What Speed Limit ????????

gtagrip · 11-11-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

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.

DEJ · 11-11-2009, 12:45 PM

Hnut, I think you misspelled a word or two, get ready to be strung up!!!

Great post above, hit the nail on the head.

jmen24 · 11-11-2009, 01:07 PM

The way I see it, time has not passed on the possibility of compromise. I have been in contact with several legislators in regard to allowing this law to sunset and replacing with one that actually solves the issues.

My suggestions have been:
Increased penalty for BUI.
Increased penalty for violating a NWZ.
Maintain a speed limit (not necessarily 45, but that works) in areas that the lake is less than 2000 feet wide.
Raise the night time speed to 35MPH to reduce shore erosion, this would remain lake wide .
In areas that are wider than 2000 feet, no speed limit, but increase distance from shore to 300 feet in these zones.
Adopting USCG rules and giving them teeth that NHMP can use.

Some suggestions that I think I may add.
Hnuts eliminating the online certificates (this also affects myself)
and my creating NWZ's around areas of specific concern for safety, i.e. BI's summer camps.

This law also has absolutely no affect on my enjoyment of the lake, as it stands right now, I have not owned a power boat in two years (16ft bowrider with 48HP outboard) and did not use the boat for a period of three years before I sold it. The boats that we are looking into purchasing now, are cruisers and would not realistically reach 45MPH.

My feelings on how the legislature has handled this and serveral other laws have been stated and do not need to be repeated.
But I am not in favor of supporting a law that was dreamed up by irrational or emotional thought.

hazelnut · 11-11-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmen24

The way I see it, time has not passed on the possibility of compromise. I have been in contact with several legislators in regard to allowing this law to sunset and replacing with one that actually solves the issues.

My suggestions have been:
Increased penalty for BUI.
Increased penalty for violating a NWZ.
Maintain a speed limit (not necessarily 45, but that works) in areas that the lake is less than 2000 feet wide.
Raise the night time speed to 35MPH to reduce shore erosion, this would remain lake wide .
In areas that are wider than 2000 feet, no speed limit, but increase distance from shore to 300 feet in these zones.
Adopting USCG rules and giving them teeth that NHMP can use.

Some suggestions that I think I may add.
Hnuts eliminating the online certificates (this also affects myself)
and my creating NWZ's around areas of specific concern for safety, i.e. BI's summer camps.

This law also has absolutely no affect on my enjoyment of the lake, as it stands right now, I have not owned a power boat in two years (16ft bowrider with 48HP outboard) and did not use the boat for a period of three years before I sold it. The boats that we are looking into purchasing now, are cruisers and would not realistically reach 45MPH.

My feelings on how the legislature has handled this and serveral other laws have been stated and do not need to be repeated.
But I am not in favor of supporting a law that was dreamed up by irrational or emotional thought.

jmen, I'm actually all for a nighttime limit of 35MPH. Believe it or not that was one of my first posts on this subject all those years ago. I alluded to it a couple of posts ago. Nighttime is such a different topic. I almost think that there should be two separate topic areas. Speed Limit Debate and Nighttime Speed Limit Debate. The two scenarios are so completely different.

I'd be surprised if any Speed Limit opposer did not feel that a Nighttime speed limit would be acceptable no matter what. I think the hair splitting comes in when we discuss what that limit should be. After this summer I can most assuredly tell you that 25MPH is too slow. It became evident to me that a non-boater or at least someone with no nighttime boating experience came up with this arbitrary number. Even an extra 5MPH would make all the difference in the world.

As a matter of fact the majority of one particular members flood posts were highlighting accidents that occurred at night. If we were to all agree that there should be a nighttime speed limit what then would Supporters use for "stories" to back a daytime speed limit.

hazelnut · 11-11-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DEJ

Hnut, I think you misspelled a word or two, get ready to be strung up!!!

Great post above, hit the nail on the head.

Yeah unfortunately I brought that on myself.

Thanks

sunset on the dock · 11-11-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

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.

It's been pointed out that the majority of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding the SL...25 MPH at night. Even if it is a minority of boats capable of exceeding the daytime limit, it's those few that have had a significant adverse effect on the boating experience for the many (and no I'm not going into the many ways in which those GFBL's have adversely affected the boating experience...it has been discussed here ad nauseum). I am thrilled that these boats cannot any longer legally use the lake as their personal speedway and so are many of my friends and neighbors and apparently a significant portion of the NH public. All this talk about the stealth erosion of our rights and liberties because of a speed limit on the lake seems rather contrived to me. Many on the lake have seen a stealth appropriation of everyone's right's and liberties on the lake due to a few who feel that Winnipesaukee should be their live free or die racetrack. This is why so many will fight to retain this new law. 45/25 was a good compromise.

gtagrip · 11-11-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

It's been pointed out that the majority of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding the SL...25 MPH at night. Even if it is a minority of boats capable of exceeding the daytime limit, it's those few that have had a significant adverse effect on the boating experience for the many (and no I'm not going into the many ways in which those GFBL's have adversely affected the boating experience...it has been discussed here ad nauseum). I am thrilled that these boats cannot any longer legally use the lake as their personal speedway and so are many of my friends and neighbors and apparently a significant portion of the NH public. All this talk about the stealth erosion of our rights and liberties because of a speed limit on the lake seems rather contrived to me. Many on the lake have seen a stealth appropriation of everyone's right's and liberties on the lake due to a few who feel that Winnipesaukee should be their live free or die racetrack. This is why so many will fight to retain this new law. 45/25 was a good compromise.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about the 25mph at night.

So I can see by your comments, it has not been about safety, but to rid the lake of a certain type of boat. I hope the legislature is reading this now.

sunset on the dock · 11-11-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about the 25mph at night.

So I can see by your comments, it has not been about safety, but to rid the lake of a certain type of boat. I hope the legislature is reading this now.

Aren't you getting a little prickley there gtagrip? I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. It's not ridding the lake of a certain kind of boat but rather a certain kind of boater(one that goes faster than 45/25).

11-11-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Aren't you getting a little prickley there gtagrip? I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. It's not ridding the lake of a certain kind of boat but rather a certain kind of boater(one that goes faster than 45/25).

Sunset, Nice answer. Remember, boats don't kill people, people kill people. And we've we already gotten rid of these people...except for you know who and you know who.

Here's to show what happens when a boat is going very fast and suddenly the surface conditions change...as they often do on Winnipesaukee;
http://www.break.com/index/speed-boa...d-crashes.html

Ryan · 11-11-2009, 02:44 PM

Here's a video of a canoe tipping over. Fortunately, these boaters were wearing life jackets. This would never happen if we could ban these dangerous canoes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ITPj09ocA

sunset on the dock · 11-11-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Sunset, Nice answer. Remember, boats don't kill people, people kill people. And we've we already gotten rid of these people...except for you know who and you know who.

Here's to show what happens when a boat is going very fast and suddenly the surface conditions change...as they often do on Winnipesaukee;
http://www.break.com/index/speed-boa...d-crashes.html

Holy Guacamole...boats used to go by like that where I live too. I hope the legislature is watching that one now.

VtSteve · 11-11-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Holy Guacamole...boats used to go by like that where I live too. I hope the legislature is watching that one now.

Those changing water conditions appeared to be rocks in the river? Looks like he tried to slow down (rocks will do that), and caused the boat to pitch and roll. Certainly not the safest boater on the water.

Dave R · 11-11-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Holy Guacamole...boats used to go by like that where I live too. I hope the legislature is watching that one now.

You live on a river that has jet boats doing time trial racing on it?

gtagrip · 11-11-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Aren't you getting a little prickley there gtagrip? I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. It's not ridding the lake of a certain kind of boat but rather a certain kind of boater(one that goes faster than 45/25).

Then we should be getting rid of all the "boneheads" that seem to drive all types of boats on the lake that are the main cause of problems on the lake. Not only the ones driving in your so called "GFBL's".
You're only targe has been GFBL's.

VtSteve · 11-11-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Then we should be getting rid of all the "boneheads" that seem to drive all types of boats on the lake that are the main cause of problems on the lake. Not only the ones driving in your so called "GFBL's".
You're only targe has been GFBL's.

Most accidents during the day occur at under 45 mph on most waterways. So you're correct, getting rid of problems has never seemed to be a primary emphasis of the Sl crowd.

But that's just my perception, other people may not share my opinion on that.

onlywinni · 11-11-2009, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

You're only target has been GFBL's.

I came to this discussion only this year, but that is my impression as well.

======================

Can someone educate me on how to find out about testifying the next time this issue comes up in Concord.

My wife and I would love to testify and explain what we do for work, how we enjoy the lake and our thoughts on this issue. Might be interesting for the folks in Concord to see that Performance Boat Captains are not the devils some describe us to be.

11-11-2009, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

the SL will never work without funding to properly staff the MP.

The definition of a law "working" is when it accomplishes its intended goal. The intended goal here was to make those people who did not feel safe using Winnipesaukee feel safe again...to restore use of the lake to all...to adhere to RSA 270:1 (II) (“It is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances”). The people who sought the law are saying it is working, so it is working by definition...period. Whatever "funding to properly staff the MP" was done last summer was obviously enough, as it made those of us who used to be wary of boating on the lake except during off times suddenly feel comfortable and safe again. Meanwhile, you guys are all saying either that you never went that fast anyway, like 99.9% of Winnipesaukee's boaters, or that you are ignoring the law. And except for the tiny fraction of boats that can go that fast and still do, (you know who you are...see below), those who can and use to exceed these speeds apparently have stopped out of respect for the law. THE LAW IS WORKING.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?

