more expert testimony on SB-27

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

So your answer is what I suspected in that no amount of data would satisfy you.

As far as speed limits based on childrens camps, I think the number of boats on a busy day is a far, far a greater factor than speed. And that's just the facts of life. There are tons of places for camps to have small boats unfestered by motor boats. Do you think a speed limit would change your mind when traveling in the Weirs area on a busy weekend with a kayak?

It's no different then when I avoid traffic areas while on the road. So the bikers ruin the Laconia/Meredith area for me during bike weeks so should that mean they cancel the event for those who don't participate?

Comparing roads to the water is apples and oranges. We set road speed limits on OBJECTIVE data such as traffic volume, accident occurance, population densities, lane widths, number of egress points, sight lines, elevation changes, pavement type, amount of development, and a whole plethera of other criteria. Ever notice in certain areas where the speed limit miraculously changes from 65-55 seemingly for no reason? Now you have your answer..... And if you insist on comparing the water to the road, then do like the NHDOT (and all other States) and complete engineering studies before placing an arbitrary speed limit on the lake. And be careful what you wish for as the data is not likely to be in your favor.

[Yankee]

lawn psycho,

When BI cannot "spin" his way out of a dabate--especially when confronted with facts, he will invariably pull out the "I'm afraid for the campers routine."

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.

http://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/30/a...ed-limits-set/

Since speed limits do not have a measurable influence on actual speeds, it makes sense to set speed limits so as not to make lawbreakers out of a large fraction of motorists. Speed limits that are set too low makes law enforcement more difficult and leads to a disrespect for speed limits.

Shown here is a speed distribution on a rural road. Notice that the distribution is quite narrow, meaning that most motorists drive at nearly the same speed. You will see that changing the speed limit by just 5 mph will make a big change in the number of violators.

So the 85th percentile rule is simply a recognition that speed limits are set for the purposes of enforcement. And since law enforcement only has the resources to cite the most egregious violations, the speed limit is established at or near the 85th percentile, making only about 15% of free-flowing motorists violators.

You may also notice that motorists who go a few mph over the speed limit are not cited. That occurs for two reasons. The first is the lack of law enforcement resources. But where the system really falls down is at the judicial level. Traffic court judges routinely give a 10-12 mph leeway on speeding tickets out of a false belief that radar is inaccurate. So even if some motorists do base their speeds on the speed limit, they routinely go about 10 mph over and almost never get a ticket.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.

If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

Actually he does disagree with you. He prefaces the article by saying he removes his opinion and relies on the data. That's what an engineer is supposed to do.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

http://livermore.patch.com/articles/...coming-to-town

Try this, and many more. I know for sure that almost every roadway on the country used this method for many decades. But I'm just addressing roadway SL. On the water is quite a bit different, and arbitrary limits plucked out of a hat are not really meaningful.