Speed Limits

[PROPELLER]

I will apologize in advance for the length of this post. However, I think it is important to understand why the speed limit supporters feel it is necessary.

First, I would like to know if there are any statistics that are specific to Winnipesaukee detailing the number of accidents involving more than 1 boat in the last 1, 2, 5, 10 years etc and if there are how many involved serious injury, property damage or both & how serious the injuries or damage was. If these are available is there any information explaining how fast the boats were traveling at impact etc. I am asking about this because to me this is what should be used to support or not support a speed limit. I am also asking because in my observations while on the lake and in following the news I am only familiar with 1 tragic accident on a summer evening in Meredith that falls into this category & by all accounts the offending boat did not appear to be exceeding any of the proposed speed limits. Other than this 1 accident the only other incidents I hear about with any frequency at all are ones like a canoe capsized or I recall a couple summers ago that some one fell off a pontoon boat in the evening of off Diamond Island.

If these kind of statistics can not be produced then the speed limit supporters are in favor of HB162 for some other reason or reasons. At this point, I can only speculate. Lets take a stab at it. They do not feel safe when out on the lake because they perceive that too many boats are going well in excess of 45 mph. First, what some one thinks a boats speed is & what it really is could be 2 different speeds. Secondly, because the vast majority of boats on Winni are not capable of exceeding 50 mph, many are not capable of exceeding 40-45 mph how could it be true that too many boats are traveling well in excess of 45 mph? Lastly, even with some boats exceeding this proposed 45 mph limit, what evidence is there that this is not safe? I'm not hearing about collisions at high speeds & if they were happening believe me you would hear about it. It would be big news just like the tragedy in Meredith. I'm not hearing about collisions at low speeds either.

Next possible reason, too many boats? although I do not believe Winni is too crowded yet, in my opinion. This is a moot point since being too crowded has nothing to do with speed.

There is another reason. The speed limit supporters have alluded to the fact that high performance boats make too much noise. There is a noise ordinance or illegal db level but apparently they are not happy with this ordinance. I will speculate on this, because they are not happy with the noise ordinance they think that if they can pass a speed limit that will make high performance boat owners so unhappy that they will not frequent Winni, this will solve their noise problem. Again, this is a moot point since this is not speed related because even at 45 mph the noise is more than the speed limit supporters can bear & apparently they are not interested in supporting a different noise law that may solve this problem.

There is one other possible reason that I have stated in previous posts. Some, not all, just don't like high performance boats for no specific reason, just don't like them & would rather see them go somewhere else. Again this is not related to speed but a speed limit appears to be the only way to possibly rid the lake of these kinds of boats.

So where does this leave us? Unless there are the statistics that I referenced earlier in the post, we are left people that support a speed limit because they perceive that they are not safe(without statistics to support them), too many boats, which is not a speed related issue & is a perception or opinion not a proven fact, too much noise which is already regulated but not to their satisfaction & also not related to speed, don't like high performance boats, again not related to speed but maybe the only way to get rid of these boats.

This post is not meant to chastise speed limit supporters. I am just trying to understand where they are coming from. If these reasons I have discussed here are why they are in support of HB162, I understand them but I do not agree that they should be used by legislators as a basis for passing HB162. Statistics showing that speed in excess of 45 mph is causing too many collisions with property damage & injuries is what the legislators should be demanding before they consider passing HB162.

[Woodsy]

Frank,

Good points. But these sound much like the problems that road cops had many years ago, and I don't recall them excusing themselves and giving up. They took action to strengthen laws, to get the vehicles and equipment they needed, and to hire the officers they needed. Enforcement officials probably went to the state capitols and fought for the stuff they needed to do their jobs. Can you imagine the reaction you'd get if the state police said they did not have enough troopers and that their cruisers were not fast enough, so there was no sense having speed limits on our highways?

Of course, we do not expect them to be tagging boats going 46 mph or trying to measure speeds to within a tenth of an mph. We expect them only to give enforcement a reasonable effort and to cite the flagrant violators, and we expect the deterent effect of the law to do the rest. AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.