The harm comes when you realize that there is a boat within 2000 feet of you...one of those small boats that you claim are so hard to see suddenly becomes visible and he is only 200 feet directly in front of you. Because you are human, your reaction time is greater than the time it will take you to reach him at that speed so you don't even have time to start to slow down or to start to change direction. You hear a thump as you run him over and chop him and his boat in half. You are convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 12-25. If a tree falls in the woods and lands on a deaf guy, does it kill him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

I should also add that my boat does not have a loud thru hull exhaust when I am at wide open throttle.

Thank you for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

I did this almost every time I was out this season and will continue to do so ... regardless of what ridiculous laws there are.

And this makes you a scofflaw and a criminal and you should be soundly reprimanded by the rest of your crowd for bringing the wrath of society down on you all. You are the very reason laws like this get passed. People like you choose what laws suit you and disregard the rest. They think they are above the law and better than everyone else. Some of your ilk ignore our BUI and DUI laws (If I drive drunk and no one else is on the road...what is the harm?), our safe passage laws (if I drive close and nobody gets injured...what is the harm?), our wildlife laws (If I shoot a doe out of season, what is the harm?), our tax laws (if I cheat on my taxes and don't get caught, what is the harm?) etc, etc, etc. They justify their behavior by claiming that laws that were in fact passed exactly because of them were not really meant for them. They drive too fast because they believe they are super-human and have faster reaction times, better coordination, and superior boating skills...until they kill someone. When a speed limit has to be enacted just because of them, and the rest of their friends have has to suffer for it, their friends blame the victims and the legislature instead of blaming them. You and the others of your group (OCD et al) who brag about ignoring this law are exactly what was wrong with our lake and exactly why we needed tougher laws like the speed limit. You are the worst enemy of the rest of your cult, but they are too blind to recognize that. You are why your hobby is on the endangered species list and will likely be extinct in a few years...it is not because of people like me or our law makers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

You're only target has been GFBL's.

Our target was those drivers who insisted on driving too fast for our lake. Since only GFBL's are capable of going that fast, it might appear that we were targeting those boats, but we were not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

I came to this discussion only this year, but that is my impression as well.

You are an admitted SCOFFLAW (see above). You should look for some other forum that caters to CRIMINALS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Can someone educate me on how to find out about testifying the next time this issue comes up in Concord.

Our legislative process is for law-abiding citizens. If you dare show up at one of our hearings I am going to make sure every legislator in attendance knows of your bold disregard for our laws that you decide are "ridiculous". Our legislators will not be able to distance themselves from you fast enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Might be interesting for the folks in Concord to see that Performance Boat Captains are not the devils some describe us to be.

Then you better send someone else who has not been all over these threads bragging about his criminal behavior.

onlywinni · 11-12-2009, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

And this makes you a scofflaw and a criminal You are an admitted SCOFFLAW (see above). You should look for some other forum that caters to CRIMINALS. Our legislative process is for law-abiding citizens. If you dare show up at one of our hearings I am going to make sure every legislator in attendance knows of your bold disregard for our laws that you decide are "ridiculous". Our legislators will not be able to distance themselves from you fast enough. Then you better send someone else who has not been all over these threads bragging about his criminal behavior.

Dont worry I plan on admitting in a public hearing my blatant disregard for the law. That will support the fact that many of us can exceed the 45mph day limit in a safe and prudent manner and it does not seem the MP are doing anything about it, if it is being done safely. That will be right before I educate them on the lies and misinformation you and some of your cronies allowed to slip by them last go around.

I just hope you show up, because once you open your mouth my points will be confirmed.

Pineedles · 11-12-2009, 08:19 AM

Wow, I bring up the idea of a meeting again and OCD politely replies, and EL decides he'll have none of that. That just shows how committed he is to a compromise I guess. BTW, the boring part of this thread is El's multiquotes. I think the SL opposers really are trying to work out a solution IMHO.

VitaBene · 11-12-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Wow, I bring up the idea of a meeting again and OCD politely replies, and EL decides he'll have none of that. That just shows how committed he is to a compromise I guess. BTW, the boring part of this thread is El's multiquotes. I think the SL opposers really are trying to work out a solution IMHO.

Agreed Pin... I also see he conveniently decided not to respond to my query about adhering to roadway SLs. I know the answer already.

Thank you for the support on having dialogue between SL supporters and opponents. While there have been many compromises offered up by some supporters and some compromises offered by some supporters, there are still some supporters that are covering their ears while screaming out loud.

Hopefully, the legislature will rely on the testimony of the experts on this subject- the NHMP.

Oh well, another day in Paradise- though I think the boat will come out of the water today.

Airwaves · 11-12-2009, 10:16 PM

For those of you wondering about Elchase's response to me in post 402

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=402

I direct you to the thread 'Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law!' that elchase decided to respond to in this thead. Why not respond in the actual topical thread instead of this one?

Something you'll have to ask Elchase.

VitaBene · 11-12-2009, 11:51 PM

Mr Chase,

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

Resident 2B · 11-13-2009, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Mr Chase,

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

No smoke + no mirrors + no spin = No answer!

R2B

sunset on the dock · 11-13-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Mr Chase,

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

I will most definitely admit to having "tweaked" the speed limit on our roads(though it's been many years since I've gotten a speeding ticket in my youth). What I havn't done is bragged on line to my friends about tweaking the speed limit (usually the discussion with the Mrs. is that speeding isn't a good example for the kids). I also have not blamed the roadway speed limits on someone else and their agenda, nor have I said that someone else is in my ancestral home so they're not going to take away my right to speed. I have never considered the speed limits on our roads as symptomatic of a stealth loss of my rights and liberties. OK, time to get off the computer and head to work...I want to give myself plenty of time to get there.

ApS · 11-13-2009, 07:25 AM

Re: I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL? Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

That's easy for this Supporter to answer: I'm on record here as doing 'way over the limit, and getting ticketed (Trinidad, Colorado). Since keeping it at "nine-over" since that 1988 occasion, lawmen have looked the other way.

Just one year later, I was a passenger in a car that nearly hurtled off a deserted Colorado roadway—above the treeline.

The four of us were going about 60 on a roadway marked for 40-MPH. We were all distracted by something at the time, but my perception "clicked-on" and alerted the driver—just in time to avoid breaking through an Armco barricade!

The Opponents here ridicule my repeated admonition to "develop, hone, and keep one's senses at-the-ready" while on the lake.

(To include perceiving, watching, but especially developing one's listening capabilities).

But the other six months a year, I'm reminded of that phrase as I move about my Florida yard. THIS Florida environment is loaded—not with Cap'n "B's"—but with scorpions!

|
|
|

Bear Islander · 11-13-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Mr Chase,

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

Yes

Not only have I violated the speed limit on roads I have violated the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, day and night.

Most people think going a little over a speed limit is ok. And we all know that the police allow it. It's just human nature.

VitaBene · 11-13-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes

Not only have I violated the speed limit on roads I have violated the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, day and night.

Most people think going a little over a speed limit is ok. And we all know that the police allow it. It's just human nature.

Thank you and Sunset for your honesty.

I agree with your assessment (that magic less than 10 on 93) on the roadway SL. My point was we all break or bend rules (some probably by using this forum right now) but that does not make us criminals or even scofflaws.

I wonder what the enforcement wiggle room will be if MP actually starts trying to measure speed.

The fact is that everyone breaks the SL (except maybe my mother), the worst offenders are often LEO. In VA they have installed traffic cams that automatically send tickets to offenders, quite a few were handed out to the police (and not going to calls).

Anyhow it is too bad that we strayed off topic on many of these threads regarding the SL. There has been a lot of talk about compromises and a few members call this the compromise. What if this law sunsets? Let's assume that for my next statement. I have read some great points from many on both sides, such as

1) Doubling the the distance from shore that requires headway only
2) Creating more NWZs near camps
3) 35 MPH SL in our tighter areas (such as the run from Moultonborough Bay to Green's Basin)
4) Increased SL out on the broads with an increased distance "bubble"
5) Adopting a version of the USCG Rule 6 (as follows)

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

We all want to have a safe lake, I believe adopting and enforcing some of the above would accomplish that better than the law that is set to sunset next year.

11-13-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

the MP was also asked to provide a survey of speeding on the lake.

Did you just make that up? They certainly were not "asked to provide a survey". In fact, if you look back at the history, you'll see that they took it upon themselves to conduct a contrived and unscientific "survey" that most impartial observers said did more to slow boats down before clocking them than it did to see covertly what was really going on out there. And the Legislature saw through this attempt to circumvent and sidetrack the pending legislation and got upset, actually publicly scolding the MP over it...so the "survey" was debunked and discontinued. The MP did a wonderful job last summer by accident. It must have killed them to see things slow down so much that they could only find one speeder all summer. But the truth eventually surfaces, no matter how hard some try to obscure it. If boaters are not speeding, you just can't give out tickets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Why do you feel entitled to take away their enjoyment?

