more expert testimony on SB-27

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations

1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord:

"Take it to the ocean, it's only 1½-hours away."

3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response.

Our peaceable boaters are not getting empathy.

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

Our Speed Limit comes with a points system.

[Rusty]

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

[Novah]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

Rusty - I am against the speed limit. However, I agree there were some shots in the video that showed a pre-speed limit law being broken. The problem was not the speed of the boats, it was the closeness. It is illegal to travel under 150 feet from another boat even if the other operator is your good buddy.

There existing law to control this says anything over headway speed requires 150 feet between the boats. That is probably the law that is broken the most on our lakes. And yes, the boats in the video appear to be breaking it. They would have been breaking it at 45 miles per hour as well so the speed limit is not fixing the problem.

[MAXUM]

Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Perhaps banning them entirely is going a bit too far but I don't see why they can't be required to produce a similar "license certification" as they would to rent a car!! You don't see National, Budget, Hertz or Avis renting a car to anyone without a valid driver's license! Renting a boat should be the same.

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. NB

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. NB

Mea culpa......that one was a bad example but you know what I was getting at. Something more than a "quickie quiz" administered by the marina renting the boat should be required! Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend?

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'd sure be curious to know just how many people "flunked". I agree w/ Seaplane no way anyone is going to turn away money that's sitting on the counter.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'll take that bet. Why? MP probably issues more warnings and tells renters "don't do that again" and gives them a free pass rather than issue a ticket.

The first order of business would be to get the MP to even record this level of detail. I doubt they do but maybe they'll suprise us.

In any event, it is ironic (err, moronic) that rental places would open their mouths about passing restrictive boating laws.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

Now you're barking up the right tree. Go after a real problem. Not sure about Shep's, but Thurstons is probably the worst offender.

[NHBUOY]

...let's see if I got this right...an INORDINATE amount of "licensed boaters" DON'T (or WON'T) follow the simple "Rules of the Road(water)" & operate their boats while under the influence...Enforce THESE rules/laws...Don't make NEW laws that are going to be "ignored" & NOT enforced...

[fatlazyless]

If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

[Winndow]

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

[lawn psycho]

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

[Woodsy]

The hypocrisy is truley amazing, but as my grandfather used to say... follow the money!

The marinas dont want to lose a customer with $$$ on the table because he/she doesnt have a safe boating certificate... So any attempt to change the rules that make renting a boat a safer experience for ALL by requiring a boating certificate is going to be met with strong resistance!

Almost all of the marinas rent boats... and boat rentals equal $$$! Now while Shep's has wisely stayed out of the speed limit debate, realizing that a customer is a customer regardless of what their type of boat is... others like Thurston's (who lost the Cobalt dealership) and Fay's decided to step right in....

Thier logic?? Less speedboats = more rentals! Its actually pretty simple but obviously flawed logic. No data to support thier claims of a safer lake, and certianly no measurable rise in rental business because of the speed limit. In fact no doubt the rental business and gas sales have been off because of the economy.

I think that ANY business that takes a stance on a political issue such as this where they choose one type of customer over another is extremely shortsighted... why lose any business? I for one no longer have my bi-annual family dinner at the C-man restaurants... it wasnt much, a $700 bill for the night for the 12 of us or so.... but its still money they dont get. I try to avoid any C-Man restaurant.

Woodsy

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you

I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you!

Since my boat can barely do 50MPH I don't have many worries about the SL. I just may be the only boater out there with a radar detector though. I'm curious to see what the signals I pick-up on the water.

The cops could be real sneaky and clock people on the water as they approach a bay and then ticket them when the land at the dock. Just sayin'

I can't forget about the no-rafting areas though

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Winndow

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

[Chimi]

Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Chimi

Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

No wake is a speed limit.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

No wake is a speed limit.

OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Mr. Bear, it's not the speed itself that can be their issue - speed is irrelevent. It has to be their perceived effects of speed (danger, safety, etc) that is their concern. So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Chimi

So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

WINN
F- family
A- alliance
B-boating
S- slowness

perhaps this would have been a less misleading name

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

Yes, well how about that and isn't that interesting......gee whiz......no kidding!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?

Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

NO!!!! You go to Sebago.....I like Lake Winnipesaukee just the way it is thank you.

The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building, which is the building across the street behind the Statehouse in Concord.

See you there lawn psycho

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

See you there lawn psycho

Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.

Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng!