What do you mean problems the road cops had years ago? The speed laws already had plenty of teeth, the radar just enabled them to do thier job easier. Then of course the insurance guys got involved. Radar is great in straight line application, such as highways and roads. The diagram Radar #1 shows how & why it works so well in that application, its really a simple geometry problem. Radar has enabled alot less arguing in court over speed citations. The State Police ask for more manpower and better equipment every year. They do a great job with what they are given to work with. However, the Legislature has asked the State Police to provide a "Demonstrable Need" in order to receive any increase in funding. Why, because NOBODY wants to pay for it! There is a cost associated with a speed limit law, the cost of expensive naval search & tracking radar equipment, the cost of maintaining the equipment, the cost of specialized officer training, the cost of hiring additional officers, the cost and burden to the legal system for appeals, etc. etc. How do you propose to pay for all of this? Maybe enact some sort of fee for using Lake Winnipesaukee? They have one at Lake George!

I already expect or Marine Patrol to enforce our existing rules and regulations and to cite flagrant violators of ANY rule! There is already a reckless operation law on the books as well as an operator negligence law. Both of these laws are arrestable offenses and carry far heavier penalties that a speed limit citation. Just look at the trial last year, and speed was not a factor. As for speed limit violation statistics, I would like to see a breakdown of speeding citations issued for excessive speed in a no wake zone vs citations issued for speeding out in open water. I'll bet the majority of citations issued for speeding are in no wake zones! If anyone has those statistics, please post them! (and from what lake)

here is the link to the Lake George State Park Fee Structure:

http://www.lgpc.state.ny.us/boat_reg.htm

Yes, the whole Lake is a State Park!

Your average boater (24' boat, not an overnighter) would have to pay an additional $37.50 for an annual registration just to use his/her boat on lake Winnipesaukee. The day trippers would have to pay $7.50 a day! I am sure that would go over big with everyone!

Bear Islander....

Call Kustom Signals and ask them.... specifically if the handheld radar you mentioned can determine the target vessels bearing and speed relative to the operating officer? I did! It can't! If it cannot do that then it cannot give an accurate reading of the target vessels speed. It is simple geometry! The Falcon Marine Radar is essentially a hand held radar that has been marinized, and by marinized I mean it gives speed readout in knots as well as mph and has been made water resistant. It does not and cannot give the target vessels bearing (course) relative to the officer. It will give you a range, however, that is measured in a straight line from the officer. See my diagram Radar #2. It seems mostly for use in enforcement of no wake zones hence the 1/10th MPH adjustment, where boats are forced to travel slower and within a marked lane of travel. See the similarity to highway use yet?

Laser Radar suffers from the same issues as electron based radar, in that in only works in a straight line, and cannot give the target vessels bearing relative to the MP officer. Laser also suffers a drawback when used against boats in that most boat surfaces are curved plastic, so the light does not reflect back properly.

There are probably less than 10 boats on Winni capable of exceeding 90mph. That doesn't mean that these boats are operated at 90mph all the time. Why should they have to find a new place to recreate just because you don't like them? If people have a hard time judging 150', its a pretty sure bet they are just as bad at judging the speed of another boat relative to their own!

Again I challenge ANYONE to post some empirical data from Lake Winnipesaukee that shows speed was a major contributing factor in an accident! There is absolutely NO DEMONSTRABLE NEED for a speed limit. Absolutely no justification exists for the costs and burdens that a speed limit impose on the tax payers, to the MP and the legal system!

Better enforcement of existing rules & regulations is the answer. How to get better enforcement? Better full time MP staffing. Not more expensive unenforceble rules!

Woodsy

[Islander]

It is easy to see by the length of the posts which side of this argument is losing momentum.

[JDeere]

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.



If the speed limit was 45 MPH I assume MP would give some leeway of 10 or 15 MPH. That means no stops until 60 MPH or so. How many boats out there ca go faster than that? I suspect 30% or so................judging by what I see at the docks.



Of the 30% or of those folks how many are going 60 MPH?



Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.



As far as enforcement hasn’t anyone been stopped by MP for going to fast in a no-wake zone? Let MP worry about enforcement. I am sure they will do just fine.