Because "their enjoyment" prevents "mutual enjoyment". It's not all about making sure that the high-speed crowd enjoys the lake, its about making it mutually enjoyable for a variety of co-existable uses. Its either a choice of the need-for-speed over everything else or a choice of everything else over the need-for-speed. Which do you think a legislator is going to choose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Racing and the need for speed was a tradition on this lake.

Sanctioned racing under the supervision of the MP over a closed-off portion of the lake, as has always been the tradition until the advent of the GFBL, boat can still be a tradition. Nobody is going to object to a return of the weekend of offshore boating races...provided it is appropriately planned, noticed, and supervised. As to the "need for speed" this sounds like something worthy of therapy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8368
According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8420, ... it is obvious that a lot more are against it than you may think.

Please tell me exactly how many of these were citizens of NH, how many times each voted under different names and from different computers, how they were RANDOMLY SELECTED, and how you can be sure of all this. Otherwise, these are not "polls" just because you call them "polls". They are recruitment sheets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I know that elchase posted his response to another thread...why? Probably because he wants this one, like the actual Coast Guard and Marine Patrol information to disappear.

I loved the CG thread until it morphed into just one more Anti-SL clone. It gave me a chance to enlighten readers to how CG categorizes fatalities according to the speed that the boat of the victim was in...so that if a 85MPH cigarette boat runs over a stationary canoe, it is a 0MPH fatality, not an "excessive speed" fatality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

What matters is the findings of the economic impact of boating in NH.

Exactly. Boating is a huge source of income for the state and we can't risk that income just to satisfy the "need for speed" of a tiny few.

Ryan · 11-13-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Did you just make that up? They certainly were not "asked to provide a survey". In fact, if you look back at the history, you'll see that they took it upon themselves to conduct a contrived and unscientific "survey" that most impartial observers said did more to slow boats down before clocking them than it did to see covertly what was really going on out there. And the Legislature saw through this attempt to circumvent and sidetrack the pending legislation and got upset, actually publicly scolding the MP over it...so the "survey" was debunked and discontinued.

The results do not support your cause, so your spin is expected.

Looking back in history, the NH Division of Safety Services used MP resources to conduct the survey. Unscientific, hardly. There is so much relevant, factual data in the report all you can do is attack the MP and spin the data. The DSS published their findings in a report, so to say the survey was discontinued is false. Public scolding....laughable.

Average daytime speed on the lake 22.72MPH.

Sounds like the Wild West!!!!!

Seeker · 11-13-2009, 11:52 AM

Count me as one of the 217 who voted against the SL in the poll. And yes I am a NH resident and one of my boats was on Winnie. Not all of us have to continually post (if we did El would wear out his keyboard) and I doubt there are many with 25+ screen names.

BroadHopper · 11-13-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

The results do not support your cause, so your spin is expected.

Looking back in history, the NH Division of Safety Services used MP resources to conduct the survey. Unscientific, hardly. There is so much relevant, factual data in the report all you can do is attack the MP and spin the data. The DSS published their findings in a report, so to say the survey was discontinued is false. Public scolding....laughable.

Average daytime speed on the lake 22.72MPH.

Sounds like the Wild West!!!!!

Actually the transportation committee was the one that ask for the survey. I was at the fact finding meeting. The supporters says there is 'mayhem' on the lake and NHMP says it is not so. The supporters have no fact to back their claim and neither did the MP. So the committee wants the fact, hence the survey.

Funny thing is, the supporters shut down the survey early, because it was not in their favor. They claim the boaters knew where the survey was taking place. Not so. The MP posted two location, with 4 others that was indisclosed.

Same reason why they want to remove the sunset clause, the facts are not in their favor.

DEJ · 11-13-2009, 12:08 PM

You are correct about the disclosed locations for the speed info gathering. There were at least 4 undisclosed or covert positions from where MP gathered their info which they presented to the transposition committee per their request. Those are the simple facts, no spin.

hazelnut · 11-13-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Actually the transportation committee was the one that ask for the survey. I was at the fact finding meeting. The supporters says there is 'mayhem' on the lake and NHMP says it is not so. The supporters have no fact to back their claim and neither did the MP. So the committee wants the fact, hence the survey.

Funny thing is, the supporters shut down the survey early, because it was not in their favor. They claim the boaters knew where the survey was taking place. Not so. The MP posted two location, with 4 others that was indisclosed.

Same reason why they want to remove the sunset clause, the facts are not in their favor.

WOW! I never knew that. So in fact it was the transportation committeee itself that asked for the test?

These Senators must be banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out a way to spin the facts that support a Speed Limit. I really would like to see a televised explanation from one of the senators who supports the SL. It would be a riot to actually hear the words, "there have been no tickets, every single person has adhered to the law and we have stopped all those speeding boats from speeding all over the lake." I wonder if the good senator could actually say it with a straight face.

gtagrip · 11-13-2009, 01:23 PM

I too voted in the poll against the speed limit and I too live in NH.

chipj29 · 11-13-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Please tell me exactly how many of these were citizens of NH, how many times each voted under different names and from different computers, how they were RANDOMLY SELECTED, and how you can be sure of all this. Otherwise, these are not "polls" just because you call them "polls". They are recruitment sheets.

Um, you must have misunderstood me. I was stating clearly that there are more than eight of us here on this site that are opposed to speed limits. It is a "poll" because that is what it is called on this forum. Who the people are, and where they are from makes no difference to me, since I am referring only to this site. I didn't realize that polls on an internet forum had to be from randomly selected individuals.

The facts are the facts. The fact that I am stating is that there are more than eight people who post on this site that are opposed to speed limits.

11-13-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Why not respond in the actual topical thread instead of this one? Something you'll have to ask Elchase.

The posting limit on me forces me to multi-quote. Sorry. This is really all just one big thread anyway. All the topics might start out about someone's prop, or the CG statistics, or FISHING, then turn right into the same old SL-bashing tripe...and all the players are the same...so what difference does it make where the answer pops up? As a SL opposer, you probably are allowed infinite unmoderated posting privileges, so if you'd like to quote my reply in the other thread, be my guest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

What does the NHMP care about the citizens opinions and feelings about the lake?

Apparently nothing. But that's ok, it is not their responsibility to care about our feelings. And it is also not their responsibility to advocate for the high-speed crowd. It is their sole responsibility to enforce the boating laws that the legislature hands down to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

The NHMP are EXPERTS on BOATING SAFETY, which is what this law is all about - correct?

Not fully. The law was enacted because so many people said they did not feel safe on the lake and that their enjoyment of the lake was either being prevented or otherwise impacted. Recall that RSA 270:1 (II) states “the public waters ... shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment... ”). No matter how the Director of the MP, who is on record over and over advocating for the high speed crowd and insulting the majority of NH's citizens might couch things, he cannot speak for the lack of enjoyment we felt prior to the SL and wealth of enjoyment we felt last summer. I've seen no survey done by the MP where they have asked a statistically reliable and broad-based sampling of citizens whether they feel that "safe and mutual enjoyment" of the lake has been improved by the SL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, but I have to laugh at this. You can't be seriously suggesting that a lake as big as Winnipesaukee is as calm as a much smaller lake such as Merrymeeting...because of the speed limit?

No. It's clear that what I meant was that it is calm when the wind dies down. As I said, it is more civil...similar in civility now to Merrymeeting, because of the SL. Jmen stated that he had been using Merrymeeting instead of Winni in past years because "it was much quiter and more relaxing". It is my experience, and the experience of virtually all that I speak with except the eight of you guys, that Winnipesaukee was just as "quiet and relaxing" as Merrymeeting this past summer, presumably because of the weather in many cases and because of the SL in others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL? Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

As I did answer; only a fool would admit to breaking the law on a public forum. There might be a number of fools among the eight of you, but just because you demand a yes/no answer does not mean you are entitled to one. Do you really think this issue is about a boater occasionally going 48MPH or about the MP not enforcing a 45MPH speed limit against him? We have people on this forum who brag about doing almost double the speed limit, and the rest of you high-five them. Then you talk about "allying" yourselves with our law enforcement agency and legislature, as if "allying" with admitted criminals and their abettors who flout the law that these civil servants have passed or are obliged to enforce against the citizens these civil servants are obliged to serve is going to fly. Don't try to drag me into this hole. I am not one of you and do not condone your illegal activities of your support for them.

Ryan · 11-13-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

It is their sole responsibility to enforce the boating laws that the legislature hands down to them.

Not their sole responsibility. In addition to enforcing the boating laws, the MP was also asked to provide a survey of speeding on the lake. We all know the results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

The law was enacted because so many people said they did not feel safe on the lake and that their enjoyment of the lake was either being prevented or otherwise impacted. Recall that RSA 270:1 (II) states “the public waters ... shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment... ”). No matter how the Director of the MP, who is on record over and over advocating for the high speed crowd and insulting the majority of NH's citizens might couch things, he cannot speak for the lack of enjoyment we felt prior to the SL and wealth of enjoyment we felt last summer. I've seen no survey done by the MP where they have asked a statistically reliable and broad-based sampling of citizens whether they feel that "safe and mutual enjoyment" of the lake has been improved by the SL.

Don't kid yourself. There was no palpable improvement on the lake in 2009. The law was enacted based on fear and lies.