Lee is more common in Korea (as is Kim) It's Mr. Liu in China....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Rusty

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

Rusty

The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

I know I said I wouldn't post again in this thread but I think Vitabene's comment should be addressed.

In the “Posting Guidelines” that are in the FAQ section it states the following: “Don't post excessive numbers of messages or comments. Posting more than a few messages or comments in a day is excessive and may get you moderated or restricted.”

I know there are a lot of members (including me) who post more than “a few” in a day but I just don’t want to be moderated if I over post.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

Rusty, my issue with that video is there is what I would consider reckless operation which had a MP boat been in the area I suspect they would have been stopped. However, I think it's the sound that really draws the attention too them and why people oppose them.

Last summer we were at the West Alton sandbar and one of the super shiny old-school wooden boats picked up anchor. When he started the motor I swear it must have regsitered as a mini-quake. As he pulled away, he headed somewhere towards Wolfeboro at what appeared crusing speed probably around 20-25 MPH. That boat was loud and my wife's comment was, "why does he have to drive it so fast"?

Keep in mind that most basic bowriders can reach 50 MPH so making every boat on the water into law breakers isn't fair either. The speed limit doesn't change a single thing on the lake.

If you think the dumb moves are isolated to high performance boats you don't boat on the same Winni I do. However, I do find most people respectful of other boats and it's not pandamonium as the SL supporters would like to mislead the non-boating public to believe.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

I've been boating on Winnipesaukee for 36 years. I don't believe you.

Here's a video that just as unrelated as the one you posted, but more entertaining.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

Sebago has adequate line-of-sight nearly everywhere. Immediately adjacent is a lake where the world ended for two peaceable boaters.

(That perpetrator—described as "unremorseful and perjurous" by the judge—will be out of jail just in time for this 4th of July holiday-weekend.)

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

APS, every time someone steps on the lake bottom they cause water quality to decline as sediment that gets kicked up reduces clarity. If you were to sample the beach in front of shorefront houses during weekend play you would likely see an increase on phosphorus and N2 in the water.

Did you know that slower speeds in no-wake zones can churn up a lot of sediment than would be the case at higher speed?

The placement of docks and boathouses impacts fish species.

There is hard science to back-up what I am discussing. So since you are one of the people who promotes these kinds of things, are you willing to forgo your dock and shorefront properties from having beaches?

How about allowing faster speeds through NWZs to correspond to the average depth? Could be 8-12 MPH instead of a blanket 6 MPH.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you they typical Winni "as long as I have mine" type of guy?

I've "had mine" for 55 years, so I can advise you that some visitors reversed Winnipesaukee's "relax-coefficient". Things got tense if you were a peaceable boater.

The situation got steadily worse until the Speed Limit came to the lake.

1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them.

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me.

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure".

My money is on the Speed Limit.

Originally Posted by Dave R

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27.

1) In some ways, you are correct.

Rob LaPointe established a horrendous driving record before committing his double-homicide upon two peaceable boaters. The "points" gathered in the 22 convictions on his driving record meant nothing to him. Like Lake Winnipesaukee's most recent "celebrity", he retains "good" lawyers.

2) Last season, I watched as a GFBL passed a Marine Patrol at double the speed limit; at the time, the NHMP boat was towing a PWC, and unable/unwilling—to enforce noise- or speed- limits.

I've watched many summers as many other over-sized boats chose to ignore the laws they didn't like.

3) That Director Barrett is only lukewarm into enforcements, just may mean his time is up! (Just as former Commissioner Richard Flynn's backroom "monkeying" with Speed Limits led to his eventual replacement.)

Originally Posted by Dave R

Why don't you [Rusty] show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

I am now "out" of this discussion until Wednesday—but:

You can never beat "The Longest and Safest Season in Anyone's Memory".

1) SB-27 removes the speed limits, the points system, and any chance of ridding BWI through NHMP use of RADAR. (Especially RADAR after dark, when NHMP patrolboats are nearly indistinguishable from other night boat traffic).

2) Since these changes apply throughout the state, does Squam Lake risk losing its "kinder" reputation as well?

3) A Tuftonboro family—who remain unknown to me—tried to hand me their video camera—right from their dock! I had to turn down that offer, as there was great risk in being a small boater near this airborne ocean-racer, so this photo must substitute for the video.

BTW: This photo accompanied every letter I've mailed to those Representatives and Senators who were wishy-washy on Speed Limits.

'Guess I'll need to mail those again—just to make sure.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

[1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them.