I do not know if the speed limit will pass BUT I do know that this is start of the process and if it is voted down this bill will keep coming up until it is passed. Makes the lake (common sense) safer for boaters, fisherman, kayakers etc.



Why oppose it?

[ITD]

Woodsy,

You're wasting your time asking for data, I've asked many times and get no response or a picture of a wrecked boat. I don't think there is any data or if there is, it shows there is not a problem. The 45 mph number is one pretty much pulled out of the air. What bothers me most is that the problems listed by the proponents of speed limits are not caused by excessive speed. Large wakes, noise, dangerous behavior won't be solved by a speed limit, anyone who thinks it will be is a dreamer. The other thing that bothers me are the claims that "speed estimation" is allowed as evidence in court. Humans are not equipped to estimate speed without measuring instruments (stop watch, measured distances, laser, radar). Estimating speed of one boat on the lake by eye with any reasonable accuracy is impossible.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.

Thanks for a great post, JDeere! The opposition comes from the small percentage that will have to slow down to a reasonable speed.

Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.

That's been my exact point, but the people who want to travel at 75mph and faster keep insisting that speed has nothing to do with safety. The truth is that the faster you are going, the more distance you cover. If you don't see a small boat (like a kayak) until you are close to it, you'll be all that much closer in the time that it takes you to avoid hitting it (or not). How is that not directly related to high speeds?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If you don't see a small boat (like a kayak) until you are close to it, you'll be all that much closer in the time that it takes you to avoid hitting it (or not). How is that not directly related to high speeds?

Then perhaps a simple safety orange flag added to low visibility craft would be the answer. Seems like a real quick , easy fix to me. I know if I were in a little boat in big water it would make me feel better.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.



If the speed limit was 45 MPH I assume MP would give some leeway of 10 or 15 MPH. That means no stops until 60 MPH or so. How many boats out there ca go faster than that? I suspect 30% or so................judging by what I see at the docks.



Of the 30% or of those folks how many are going 60 MPH?



Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.



As far as enforcement hasn’t anyone been stopped by MP for going to fast in a no-wake zone? Let MP worry about enforcement. I am sure they will do just fine.



I do not know if the speed limit will pass BUT I do know that this is start of the process and if it is voted down this bill will keep coming up until it is passed. Makes the lake (common sense) safer for boaters, fisherman, kayakers etc.



Why oppose it?

WHY YOU ASK!!
People like me who have boated in NH for 49 years that worked very hard to be able to afford a considerable investment on the ability to go over 100mph.
I do it safely, at the proper time and I do not over controle the boat. Most of the time I cruise at 50 to 70 depending on the weather, thats where I get my best mpg.To force somone like me to boat some where else is not living free.

PS: I have gone over 130mph and nobody noticed. I plan on buying a boat that goes over 145mph. I call it my endorphins.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by overlook

WHY YOU ASK!!
People like me who have boated in NH for 49 years that worked very hard to be able to afford a considerable investment on the ability to go over 100mph.
I do it safely, at the proper time and I do not over controle the boat. Most of the time I cruise at 50 to 70 depending on the weather, thats where I get my best mpg.To force somone like me to boat some where else is not living free.

PS: I have gone over 130mph and nobody noticed. I plan on buying a boat that goes over 145mph. I call it my endorphins.

Being afraid to take the family out in the boat on weekends and keeping the swimmers closer to shore than the dock is not "living free" either.

And if my 13' alumacraft gets in your path when you are going 145 mph I will not be living free either.

It is incredible how the GFBL crowd just refuses to see our concerns. How many more need to die?

[jarhead]

It is incredible how the GFBL crowd just refuses to see our concerns. How many more need to die?[/QUOTE]



WHO HAS DIED IN AN ACCIDENT WHERE SPEED WAS THE REASON?????????????? I WOULD LIKE SOME FACTS!

[Islander]

Jarhead

How can anybody be sighted for speed when there is no speed limit?

And the accident we all know about involved a speed greater than the proposed speed limit.

More importantly the accident involved a boat that should not be on Winnipesaukee in the first place.