While I do not own a GFBL boat, I'm sure many that do own these types of boats get enjoyment travelling through the broads on a Tuesday afternoon on a calm day at 50MPH. Why do you feel entitled to take away their enjoyment through feel good legislation?

BroadHopper · 11-13-2009, 10:13 AM

The same reason why the person that took away the tolling of the church bell in Meredith a few years back. So he can enjoy his peace and quiet.
Many folks grew up with that bell. It was here before that person move into town. Yet he had the right to shut down tradition. Pretty soon all traditions around the lake and on the lake will be outlawed.

Racing and the need for speed was a tradition on this lake. Another tradition bites the dust. And more traditions after that.

sunset on the dock · 11-13-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

The posting limit on me forces me to multi-quote. Sorry. This is really all just one big thread anyway. All the topics might start out about someone's prop, or the CG statistics, or FISHING, then turn right into the same old SL-bashing tripe...and all the players are the same...so what difference does it make where the answer pops up? As a SL opposer, you probably are allowed infinite unmoderated posting privileges, so if you'd like to quote my reply in the other thread, be my guest. Apparently nothing. But that's ok, it is not their responsibility to care about our feelings. And it is also not their responsibility to advocate for the high-speed crowd. It is their sole responsibility to enforce the boating laws that the legislature hands down to them. Not fully. The law was enacted because so many people said they did not feel safe on the lake and that their enjoyment of the lake was either being prevented or otherwise impacted. Recall that RSA 270:1 (II) states “the public waters ... shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment... ”). No matter how the Director of the MP, who is on record over and over advocating for the high speed crowd and insulting the majority of NH's citizens might couch things, he cannot speak for the lack of enjoyment we felt prior to the SL and wealth of enjoyment we felt last summer. I've seen no survey done by the MP where they have asked a statistically reliable and broad-based sampling of citizens whether they feel that "safe and mutual enjoyment" of the lake has been improved by the SL.

I know of similar cases in a town near me where the civilian police felt themselves to be omniscient and omnipotent and thought they were able to interpret what is best for people in their community...they were quickly relieved of this notion.

Ryan · 11-13-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I know of similar cases in a town near me where the civilian police felt themselves to be omniscient and omnipotent and thought they were able to interpret what is best for people in their community...they were quickly relieved of this notion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

Are you saying the MP is irrelevant, or are you saying that we do not need one group making blanket laws based on what they feel is best for the people?

Thanks. I think?

Kracken · 11-13-2009, 10:37 AM

Does anybody know how many registered boats there are in New Hampshire?

Kracken · 11-13-2009, 10:19 AM

I really believe both supporters and opponents should attend. It is clear that every member that is posting is concerned about safety. The disagreement is in the method. I can be objective and see the underlying philosophy of the speed limit supporters. I hope the speed limit supporters can understand the objections.

Maybe a face to face meeting will produce better results than the forum has. We do have a common ground here (safety), we need to build on it and develop a solution to present to Concord. Don’t get me wrong, the forum has been entertaining however after months of debate, nothing has been accomplished.

chipj29 · 11-13-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

No. It's clear that what I meant was that it is calm when the wind dies down. As I said, it is more civil...similar in civility now to Merrymeeting, because of the SL. Jmen stated that he had been using Merrymeeting instead of Winni in past years because "it was much quiter and more relaxing". It is my experience, and the experience of virtually all that I speak with except the eight of you guys, that Winnipesaukee was just as "quiet and relaxing" as Merrymeeting this past summer, presumably because of the weather in many cases and because of the SL in others.

I just want to point out one thing. There are a lot more than eight speed limit opponents. According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8368, only 46 people out of the 263 that voted are in favor of the current speed limit. It means that 217 people are speed limit opponents. 217>8. This poll was taken in August/September 2009.

According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8420, 112 people out of the 437 that voted were in favor of the speed limit. This means that 325 people are opposed to a speed limit. 325>8. This poll was taken in August-October 2009.

Therefore, your statement that you put in a large majority of your posts that says that eight people are against the speed limit is factually incorrect, and cannot be argued. There may only be eight people that are vocal about it on this forum, but it is obvious that a lot more are against it than you may think.

luckypete · 11-13-2009, 06:45 PM

so who's going to man the metal detector at the door?

VitaBene · 11-13-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckypete

so who's going to man the metal detector at the door?

That won't be needed.

NoBozo · 11-13-2009, 08:14 PM

Are concealed weapons OK? (Permit Required) I've got a blanket and a baseball bat. Is that OK?.......I'm concerned for my Safety. The EL-Man mentioned personal safety......... After all...that's what all this is all about..RIGHT..?? SAFETY. I'm all for Safety.

This is all Tongue in Cheek...................................RIGHT..??

hazelnut · 11-13-2009, 08:48 PM

I already said I was in. I'd love to meet bear islander. I'm thinking that we'd all enjoy each others company. I am actually in Meredith tonight. Had a niceMeal at Giuseppes and I'm loving this cold night dreaming of snow and ice and sleds!!!!!

sunset on the dock · 11-13-2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Are concealed weapons OK? (Permit Required) I've got a blanket and a baseball bat. Is that OK?.......I'm concerned for my Safety. The EL-Man mentioned personal safety......... After all...that's what all this is all about..RIGHT..?? SAFETY. I'm all for Safety.

This is all Tongue in Cheek...................................RIGHT..??

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckypete

so who's going to man the metal detector at the door?

OK, a couple of you guys are starting to give me the creeps.

OCDACTIVE · 11-14-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

OK, a couple of you guys are starting to give me the creeps.

they are joking around.... Seriously I hope you come.

11-12-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I was surfing the net looking for the average boat registration payment to NH when I stumbled across a study completed in June 2003.It addresses the economic impact of NH's surface water uses and breaks it down into various subsections ie: Boating, Fishing, Swimming etc.We've been down the road of statistics vs emotion before. Now let's through money into the equation and then ask, does New Hampshire want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Funny you should bring this up. The lead partner at this firm, the guy most involved with this project, was one of the biggest and most vocal supporters of a permanent 45/25 speed limit. He spoke at several events and hearings about the negative impact that high speed boating was having on our "golden egg". He talked about how hard the state has worked for so long to market our lakes and mountains and to project a "natural" image for NH to attract tourists. He worried aloud about the destruction to that image that such a contrary, aggressive, and "unnatural" activity was having and how much of a negative economic impact it was having. Why do you think we don't have photos of 6-ton cigarette boats blasting across the water on the font of our tourist brochures? The very experts you are quoting are some of your most avid opponents on this issue.
Now, please tell us what you found about the registration payments and how, assuming they have increased, that is the fault of a SL that the state has not yet invested $10K into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I will ask any SL supporter that feels someone who breaks the 45/25 is a criminal and scofflaw to please honestly tell me you obey every roadway SL. If you do not, do you consider yourself a criminal and scofflaw?

Scoff⋅law [skawf-law, skof-] –noun 1. A person who flouts the law. Fool [fool] - noun 1. A person who brags openly about being a scofflaw. I am neither a scofflaw nor a fool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

How did you know that one/some of us are Law enforcement officers?????

I know you aren't, from your PM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Dont worry I plan on admitting in a public hearing my blatant disregard for the law.

Of course you will. I can read the headlines the next day ..."Law-breaking go-fast boater tells legislators what they can do with their speed limit - Permanent speed limit bill passes in historic landslide".

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

I just hope you show up, because once you open your mouth my points will be confirmed.

I don't need to show up. My work is done. My points are already confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

That just shows how committed he is to a compromise I guess. I think the SL opposers really are trying to work out a solution IMHO.

I am committed to a compromise and a solution; the compromise we worked out already, and the solution it proved to be. 45 is a pretty darn fast speed in a boat..fast enough for any reasonable boating activity on a crowded lake. Yet is it slow enough to provide for mutual enjoyment of the lake by all...a perfect compromise... and it has proven to be the perfect solution to the problems that so many complained about before last summer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimi

I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The film will be enlightening to these reps and senators that have never been on a boat, let alone spent the weekend on Winnipesaukee. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats, but rather will provide proof that there are far more serious problems, that jeopardize safety on the water. If these people are going to vote on something, they should vote on facts, not fiction created by a core group of people with an agenda. I'm going to document what really goes on out there and how dangerous these conditions are. If a GFBL boat passes too fast or too close, he'll get filmed too. It's time that the truth be told, and video does not lie.

PLEASE tell us when we are going to see this documentary. The suspense is killing me.

Here's a guy "tossed out of his speedboat". No, he wasn't going too fast

Maybe he was drunk;
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/cent...3Q0SNA0HNQ2BM1

onlywinni · 11-12-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Of course you will. I can read the headlines the next day ..."Law-breaking go-fast boater tells legislators what they can do with their speed limit - Permanent speed limit bill passes in historic landslide".

You are probably correct-we finally agree

I will just send my Father in Law. He has captained a boat on Winni for the last 60+ years. He has never operated any boat in excess of probably 40mph.

When he hears the nonsense that comes from the speed limit supporters he is amused. He probably makes a much better witness than I

Thanks for the advice. You are good for something.

