? Headlight Use on Boats? Give em an inch and.... Well you know the rest.

The vast majority of accidents do not occur at very high speeds. Collisions between boats occur because of inattention, breaking safe passage rules relating to distance, lookout, etc.. Many of the worst accidents and collisions involve alcohol, like it or not.

I found it very ironic that many of the accidents pointed out not only here, but in discussions around the country, involved boats speeding in NWZ's, or other speed-limited waterways.

One thing that stands out virtually everywhere in the country, is that more enforcement presence is needed. I've never advocated MP's canvassing and harassing the waterways, that leads to no good. At night, the two primary problems are alcohol and boats without lights. Both of these problems can be addressed by proper enforcement.

On a brief weekend on Winni, I noted MP's presence in key areas, but violations going on all around them. Perhaps they were just coming up with a game plan for next year, and everyone was taking notes on what the most common problems are. We sure did that on this board.

But your hints are well taken. Aside from the MP's and most of us regular boaters, there are some that took this opportunity to gain as much control over their pet peeves as possible. I think they've pretty much achieved all they possibly can, and a saner approach will prevail in the future. I also hope that by the actual passage of the SL law, it gave a solid reality check to those that did ignore the warnings that they should police their own, report problems, and deal with it before other dealt with it first. Nobody will stick up for a reckless cowboy (usually), but now people have to do more than just remain silent.

Rights and privileges have to be earned, and they can be taken away because of the actions of a few. This is why I suggested a strong group of boaters should form a liaison with the MP, an alliance if you will. This didn't happen on another lake, which has deteriorated into total animosity towards trigger happy (just a term), badge wearers that make life miserable for most. Most boaters are pretty reasonable folks, and I think they understand that there is a better outcome than being punished for the actions of others.

I'm surprised that not many have delved into the aspects of even a few of the accidents posted here by some. Contained within many of the articles is a microcosm of what the problems are on today's waterways.

[hazelnut]

Posts 294 and 296 in this thread are by far the absolute best posts I have ever seen to date on this subject. I urge every single supporter and those who oppose the law to read them and then re-read them again. Kracken and OCDACTIVE have summed up in few words, without embellishment, many people's feelings.

I can't tell the readers of the forum this next point enough, because most here try to paint us all the same. I am not a Fast Boat owner nor will I ever own one. I am a bowrider guy. I have to say this and I will continue to say this. My boat barely does 49 MPH.

I am truly an individual that opposes legislation to protect us from ourselves. I oppose lawmakers who arbitrarily use their power to push an agenda with no merit. Laws created out of thin air that are not warranted are dangerous to our freedoms. It becomes way too easy for your government to nickle and dime your freedoms away. Wake up, this is one more law created by lawmakers with little to no facts to support it. They tried to "show us all" with the test sites, FAIL. Now the law is enacted and once again they have FAILED to show good reason why it should remain.

Keep this in mind the few supporters on this site that use statements like "seems quieter" and "less scary" "it was less chaotic" are using circumstantial, subjective reasoning in support of this law. This should scare the heck out of everyone in this debate. If we can legislate on feelings then we should all be very afraid. This is not what this country was founded on.

Kracken and OCD well stated and I hope a few people on this site realize now that this is not a case of a bunch of Cowboys looking to drive as fast as they want whenever they want. I can't stress this enough. They want to paint us all as reckless cowboys but it just isn't the truth. My boating has not changed at all. I still drive 30-35MPH and my boat only goes 45MPH on average with a half tank and a few passengers. To get my boat to go 50MPH I have to be alone with a quarter tank and a tailwind.

Lemmings we are not. Question the reasoning behind every single piece of legislation. This is a classic example. We are all united by one simple fact. We enjoy recreation on the lake that we all love so much. Your activity could very well be next. Why would it be so crazy to think that Kayakers could be targeted next, or sail-boaters, fishermen, I could think of any number of laws that could be targeted against you. I'll give you an example. Wasn't there a piece of legislation that was proposed to make swimmers wear silly orange caps? Imagine that? A LAW requiring you to wear a swim cap. Don't you think a law could just as easily be proposed prohibiting kayakers from using the broads? I mean it "seems scary" to be kayaking in the broads. What with all that wind and deep water? You could easily drown out there in a windstorm. It would "seem safer" if you kayaked closer to shore.

Of course personally I do not think there should be a law prohibiting kayakers from using any part of the lake. But I'm not the one proposing silly laws though.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Kracken and OCD well stated and I hope a few people on this site realize now that this is not a case of a bunch of Cowboys looking to drive as fast as they want whenever they want. I can't stress this enough. They want to paint us all as reckless cowboys but it just isn't the truth.

So I guess what OCDACTIVE was saying on another thread about how fast his GFB could go and showing the instruments on his boat going 86 MPH was just a game he is playing. He also said many more things that pertain to speed on Lake Winni.

Just tell me when you are serious and when you are kidding and then maybe we can have some worthwhile discussion.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

So I guess what OCDACTIVE was saying on another thread about how fast his GFB could go and showing the instruments on his boat going 86 MPH was just a game he is playing. He also said many more things that pertain to speed on Lake Winni.

Just tell me when you are serious and when you are kidding and then maybe we can have some worthwhile discussion.

I am very serious. Why is it that you assume:

#1 He was doing that speed on Winni and if he was

#2 Why am I and several others on this thread lumped into that category?

After that whole post this is what you take from it? Still obsessing over the fact that he may or may not have done 80 on the lake at one time or another this summer? I really don't want to get hung up on that point with you. If you want to have worthwhile discussion with me I think you need to get over it. Discuss it with OCD and find out the what when and where. I stand firmly behind my comments Sam. A guy who probably broke the Speed Limit once or twice this summer hardly makes him a cowboy. I guess every time I drive to the lake I am a Cowboy on the road because I don't exactly do 65MPH the whole time.