[codeman671]

Where are all the statistics on accidents reported on the lake? I would love to see one of the people pushing for a speed limit and posting here that all GFBL's are evil to get some real facts for everyone to see regarding the number of accidents in the last 5 years with their cause. How many people have died or how many accidents on the lake could be related to speed? How many to alcohol? How many to plain stupidity? I think that the results would be overwhelmingly towards alcohol or stupidity, not speed. If someone is screaming into Weirs on a congested weekend and acting reckless I can certainly see a need to rule for excessive speed but feel that this would be better handled as a reckless operation citation, not speeding. It has a much stiffer penalty and would call for witnesses instead of an opinion of a seasonal MP officer to make the sole call which could easily be refuted.

How may people are going to take speeding tickets to court? Probaby most. And to be enforced in court the officer needs to be present, this would take the patrolling officers off the lake frequently, rake up huge expenses and fill the local courts with a lot of minor infractions.

"How many more need to die"? Gimme a break. How many have died? Far less than people are claiming or eluding to. I certainly do not discount the value of life but that is a bit dramatic...

[Islander]

These long winded posts on how radar doesn't work are like those people that argue you don't need to pay taxes to the IRS because money isn't really money or something. I don't understand either argument but I know I DO need to pay the IRS.

And I also know that even if I win in court I have already lost by having to go there. It's usually easier and cheaper to pay the fine.

But even if you are right, and radar will not work on Winni, what difference does that make? NONE!

Very few speeding tickets will be written because the really fast boats will all be on the Atlantic, where they should be. Go to Lake George and count the GFBL boats you find there.

[jeffk]

Thanks Skip,
Between Woodsy's initial discussion and your expertise it seems clear to me that the speed enforcement technology is not very accurate on water.

The supporters of the speed limit say that the fast boats prevent their enjoyable use of the lake with smaller and slower boats. I recognize that taking a smaller boat into the broads on a busy weekend would entail a possible increase in risk. However, wherever there is a significant mismatch in the size and power of vehicles it is not a good idea to mix them too closely. This is why we have bicycle lanes and sidewalks and why most slower means of transportation are prohibited on high speed roads. Why is it demanded that every sq. foot of Winni must be allocated and protected for smaller boats? There are many areas that are not practical for larger and faster boats that can be used comfortably and exclusively by smaller craft. The 150' rule creates a buffer zone around every piece of land that is available for slower speed craft. There are also many other lakes, some of which completely prohibit power boats. I don’t want this to be misstated to say that I think smaller boats should be restricted. The choice to travel wherever they wish is theirs and they should be given every respect and legal protection (such as yielding to them) however I think that putting restrictions on other’s use of the lake so that the smaller, slower crowd can feel comfortable is going too far.

I also find it interesting that it seems to be the opinion of the speed limit supporters that if an accident happens at a fast speed then speed must be the cause of the accident. If a boat rams into a dock at 10 MPH or at 70 MPH the cause of the accident is not speed, it is operator error and illegal operation under many laws already in existence. You might even say the speed was excessive for the situation (even at 10 MPH). The purpose of a speed limit is to recognize that the conditions of operation are such that a limited speed is required. This is usually indicated by rising accident counts or excessive congestion. This may be true in some parts of Winnipesaukee where there is high traffic or limited maneuverability, especially on summer weekends. However, the statistics seem to indicate the vast majority of problems are reckless operation, drunk boating, and violation of the 150' rule. I wonder if there is an accident and the MP feels the speed was excessive if it is indicated on the accident report? You don't need a speed limit to make this observation. This would be a reasonable thing to track but until I see statistics that support excessive speed being a significant primary contributor to accidents I don't support a general speed limit on the lake.

[jarhead]

Sorry Islander should have used better word than cited , how about reason ? My bad i will edit.

[PROPELLER]

J Deere says he has read all the posts, so he should know why the SL is being opposed if he read them all, so what do you not understand J Deere?

J Deere also said that there will probably be 10-15 mph leeway & that maybe true. So why isn't the proposed SL 60 mph? I'll tell you why, the supporters pushing the hardest want high performance boats off the lake period. They don't like them. 60 mph would not keep high performance boats from coming to Winni & they would still have to deal with what they think is unacceptable noise. So why not lobby to lower the db level?