BroadHopper · 11-12-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Funny you should bring this up. The lead partner at this firm, the guy most involved with this project, was one of the biggest and most vocal supporters of a permanent 45/25 speed limit. He spoke at several events and hearings about the negative impact that high speed boating was having on our "golden egg".

This same guy is the guy that withheld evidence of Littlefield bar tabs. So that he can protect his liquor license. Never once have I consider him a law abiding citizen. You should go to some of the Planning board hearings. Some of the things he ask for zoning changes. And you say he wants to change the lake to 'Golden Pond'? His establishment is an eye sore if you ask me...............

The only Golden egg he wants to protect is his own.

sunset on the dock · 11-12-2009, 10:46 AM

Things are getting a little intense around here...here's something to lighten things up. That boating accident link from EL above...I was unable to open the article itself but did you see the "discussion" from readers contained in the link. It makes all of us seem downright wholesome and civilized. The grenades that they lob at one another make us look like a bunch of choir boys.

Check it out if you didn't get a chance.

jmen24 · 11-12-2009, 11:28 AM

Why did you choose Lake Winnipesaukee as your home, second home or place to bring your boat or yourself? And which decade in which YOU (not your family) started using it regularly? I am not talking about, went up with my parents, I am talking each one of us personnally.

As we all know there are many other lakes in this region and I am interested to know why some have choosen this lake and when.

I am personally in the market to purchase a boat that will be on Winni full time for the first time this year. We never took our smaller boat on the big lake as we always felt it was undersized for the lake. We primarily boated on Merrymeeting as it was much quiter and more relaxing and closer. The reason we will be choosing Winni for our new boat is access to amenities, dining and entertainment for the kids. The lake has not changed at all in the ten years since we used our old boat heavily to now. I have spent my younger years living 15 minutes south of the Lake and could not call any other area home as the mountains, seasons, towns and scenery keep me close.

Basically we all have our reasons for saying Lake Winni is the place for me, but I really get the feeling that some peoples enjoyment has changed since that decision to come here and if that is the case what was it or when and really what keeps YOU here. (I would like to keep this to each individual posters response, instead of picking apart everyones reasons)

If nobody wants to play, that is fine, I WILL TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!

DoTheMath · 11-12-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmen24

Why did you choose Lake Winnipesaukee as your home, second home or place to bring your boat or yourself? And which decade in which YOU (not your family) started using it regularly? I am not talking about, went up with my parents, I am talking each one of us personnally.

As we all know there are many other lakes in this region and I am interested to know why some have choosen this lake and when.

I am personally in the market to purchase a boat that will be on Winni full time for the first time this year. We never took our smaller boat on the big lake as we always felt it was undersized for the lake. We primarily boated on Merrymeeting as it was much quiter and more relaxing and closer. The reason we will be choosing Winni for our new boat is access to amenities, dining and entertainment for the kids. The lake has not changed at all in the ten years since we used our old boat heavily to now. I have spent my younger years living 15 minutes south of the Lake and could not call any other area home as the mountains, seasons, towns and scenery keep me close.

Basically we all have our reasons for saying Lake Winni is the place for me, but I really get the feeling that some peoples enjoyment has changed since that decision to come here and if that is the case what was it or when and really what keeps YOU here. (I would like to keep this to each individual posters response, instead of picking apart everyones reasons)

If nobody wants to play, that is fine, I WILL TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!

I have a really nice 2007 Cobalt 222 (now called the 232) with 10 hours, YES 10 hours on it for sale! Sitting on a custom trailer - PM for more deets!)

And I'm all for a meeting - enough of the "hide behind the keyboard /screen" BS. Man (or woman) UP and show yourself - it's easy to sit at your desk and type, but who's really interested in being heard AND seen!? Name the time and place and I'm there (if I'm not traveling for personal / biz.) and I will be the first person to shake EVERYONE'S hand, offer a warm greeting and an offer for a genuine debate on the SL. It's the off season up the lake, so there should be plenty of places (restaurants, etc...) to accommodate as many of us that want to meet up and chat.

OCDACTIVE · 11-12-2009, 12:07 PM

for meeting I am thinking the weekend of January 9th at the lake.

This way we will be beyond the holidays.

Would this work for everyone?

Maybe over in Meredith?

OCDACTIVE · 11-12-2009, 12:09 PM

Or the 2nd if everyone is going to be up there after new years???

BroadHopper · 11-12-2009, 12:32 PM

I choose to stay at the lake. My family had a place on the lake since 1892. When the Claremeont education BS flared up, our taxes have quadrupled. My family had to sell a great fishing lodge that looks like the lodge on the movie 'On Golden Pond'. It is a shame as a 'fat cat' bought the property, tore down the lodge and built a McMansion.
Now I have 'laketop' property. The family is already 'railroaded' out of our lakefront property, I be be d@%n if I am 'railroaded' out of my laketop property. All because of a bunch of non NH natives that thinks they can 'railroad' their way into NH.

That is why I am putting up a fight. My family suffered enough! 'Live Free or Die trying!'

As for a meeting after the New Years. I usually leave for Breckenridge. The annual ULLR festival is on the second week of January. For those who have not seen this, add it to you 'bucket list'. You won't be disappointed!

I usually stay for about a month or more. Depending on the snow conditions and how the rental is going. I have a 4500 sq ft ski lodge for rent with 4 bed rooms, 1 bunk room, and 4 bath rooms. I usually rent the lodge out to a family. Due to the economy, I have been running it as a rooming house last year. A lot of work.

The lake is my 'home' and I intend to live there for the rest of my life. I will fight the laws that take me off the lake because I am poor and the fat cats can take over.

LIforrelaxin · 11-12-2009, 12:40 PM

Unfortunately for me the first two weekends in January are very busy. My girl friend gets her Children Back from their Dad the first one, and the Second one is her Son's Birthday.
In short I wouldn't be able to do either of those weekends.

VtSteve · 11-13-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Things are getting a little intense around here...here's something to lighten things up. That boating accident link from EL above...I was unable to open the article itself but did you see the "discussion" from readers contained in the link. It makes all of us seem downright wholesome and civilized. The grenades that they lob at one another make us look like a bunch of choir boys.

Check it out if you didn't get a chance.

I did read them, pretty bad indeed. One guy was the brother of the deceased. The accident discussed was determined to be cased from mechanical failure, a fact ignored by those cheering about the demise of the person. I've seen this on many newsgroups, where a tragic boating accident (regardless of the reasons), have led to some pretty outrageous attacks on that entire segment of the boating world.

I might add Sunset, I have tried to engage in a rational discussion of many of the accidents force fed on this forum. I think Yosemite Sam was the only person that actually looked at the rebuttal, and read the ensuing follow up to the incident. APS is still bewildered.

There is a great deal of prejudice in the pro SL crowd amongst the most vocal members. We've been unable to get through the prejudice, and I think that's why a meeting was suggested to break the ice. There's at least one supporter that is trying his level best to make sure that the message of hate and prejudice is not snuffed out. You've probably been given instructions to not deal with these people. If you met some of the opponents, you'd most likely find out their intentions are good, and they all share a camaraderie with boaters of all kinds.

It's not about agreeing, it's about discussion and rational thought. The accidents were pretty easy subjects for rational thought, because you can generally follow them to their conclusion. The 21' versus 40' boat accident generated discussion that I thought would point out the problems inherent with applying prejudice to law and/or opinions. It pointed out the problems for sure. I'm sure the only reason it was posted in the first place is that the OP doesn't read the articles

Let's face it, some people love to target one group or another. There are some GFBL people that poke fun at others, and vice versus. I choose not to associate with those people, but I don't throw whatever group they're in to the wolves either. People that engage in this behavior cannot have any camaraderie with the other side. They require constant opposition to whatever is said to keep the level of vitriol up. It's not about the issue, it's mostly about them and whatever agenda they have. Nothing gets accomplished of course, and they'll be the first ones gone if proven wrong.

There is a better way, and everyone can well choose to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. This was a first step in at least creating civility and letting everyone know that there are real people behind these keyboards.

VtSteve · 11-11-2009, 01:28 PM

1/18/2008

New Hampshire May Raise Speed Limit, Ticket Dawdlers
New Hampshire could be the first northeast state to break the 65 MPH speed limit barrier.

The New Hampshire state House Transportation Committee on Tuesday heard testimony on legislation that would make New Hampshire the first northeastern state to increase its maximum speed limit to 70 MPH since the federal government ordered the state to drop its speed limits from 70 MPH to 55 MPH in 1974. The bipartisan legislation, introduced by David L. Smith (D-Nashua) was designed to bring New Hampshire into line with the states outside of the northeast, most of which already have roads posted at 70 MPH or greater with Texas holding the top position at 80 MPH. The measure would also make it a $50 offense to hold up traffic in the fast lane.

Smith intends to boost highway safety by allowing state police and other law enforcement to crack down on passive aggressive drivers who insist on driving slowly in the far left lane, obstructing the flow of traffic. The legislation requires that police issue a warning on the first offense and a $50 ticket for any subsequent offense.

The legislation applies the 70 MPH limits to any four-lane divided highway in the state and sets speeding ticket rates that range from $65 for being accused of driving 71 MPH up to $350 for 91 MPH. Anything over 96 MPH would require a court appearance.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2179.asp

I bolded my favorite part

Ryan · 11-11-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

It's been pointed out that the majority of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding the SL...25 MPH at night.