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me.

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure".

My money is on the Speed Limit.

Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub...moorage_e.pdfS

A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded.

The biggest threat to the lake are those who on shorefront property. How many things from their properties and docks end up in the lake. You talk about stuff making into the lake. Let's talk about run-off from clearings and the 100s and 100s of septic fields that are nowvery close to the lake.

So keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem.

Too busy to play scientist right now.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub.../moorage_e.pdf
A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded. Keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem. Too busy to play scientist right now.

1) Look under many moored boats on the lake: Go slowly and you'll see Smallmouth Bass "taking in the view" from under those moored boats.

Triple-digit speeds—in any way that SBONH defines it—are no way to take in the many natural wonders and scenic beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee.

2) http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub.../moorage_e.pdf

Your "documentation" concerns the ocean's marine environment in Canada.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Your "documentation" concerns the ocean's marine environment in Canada.

APS, I give you an open invite to open a specific thread on this topic. Your choice.

[topwater]

BY Acres per Second.

Triple-digit speeds—in any way that SBONH defines it—are no way to take in the many natural wonders and scenic beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee.

That is such a STUPID statement. You are a foolish man. Talk about making things up, my goodness. I bet you have never, ever seen a boat go triple digit speed on Winnie in your life. Other then regulated boat races a few years ago. Speak the truth and others will listen, Talking BS, people think your a fool. But, I suppose if the shoe fits?? Just saying !!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord: [/CENTER]

3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response.

Our peaceable boaters are not getting empathy.



Our Speed Limit comes with a points system.

#1 your opinion sorry I and I'm sure many others don't share.
#2 his opinion I promise I won't take a fast boat to concord
#3 put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference
#4 by the way I am a passenger on 93 south as I type and wait isn't there a speed limit...... with a point system that must be why everyone is going 55

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

...put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference...

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

......The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanket statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanked statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

I think we should do a poker run with APS and BI's places as waypoints. Maybe even have a swim call/rafting party out there as well!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

[Woodsy]

I think there should be.... get this.... a COMPROMISE!

IMHO, all of the FATAL accidents have occured at NIGHT and ALCOHOL was involved! In EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT there was a violation of the COLREGS! EVERY SINGLE ONE! It can be argued that all accidents are violations of the COLREGS. But in the last 2 accidents, both accidents occured at NIGHT, several of the COLREGS were violated, quite possibly some BWI laws as well. Niether of the last 2 accidents occured over the current night time speed limit of 30 MPH.... however they were both grossly in violation of Rule 6, namely too fast for the conditions at the time of the accident and failure to keep a proper lookout. Add in booze and you have recipe for disaster. No speed limit would have prevented these accidents from occuring!

I personally think a COMPROMISE is in order! I get that there are extremeists on either side, but I think there can be middle ground!

I propose the adoption of the COLREGS, an unlimited DAYTIME limit (when visibility can be measured in MILES) and keep the current night time limit of 30 MPH.

My logic is this, we have had NO hi-speed collisions during the daytime. The reason being visibilty is measured in miles, and we have the 150' rule! That rule does more to prevent accidents than many people realize!

Most of the major accidents occur at night, and usually alcohol is involved. Given the inherent lack of depth perception at night, lower visibilty, and increased possibility of intoxicated skippers... I think the current night time limit of 30 MPH is appropriate!

Woodsy

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.

But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.

And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.

The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.

But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.

And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.

The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum.

BI, given that alcohol was a key factor do you honestly think a speed limit would have done anything to change the drivers thought process that night?

And if you need to bring up something from the 70s to maintain relevance to today's current problems then I will call you out on it. The article does not say how fast they were going but it would appear the chain of events that led to the crash is too much to drink.

So what data exists showing 45 MPH will make any difference for daytime boating?

The SL proponents desire to link some of these accidents is a prime example of how correlation does not imply causation. Suggested reading for the pro-SL crowd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

We could spend hours just discussing the lack of correlation. I frequently post things as a tongue-and-cheek way for people to see the fallacies of their logic but it often goes over people's heads.

[jarhead0341]

I just want some hard facts and I get nothing but do my own research comments .... I have and can find no official data to support the claims of all these high speed accidents .... I have educated myself and there are no facts

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

I just want some hard facts and I get nothing but do my own research comments .... I have and can find no official data to support the claims of all these high speed accidents .... I have educated myself and there are no facts

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

BI, how many of the accidents involving fatalities have involved alcohol? Attributed to speed? If the boats weere moving then I guess he's correct in that is was a factor.