If the speed limit supporters & WinnFABS were truly interested in making Winni a safer lake, long before now WinnFABS would have been in existence(instead of after a speed limit was proposed)& would have been lobbying & supporting better education, strengthening the certification program, demanding more & better trained marine patrol officers, demanding increased enforcement of existing laws etc. Where were these SL proponents before HB 162?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

60 mph would not keep high performance boats from coming to Winni...

It may not "keep" them from coming to the lake, but it will certainly cut down on the number of them. In fact the more speed crazy the operator, the more likely they will go elsewere.

[PROPELLER]

I disagree, because I believe the vast majority of high performance boats that use the lake are traveling between 50-60 mph. Lets hear from high performance operators that monitor this forum.

If your out there, is it fair to say that the majority of high performance boats are cruising in the 50-60 mph range?

As far as speed crazy, I don't believe you are going to see any difference because I think this type of operator rarely comes to Winni. As I have said in previous posts, I spend considerable time on the lake & I have never observed a high performance boat endanger another boat or person because of unreasonable speed or negligent operation.

Does not mean its never happened but if it was happening with any frequency at all I am sure I would have seen at least 1 incident if not a handful, I have not.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Islander

It may not "keep" them from coming to the lake, but it will certainly cut down on the number of them. In fact the more speed crazy the operator, the more likely they will go elsewere.

I doubt it will have much effect. There are examples of reckless boating all over the lake, the vast majority of which is never policed by the MP. If enforcement had the effect that you expect we would see a reduction in the amount of reckless behavior instead of the perceived increase, by all types of boats, that everyone seems to be reporting. The reckless boaters should be "getting the message" that their type of boater isn't welcome on Winni.

Further, I would expect the MP to focus their enforcement on the worst problems. If I was an officer and saw one boat crusing the broads faster than a speed limit and at the same time saw a boat cut within 25 ft of another boat at 20 MPH I would go after the slower boat causing the more urgent danger. Yes, some speeding tickets would be written, fines would be paid, and people would generally continue to boat as they choose.

[Cal]

Here you are Propeller. This slightly above my normal cruise of 3000 rpm which nets me 50 mph. That is where I get the optimal mileage. Above or below that the mileage drops. Above that , you must keep in mind replacement parts are expensive and I know my pockets aren't bottomless
I do believe the issue is more of getting rid of a certain type of boat , namely the go fasts. Next it will be the cruisers because of their wakes , then the jetskis(at least the 2cycle ones). Next it could be you , so be careful what you wish for...you might just get it .
As far as me not coming to Winni...not till they ban powerboats. But then again I'm also an accomplished sailor (but don't let that be known on the "Marine Mafia" site).

[HotDog]

i love going up to the lake and sitting on the boat letting the waves slap against the hull. But i also love sitting down on the boat as i watch the boats fly by. a speed limit on a lake this size is just stupid. People that own lanch ramps think of how much money they would lose over the summer. nobody would come up to a lake of this great size to drive around at 45mph. Putting a speed limit on this lake would make so many people not want to come up to this wonderful place. The boats are loud, sure they are a little loud but you can't hear them inside your house. when you are sitting on your boat don't you look up when you hear the exciting noice. vvvrrrrm.. i don't know what i would ever do if they put a speed limit on this lake!!!!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Why oppose it?

Because, In my opinion, the main purpose of the speed limit law is to discourage a certain type of boat from using the lake. In my opinion, the backers of the law are not that interested in safety, but rather in driving certain boats off the lake. A real concern for safety would address the most dangerous issues first. Things like summer weekend traffic in front of the Weirs Channel, between Eagle and Governors Islands, and near Glendale are much more dangerous than a 30' Baja zipping down the Broads at 60 MPH on a Tuesday, in September. The proposed law would stop the Baja but have no effect on the other issues.

This summer take a look around, watch the dangerous activity. You'll see for every boat exceeding 45 MPH, you will see 100 boats breaking the 150' rule, and 50 boats operating otherwise unsafely.