It's also been pointed out that we all (or most of us) agree that there needs to be a Speed Limit at night. But this has nothing to do with 'the boating experience', sense of safety, perceived civility and the like.

Although most would agree travelling at 'unlimited speeds' at night is unsafe, I can recall more than a handful of times this summer sitting on the beach at night watching and listening to boats roaring through the Witches. While I did not have my Lidar gun handy (neither did the MP) there was no doubt that these boats were exceeding the SL. These are strictly my observations of where the SL will never work without funding to properly staff the MP.

VtSteve · 11-11-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

It's also been pointed out that we all (or most of us) agree that there needs to be a Speed Limit at night. But this has nothing to do with 'the boating experience', sense of safety, perceived civility and the like.

Although most would agree travelling at 'unlimited speeds' at night is unsafe, I can recall more than a handful of times this summer sitting on the beach at night watching and listening to boats roaring through the Witches. While I did not have my Lidar gun handy (neither did the MP) there was no doubt that these boats were exceeding the SL. These are strictly my observations of where the SL will never work without funding to properly staff the MP.

Most think the funding issue is a no-win situation. Since none of the SL proponents pushed for it, and barely mention enforcement, I can only conclude that BI is right. Ain't gonna happen.

I have done a fair amount of research into boating accidents the past three years, so I was at least vaguely familiar with most of the accidents posted here. The overwhelming majority of night time accidents on the waterways in the country involved alcohol. I'm not blaming alcohol any more than I blame guns for killing, or a specific boat for hitting things. It's the boater's fault, 100%. There have been some horrific accidents at higher speeds at night, but mostly they are not going that fast.

Some say the SL law gives the MP a good reason for stopping these boaters at night, while even some SL supporters think that drunks often drive slower than the SL to avoid getting caught. Either way, there are still a lot of drinks out there boating at night, SL or not. I hesitate to call people that have a BAL near or at the legal limit drunks, but I try not to get into issues that some fly off the handle with.

SL or not, enforcement at night has been cut back all over the country due to budget problems. So as some people contend, many are quick to pass laws that they know won't be enforced. Maybe there should just be no powefred boats at all on the lake, day or night.

onlywinni · 11-11-2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

It's been pointed out that the majority of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding the SL...25 MPH at night. Even if it is a minority of boats capable of exceeding the daytime limit, it's those few that have had a significant adverse effect on the boating experience for the many (and no I'm not going into the many ways in which those GFBL's have adversely affected the boating experience...it has been discussed here ad nauseum). I am thrilled that these boats cannot any longer legally use the lake as their personal speedway and so are many of my friends and neighbors and apparently a significant portion of the NH public. All this talk about the stealth erosion of our rights and liberties because of a speed limit on the lake seems rather contrived to me. Many on the lake have seen a stealth appropriation of everyone's right's and liberties on the lake due to a few who feel that Winnipesaukee should be their live free or die racetrack. This is why so many will fight to retain this new law. 45/25 was a good compromise.

Although I disagree with your views, you seem like an intelligent person.

Please answer this for me, because I dont recall receiving an intelligent or reasonable answer to date:

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?

I should also add that my boat does not have a loud thru hull exhaust when I am at wide open throttle.

I can answer my own question and the answer is NO ONE, because I did this almost everytime I was out this season and will continue to do so when it is safe, regardless of what ridiculous laws there are.

But back to my question:

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?

sunset on the dock · 11-11-2009, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Although I disagree with your views, you seem like an intelligent person.

Please answer this for me, because I dont recall receiving an intelligent or reasonable answer to date:

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?

I'll answer the question with a question. I'm traveling down Rt. 93 at 100 MPH; there is not another car within 2000 feet of me. I feel this is reasonable and prudent(good car, low to the ground, good tires). Another question. I'm driving down my street at 60 MPH (better yet, somebody else's street). The speed limit is 35 MPH. The road is straight, school is in session, and I have a good car, low to the ground, good tires. It seems reasonable and prudent to me. What is the harm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

I should also add that my boat does not have a loud thru hull exhaust when I am at wide open throttle.

I've heard these boats without loud thru hull exhausts at full throttle. They're only quiet when you have ear plugs in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

I can answer my own question and the answer is NO ONE, because I did this almost everytime I was out this season and will continue to do so when it is safe, regardless of what ridiculous laws there are.

Until you get caught that is. There may have only been 1 ticket written this year but that may well change. And the hassle of waiting for the MP to write your ticket, going to court, possibly paying a fine and having it affect yout driver's license may change your mind. Like most of you on this forum, I too am for enforcement of all of our existing laws on the lake, not the least of which is our existing speed limit. Perhaps with the inevitable increase in registration fees this will be improve. If not, a speed limit in and of itself is a deterrent for most.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

But back to my question:

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?

So that was you this summer. Now I remember. My wife kept saying "who is that noisy fool who keeps going back and forth across the broads?" (Don't get mad at me, get mad at her...she said it.)

hazelnut · 11-11-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I'll answer the question with a question. I'm traveling down Rt. 93 at 100 MPH; there is not another car within 2000 feet of me. I feel this is reasonable and prudent(good car, low to the ground, good tires). Another question. I'm driving down my street at 60 MPH (better yet, somebody else's street). The speed limit is 35 MPH. The road is straight, school is in session, and I have a good car, low to the ground, good tires. It seems reasonable and prudent to me. I've heard these boats without loud thru hull exhausts at full throttle. They're only quiet when you have ear plugs in.Until you get caught that is. There may have only been 1 ticket written this year but that may well change. And the hassle of waiting for the MP to write your ticket, going to court, possibly paying a fine and having it affect yout driver's license may change your mind. Like most of you on this forum, I too am for enforcement of all of our existing laws on the lake, not the least of which is our existing speed limit. Perhaps with the inevitable increase in registration fees this will be improve. If not, a speed limit in and of itself is a deterrent for most.
So that was you this summer. Now I remember. My wife kept saying "who is that noisy fool who keeps going back and forth across the broads?" (Don't get mad at me, get mad at her...she said it.

You did it! Nice multi-quoting.

FYI- Blame me I think I taught Sunset how to multi-quote. I created a monster!!!

J/K

sunset on the dock · 11-11-2009, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

You did it! Nice multi-quoting.

FYI- Blame me I think I taught Sunset how to multi-quote. I created a monster!!!

J/K

And I won't be getting any speeding tickets for how long it took me to do it.

Ryan · 11-11-2009, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I'll answer the question with a question. I'm traveling down Rt. 93 at 100 MPH; there is not another car within 2000 feet of me. I feel this is reasonable and prudent(good car, low to the ground, good tires). Another question. I'm driving down my street at 60 MPH (better yet, somebody else's street). The speed limit is 35 MPH. The road is straight, school is in session, and I have a good car, low to the ground, good tires. It seems reasonable and prudent to me.

This is not an attack on your grammar, but these questions lack question marks or any resemblance to a question.

We have speed limits on roads that are a result of years and years of facts and studies. Speed limits were intially put in place as a means of conservation and not safety (please see my earlier post). Unfortunately, there are no facts to show that speeding is a problem on any of NH lakes.

sunset on the dock · 11-11-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

This is not an attack on your grammar, but these questions lack question marks or any resemblance to a question.

You got me there...fixed it. And I ought to be able handle an attack on my grammar...I wouldn't hesitate to attack someone else's.

hazelnut · 11-11-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

You got me there...fixed it. And I ought to be able handle an attack on my grammar...I wouldn't hesitate to attack someone else's.

PULL OVER!!! This is the grammar police!!!

Nice work on the multi quoting. I'm glad you figured it out. Now for some guidelines. Don't be going all Acres Per Second on us and using 625 quotes per post. It gives me a headache.

Pineedles · 11-11-2009, 07:13 PM

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

OCDACTIVE · 11-11-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

VitaBene · 11-11-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

I'm in for a meeting.

11-11-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

This is not an attack on your grammar, but ...

"It's not about the money, but..."; "Don't get me wrong, I love him like a brother, but...."; "This is not an attack on your grammar, but ..." - Famous insincerities. This was nothing less than another attack by the grammar police. Now "you're" grammar better never stray or you get what you deserve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

We have speed limits on roads that are a result of years and years of facts and studies.

Maybe in some cases. But in most cases they were just routinely assigned according to the highway type. If what you say was the case, then it would be a HUGE coincidence that almost all interstates have the same two or three limits (55, 65, and 70), and almost all parkways have the same 45MPH limit. If what you say was the case, one highway would have a 54MPH limit, another would have a 63MPH limit, and another might have an 88MPH limit...each based on those years and years of facts and studies that determined just what the exact right speed limit was right for each stretch of each highway. Do you really think that they did studies on all of NH's highways and determined that almost all of them deserved the exact same 65MPH speed limits for almost all portions of each? The 65 limit on 93 was assigned with the same degree of specificity that 45/25 was chosen in HB-847...65 is the speed that "works" on almost all highways and 45/25 is the speed that "works" on hundreds and hundreds of lakes around the country. It lets the other boaters feel safe while allowing for any appropriate activity. It is a pretty fast speed in a boat, yet slow enough to allow for mutual enjoyment of the lake by all boaters. It is a good COMPROMISE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Speed limits were intially put in place as a means of conservation and not safety (please see my earlier post).