Correlation does not mean causation Psst, the insurance companies rely on this fact when setting car insurance rates.

[jarhead0341]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;150506]Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.[/QUOte


speed doesn't mean high speed that's what your missing......why do I bother you win I can't take anymore

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

An accident involving a boat travelling at 10 MPH in a no-wake zone could be attributed to speed.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

Could this 2008 "incident" have been one of those three fatalities?

(Sorry for the "all-caps", but that's how the article was posted.)

IN ANOTHER INCIDENT EARLY SATURDAY MORNING, MARINE PATROL OFFICERS GOT A CALL SHORTLY BEFORE 12:30 FROM SOMEONE NEAR KONA COVE ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE THAT THEY’D HEARD A CRASH AND SOMEONE CRYING.

MOULTONBOROUGH POLICE OFFICERS AND THE MARINE PATROL DETERMINED THAT A PERSONAL WATERCRAFT BEING DRIVEN BY 24-YEAR-OLD BRIAN CROWLEY OF MOULTONBOROUGH HAD HIT A MOORED BOAT AND DAMAGED ITS SWIM PLATFORM. OFFICERS LOCATED CROWLEY AND HIS FEMALE PASSENGER RENEE GOGGIN ON SHORE, WHERE CROWLEY WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED.

- - - - - - - -

Renee Marie Goggin, 21, daughter of Vincent J. and Marie A. Goggin, died unexpectedly on Wednesday, July 22 at St. Joseph's Hospital in her home town of Nashua, New Hampshire. Renee's death was the result of a maritime accident as she was riding a PWC with a friend when it crashed into a pylon.

Renee was born on May 8, 1988 and was a graduate of the Academy at Swift River in Cummington, MA. She was attending Saint Leo as a major in elementary education. She loved children and decided that she wanted to be a teacher. Those who knew her say she was a sweet, fun-loving person who enjoyed music, dancing, and scrapbooking. Renee was also a former staff member of The Lions' Pride.

A memorial mass was held for her on Thursday, September 3 in the Student Community Center Boardroom in which Renee's mother Marie spoke of her daughter's life. Renee will be missed by all who loved her and knew her.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

BI, given that alcohol was a key factor do you honestly think a speed limit would have done anything to change the drivers thought process that night?

And if you need to bring up something from the 70s to maintain relevance to today's current problems then I will call you out on it. The article does not say how fast they were going but it would appear the chain of events that led to the crash is too much to drink.

So what data exists showing 45 MPH will make any difference for daytime boating?

The SL proponents desire to link some of these accidents is a prime example of how correlation does not imply causation. Suggested reading for the pro-SL crowd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

We could spend hours just discussing the lack of correlation. I frequently post things as a tongue-and-cheek way for people to see the fallacies of their logic but it often goes over people's heads.

Once again you are reading way to much into what I post. I am only posting the FACT that these accidents occurred.

I leave it to the reader to determine their own OPINION as to how relevant these accidents are to a speed limit.

If you want to look things up on wikipedia, try looking up the difference between fact and opinion.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again you are reading way to much into what I post. I am only posting the FACT that these accidents occurred.

I leave it to the reader to determine their own OPINION as to how relevant these accidents are to a speed limit.

If you want to look things up on wikipedia, try looking up the difference between fact and opinion.

Would it help if I copied pages from the stats books on the shelf right next to my desk?

Didn't the M/S Mount Washington have a drunk passenger go overboard and die several years ago? The boat was *gasp*, moving. The captain must be a cowboy. Yeeeehaaaaaa!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

Testimony before a legislative committee, by a professional accident investigator, is not "forum chatter".

For a third time I will point out that it is not by duty to educate the anti-SL side about accident data. You want me to do all the leg work and post it here so you can pick it apart and come up with reasons why it is not relevant.

My point is that you need to educate yourself about the facts BEFORE you start making blanket statements about the history of boat accidents on Winnipesaukee.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.


Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

really I should do my research....... who was decapitated on lake winni and when did related to speed become high speed ......you believe your opinion to be fact and all else as garbage so why don't we stick to winni issues and stop drawing photos and stories from all over the world into this .......... I just want you to give me an example of your claimed many high speed accidents from this lake

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

It's unbelievable how people can equate "high speed accidents" with accidents "attributed to speed".