Just because you cite your own earlier post does not make it so. Original speed limits were most certainly established for safety purposes. The temporary reduction to the nation-wide 55 max limit in the 70's was a fuel conservation measure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

there are no facts to show that speeding is a problem on any of NH lakes.

Common sense and all those thousands of people attending hearings and writing letters was all the "facts" that were needed to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that speeding was a problem. Speeding is not a problem on Winnipesaukee anymore. Let's keep it this way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

Rattlesnake Guy · 11-11-2009, 09:44 PM

Any chance the NH legislature could put a ban on multi quoting. It is killing this website.

VitaBene · 11-11-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

Sir, I have been reading your posts as I had decided I was not going to put you on ignore. Instead, I decided to effectively ignore you- I was letting you get under my skin (my bad, I know better, lesson learned).

I will say that this quote of yours is a new low- SL opponents are criminals and scofflaws, legbreakers? You think that if you met with your so called gang of 8, a police presence would be necessary? Really? I am sorry you feel that way. What a terrible way to go through life.

I will ask any SL supporter that feels someone who breaks the 45/25 is a criminal and scofflaw to please honestly tell me you obey every roadway SL. If you do not, do you consider yourself a criminal and scofflaw?

Have a good night.

BroadHopper · 11-11-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

How did you know that one/some of us are Law enforcement officers?????

Ryan · 11-12-2009, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Now "you're" grammar better never stray or you get what you deserve.

Good luck with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Maybe in some cases. But in most cases they were just routinely assigned according to the highway type. If what you say was the case, then it would be a HUGE coincidence that almost all interstates have the same two or three limits (55, 65, and 70), and almost all parkways have the same 45MPH limit. If what you say was the case, one highway would have a 54MPH limit, another would have a 63MPH limit, and another might have an 88MPH limit...each based on those years and years of facts and studies that determined just what the exact right speed limit was right for each stretch of each highway. Do you really think that they did studies on all of NH's highways and determined that almost all of them deserved the exact same 65MPH speed limits for almost all portions of each? The 65 limit on 93 was assigned with the same degree of specificity that 45/25 was chosen in HB-847...65 is the speed that "works" on almost all highways and 45/25 is the speed that "works" on hundreds and hundreds of lakes around the country. It lets the other boaters feel safe while allowing for any appropriate activity. It is a pretty fast speed in a boat, yet slow enough to allow for mutual enjoyment of the lake by all boaters. It is a good COMPROMISE.

This makes absolutely no sense, but if this logic were to prevail, wouldn't certain parts of the lake be subject to a higher speed limit than the more 'thickly settled' neighborhoods?

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Just because you cite your own earlier post does not make it so. Original speed limits were most certainly established for safety purposes. The temporary reduction to the nation-wide 55 max limit in the 70's was a fuel conservation measure.

Read it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Common sense and all those thousands of people attending hearings and writing letters was all the "facts" that were needed to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that speeding was a problem. Speeding is not a problem on Winnipesaukee anymore. Let's keep it this way.

We obviously come to an impasse when it comes to the definition of a fact. I tend to use the commonly accepted version, which excludes things such as feelings, perceptions, opinions and the like.

The law is not working. How do I know it is not working, this past summer there were still boats violating no wake zones, violating the 150' rule regularly, failing to maintain a proper lookout, BUI, boating without a certificate and finally speeding, day and night. The list goes on and on.

It is a solution to a non existant problem. How do I know it was not a problem, because there was a study that showed that during a six month period, 0.075% of the boats were able to achieve a speed greater than 60MPH. There were also ZERO 'high speed' accidents before the SL and ZERO 'high speed' accidents after. While some argue this is the result of the speed limit, I will continue to contend that speed is, and was never an issue.

For the record, I do not own a GFBL.

I'll repost this for you to read again. How can you argue with the Director of the Division of Safety Services? He appears to have some credibility and knowledge of the issue, no?

GILFORD, NH – New Hampshire has the lowest rate of recreational boating fatalities in New England, according to US Coast Guard statistics, and is among seven states that have the lowest rates in the country. ...David T. Barrett, Director of the Division of Safety Services, said the low fatality rates reflect a combination of factors, such as mandatory boater education, aggressive patrol and a cooperative spirit and partnership between the marine trades and water-related tourist businesses.

Kracken · 11-12-2009, 09:23 AM

I would like to commend OCD for his offer to set up a meeting. I for one would be willing to attend. I would hope APS, BI, TB and Sunset would attend as well. As for Mr. Chase, In spite of the fact you have insulted every person that disagrees with your point of view, I would like to meet you in person. I would hope that you really don’t believe your personal safety would be at risk but I can assure you the “cowboys and scofflaws” wish you no harm. I would expect a meeting to be cordial and it would be difficult to figure out who had the opposing views.

I have met some of the speed limit opponents and I can tell you they are good people. I would be astonished to find out that even one member that supports the limits are not as well.

Come on...If Nixon can go to China.....

hazelnut · 11-11-2009, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

This horse has been beaten and he has been beaten severely and I believe unfortunately he will not survive.

DEJ · 11-11-2009, 05:27 PM

Nice "story" about the Tuesday boat. When will this nonsense stop?

Dave R · 11-11-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I'll answer the question with a question. I'm traveling down Rt. 93 at 100 MPH; there is not another car within 2000 feet of me. I feel this is reasonable and prudent(good car, low to the ground, good tires). Another question. I'm driving down my street at 60 MPH (better yet, somebody else's street). The speed limit is 35 MPH. The road is straight, school is in session, and I have a good car, low to the ground, good tires. It seems reasonable and prudent to me. What is the harm?

There is no harm in either situation, I wish more people drove like that. The speeds you mentioned are pretty common in England where 90 MPH is the de facto speed limit on highways and 60 MPH is the actaul speed limit on back roads (roads that NH and NH towns would post at 25 to 35). The reasonable speed limits are about the only thing I miss about living in England.

11-11-2009, 01:07 PM	#3
jmen24 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,139 Thanks: 223 Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts	Time has not passed on Compromise The way I see it, time has not passed on the possibility of compromise. I have been in contact with several legislators in regard to allowing this law to sunset and replacing with one that actually solves the issues. My suggestions have been: Increased penalty for BUI. Increased penalty for violating a NWZ. Maintain a speed limit (not necessarily 45, but that works) in areas that the lake is less than 2000 feet wide. Raise the night time speed to 35MPH to reduce shore erosion, this would remain lake wide . In areas that are wider than 2000 feet, no speed limit, but increase distance from shore to 300 feet in these zones. Adopting USCG rules and giving them teeth that NHMP can use. Some suggestions that I think I may add. Hnuts eliminating the online certificates (this also affects myself) and my creating NWZ's around areas of specific concern for safety, i.e. BI's summer camps. This law also has absolutely no affect on my enjoyment of the lake, as it stands right now, I have not owned a power boat in two years (16ft bowrider with 48HP outboard) and did not use the boat for a period of three years before I sold it. The boats that we are looking into purchasing now, are cruisers and would not realistically reach 45MPH. My feelings on how the legislature has handled this and serveral other laws have been stated and do not need to be repeated. But I am not in favor of supporting a law that was dreamed up by irrational or emotional thought. Last edited by jmen24; 11-11-2009 at 01:10 PM. Reason: forgot one

11-11-2009, 02:44 PM	#10
Ryan Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Mass/Gilford Posts: 247 Thanks: 216 Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts	Here's a video of a canoe tipping over. Fortunately, these boaters were wearing life jackets. This would never happen if we could ban these dangerous canoes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ITPj09ocA __________________ Please do not feel the trolls.

11-12-2009, 08:19 AM	#19
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,545 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts	EL says NYET Wow, I bring up the idea of a meeting again and OCD politely replies, and EL decides he'll have none of that. That just shows how committed he is to a compromise I guess. BTW, the boring part of this thread is El's multiquotes. I think the SL opposers really are trying to work out a solution IMHO.

11-12-2009, 10:16 PM	#21
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law! For those of you wondering about Elchase's response to me in post 402 http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=402 I direct you to the thread 'Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law!' that elchase decided to respond to in this thead. Why not respond in the actual topical thread instead of this one? Something you'll have to ask Elchase.

11-12-2009, 11:51 PM	#22
VitaBene Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 3,592 Thanks: 1,629 Thanked 1,641 Times in 844 Posts	Sidestepping Mr Chase, I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL? Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

11-11-2009, 12:45 PM	#2
DEJ Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 554 Thanks: 526 Thanked 315 Times in 156 Posts	Hnut, I think you misspelled a word or two, get ready to be strung up!!! Great post above, hit the nail on the head.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-11-2009), chipj29 (11-11-2009), hazelnut (11-11-2009)

The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
jmen24 (11-12-2009)

The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
sunset on the dock (11-11-2009)

11-13-2009, 07:25 AM	#25
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,939 Thanks: 2,209 Thanked 776 Times in 553 Posts	Generic, again... Re: I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL? Yes or No? It's real easy to answer. That's easy for this Supporter to answer: I'm on record here as doing 'way over the limit, and getting ticketed (Trinidad, Colorado). Since keeping it at "nine-over" since that 1988 occasion, lawmen have looked the other way. Just one year later, I was a passenger in a car that nearly hurtled off a deserted Colorado roadway—above the treeline. The four of us were going about 60 on a roadway marked for 40-MPH. We were all distracted by something at the time, but my perception "clicked-on" and alerted the driver—just in time to avoid breaking through an Armco barricade! The Opponents here ridicule my repeated admonition to "develop, hone, and keep one's senses at-the-ready" while on the lake. (To include perceiving, watching, but especially developing one's listening capabilities). But the other six months a year, I'm reminded of that phrase as I move about my Florida yard. THIS Florida environment is loaded—not with Cap'n "B's"—but with scorpions! \| \| \| __________________ Is it "Common Sense" isn't.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bear Islander For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-13-2009), hazelnut (11-13-2009), Rattlesnake Guy (11-13-2009)

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-13-2009), jmen24 (11-13-2009), OCDACTIVE (11-13-2009), Ryan (11-13-2009)

11-13-2009, 11:52 AM	#30
Seeker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Effingham Posts: 408 Thanks: 37 Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts	Count me as one of the 217 who voted against the SL in the poll. And yes I am a NH resident and one of my boats was on Winnie. Not all of us have to continually post (if we did El would wear out his keyboard) and I doubt there are many with 25+ screen names.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Seeker For This Useful Post:
chmeeee (11-13-2009), hazelnut (11-13-2009)

11-13-2009, 12:08 PM	#32
DEJ Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 554 Thanks: 526 Thanked 315 Times in 156 Posts	You are correct about the disclosed locations for the speed info gathering. There were at least 4 undisclosed or covert positions from where MP gathered their info which they presented to the transposition committee per their request. Those are the simple facts, no spin.

11-13-2009, 01:23 PM	#34
gtagrip Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 301 Thanks: 115 Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts	I too voted in the poll against the speed limit and I too live in NH.

11-13-2009, 10:13 AM	#38
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,583 Thanks: 3,226 Thanked 1,106 Times in 796 Posts	Enjoyment is tradition. The same reason why the person that took away the tolling of the church bell in Meredith a few years back. So he can enjoy his peace and quiet. Many folks grew up with that bell. It was here before that person move into town. Yet he had the right to shut down tradition. Pretty soon all traditions around the lake and on the lake will be outlawed. Racing and the need for speed was a tradition on this lake. Another tradition bites the dust. And more traditions after that. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

11-13-2009, 10:37 AM	#41
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Does anybody know how many registered boats there are in New Hampshire?

11-13-2009, 10:19 AM	#42
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	I really believe both supporters and opponents should attend. It is clear that every member that is posting is concerned about safety. The disagreement is in the method. I can be objective and see the underlying philosophy of the speed limit supporters. I hope the speed limit supporters can understand the objections. Maybe a face to face meeting will produce better results than the forum has. We do have a common ground here (safety), we need to build on it and develop a solution to present to Concord. Don’t get me wrong, the forum has been entertaining however after months of debate, nothing has been accomplished.

11-13-2009, 06:45 PM	#44
luckypete Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: cow island Posts: 27 Thanks: 33 Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts	Just a Sugguestion so who's going to man the metal detector at the door?

11-13-2009, 08:14 PM	#46
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	Are concealed weapons OK? (Permit Required) I've got a blanket and a baseball bat. Is that OK?.......I'm concerned for my Safety. The EL-Man mentioned personal safety......... After all...that's what all this is all about..RIGHT..?? SAFETY. I'm all for Safety. This is all Tongue in Cheek...................................RIGHT..??

11-13-2009, 08:48 PM	#47
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	In I already said I was in. I'd love to meet bear islander. I'm thinking that we'd all enjoy each others company. I am actually in Meredith tonight. Had a niceMeal at Giuseppes and I'm loving this cold night dreaming of snow and ice and sleds!!!!!

The Following User Says Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (11-12-2009)

11-12-2009, 10:46 AM	#53
sunset on the dock Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 347 Thanks: 153 Thanked 106 Times in 69 Posts	Things are getting a little intense around here...here's something to lighten things up. That boating accident link from EL above...I was unable to open the article itself but did you see the "discussion" from readers contained in the link. It makes all of us seem downright wholesome and civilized. The grenades that they lob at one another make us look like a bunch of choir boys.Check it out if you didn't get a chance.

11-12-2009, 11:28 AM	#54
jmen24 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,139 Thanks: 223 Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts	A question to all Why did you choose Lake Winnipesaukee as your home, second home or place to bring your boat or yourself? And which decade in which YOU (not your family) started using it regularly? I am not talking about, went up with my parents, I am talking each one of us personnally. As we all know there are many other lakes in this region and I am interested to know why some have choosen this lake and when. I am personally in the market to purchase a boat that will be on Winni full time for the first time this year. We never took our smaller boat on the big lake as we always felt it was undersized for the lake. We primarily boated on Merrymeeting as it was much quiter and more relaxing and closer. The reason we will be choosing Winni for our new boat is access to amenities, dining and entertainment for the kids. The lake has not changed at all in the ten years since we used our old boat heavily to now. I have spent my younger years living 15 minutes south of the Lake and could not call any other area home as the mountains, seasons, towns and scenery keep me close. Basically we all have our reasons for saying Lake Winni is the place for me, but I really get the feeling that some peoples enjoyment has changed since that decision to come here and if that is the case what was it or when and really what keeps YOU here. (I would like to keep this to each individual posters response, instead of picking apart everyones reasons) If nobody wants to play, that is fine, I WILL TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME!!

11-12-2009, 12:07 PM	#56
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	for meeting I am thinking the weekend of January 9th at the lake. This way we will be beyond the holidays. Would this work for everyone? Maybe over in Meredith? __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

11-12-2009, 12:09 PM	#57
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	Or the 2nd if everyone is going to be up there after new years??? __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

11-12-2009, 12:32 PM	#58
BroadHopper Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Laconia NH Posts: 5,583 Thanks: 3,226 Thanked 1,106 Times in 796 Posts	Play or Stay I choose to stay at the lake. My family had a place on the lake since 1892. When the Claremeont education BS flared up, our taxes have quadrupled. My family had to sell a great fishing lodge that looks like the lodge on the movie 'On Golden Pond'. It is a shame as a 'fat cat' bought the property, tore down the lodge and built a McMansion. Now I have 'laketop' property. The family is already 'railroaded' out of our lakefront property, I be be d@%n if I am 'railroaded' out of my laketop property. All because of a bunch of non NH natives that thinks they can 'railroad' their way into NH. That is why I am putting up a fight. My family suffered enough! 'Live Free or Die trying!' As for a meeting after the New Years. I usually leave for Breckenridge. The annual ULLR festival is on the second week of January. For those who have not seen this, add it to you 'bucket list'. You won't be disappointed! I usually stay for about a month or more. Depending on the snow conditions and how the rental is going. I have a 4500 sq ft ski lodge for rent with 4 bed rooms, 1 bunk room, and 4 bath rooms. I usually rent the lodge out to a family. Due to the economy, I have been running it as a rooming house last year. A lot of work. The lake is my 'home' and I intend to live there for the rest of my life. I will fight the laws that take me off the lake because I am poor and the fat cats can take over. __________________ Someday may never be an actual day.

The Following User Says Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
chmeeee (11-12-2009)

11-12-2009, 12:40 PM	#59
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Texas, Lake Ray Hubbard and NH, Long Island Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,875 Thanks: 1,037 Thanked 892 Times in 524 Posts	Unfortunately for me the first two weekends in January are very busy. My girl friend gets her Children Back from their Dad the first one, and the Second one is her Son's Birthday. In short I wouldn't be able to do either of those weekends. __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

11-11-2009, 01:28 PM	#61
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I guess I missed this oldie 1/18/2008 New Hampshire May Raise Speed Limit, Ticket Dawdlers New Hampshire could be the first northeast state to break the 65 MPH speed limit barrier. The New Hampshire state House Transportation Committee on Tuesday heard testimony on legislation that would make New Hampshire the first northeastern state to increase its maximum speed limit to 70 MPH since the federal government ordered the state to drop its speed limits from 70 MPH to 55 MPH in 1974. The bipartisan legislation, introduced by David L. Smith (D-Nashua) was designed to bring New Hampshire into line with the states outside of the northeast, most of which already have roads posted at 70 MPH or greater with Texas holding the top position at 80 MPH. The measure would also make it a $50 offense to hold up traffic in the fast lane. Smith intends to boost highway safety by allowing state police and other law enforcement to crack down on passive aggressive drivers who insist on driving slowly in the far left lane, obstructing the flow of traffic. The legislation requires that police issue a warning on the first offense and a $50 ticket for any subsequent offense. The legislation applies the 70 MPH limits to any four-lane divided highway in the state and sets speeding ticket rates that range from $65 for being accused of driving 71 MPH up to $350 for 91 MPH. Anything over 96 MPH would require a court appearance. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2179.asp I bolded my favorite part

The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
eillac@dow (11-11-2009)

11-11-2009, 07:13 PM	#71
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,545 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts	This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

11-11-2009, 09:44 PM	#75
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	Any chance the NH legislature could put a ban on multi quoting. It is killing this website.

The Following User Says Thank You to Rattlesnake Guy For This Useful Post:
gtagrip (11-12-2009)