Just for background, I live in NH but not at the lake. The only motorboat I've ever owned, is a bowrider and will barely do 40 MPH. I've been on the lake with my family for 18 years and I've even kayaked on the lake.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't argue for certain laws, maybe banning certain boats is a good idea. Maybe lowering the noise limits is a good idea. But there should be truth in what the reason behind a law is.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I think it is important to understand why the speed limit supporters feel it is necessary.

How can you explain how the speed limit supporters feel? Have you polled them? Are you one? Do they all feel the same way and have the same reasons and motivation? How can a post that starts out with you speculating in an extremely general way have much merit?

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

First, I would like to know if there are any statistics that are specific to Winnipesaukee detailing the number of accidents involving more than 1 boat in the last 1, 2, 5, 10 years etc and if there are how many involved serious injury, property damage or both & how serious the injuries or damage was. If these are available is there any information explaining how fast the boats were traveling at impact etc. I am asking about this because to me this is what should be used to support or not support a speed limit.

This has been answered time and time again. Why would there be a single record that cites the cause of an incident as excessive speed, when there is no such thing as "excessive speed" in this lake? ...When marine patrol currently has no means, and makes no attempt to measure speed? Should we be expecting to find a police report that says "this accident was caused because the boat was travelling 78MPH?" How would they know that when they are makign no attempt to measure or note the speed? So instead, they categorize accidents according to the nearest infraction that currently pplies; operator error, reckless operation, etc.
Of course there are no statistics. There were no statistics kept for many years to correlate tobacco smoking to cancer either. It was not until a means to prove the correlation was adopted that the statistics could be compiled and the correlation could be proven. Does this mean that tobacco did not cause cancer before statistics were compiled?
Can we please stop having to answer the "no statistics" argument now?

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

by all accounts the offending boat did not appear to be exceeding any of the proposed speed limits.

Although this is irrelevant, it is also untrue. This boat was going 27MPH, which is indeed OVER the proposed nightime speed limit of 25. Although we will never be able to prove the real cause of this accident unless someone finds a vial of the driver's blood from that night.

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I can only speculate. Lets take a stab at it.

Let's not speculate, let's believe what the proponents have been saying. I do not feel that any speed is safe on this lake. I feel that some limit is reasonable and should be in place. I feel that 45MPH is a reasonable daytime limit and 25 is a reasonable nighttime limit. Now you should say how YOU feel, and let other people say how THEY feel, and stop speaking for them.

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

being too crowded has nothing to do with speed.

You surely did not mean that. I'll assume that you misspoke and will correct it.

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

I will speculate on this, because they are not happy with the noise ordinance they think that if they can pass a speed limit that will make high performance boat owners so unhappy that they will not frequent Winni, this will solve their noise problem.

Again, you speculate wrongly, at least for me. And I have heard NO supporters say that they think the noisy boats will leave. I feel that any boat capable of doinf so makes less noise at 45MPH than it does at 90MPH. I'm sure you will have to admit this is true. he motor is not reving as high,and that results in less noise. Although I have no statistics, I assume you will accept this obvious point of reason. So by slowing down, boats will become quieter. This is a fortunate side effect we will enjoy from the speed limit, but it is only a side effect. Every supporter I have have talked to mainly wants to see boats limited to a REASONABLE SPEED for this lake (but I don't want to speak for them).

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

There is one other possible reason that I have stated in previous posts. Some, not all, just don't like high performance boats for no specific reason, just don't like them & would rather see them go somewhere else. Again this is not related to speed but a speed limit appears to be the only way to possibly rid the lake of these kinds of boats.

This is the most far-reaching of your stabs. I in fact love performance boats. I also love race cars and like to go to races at Louden, but would not like to see those cars racing down my street at those speeds when my grandkids are riding their bikes. I love to watch performance boats scream by when I'm in Miami Beach. I used to take my kids to watch the offshore event on the lake every year. It's very exciting and the boats are beautiful. But that was a sanctioned and highly supervized event, with family boaters kept out of the paths of the racing boats. I would feel differently if they allowed runabouts to travel in and out of the racing paths as they wished. Surely, you do not feel that would be safe, right? Yet today, that same situation could happen and it would be legal. Twenty offshore boats COULD trailer up here this weekend and have a drag race around the lake at 90MPH, with family boaters and sailboats meandering through their paths and dodging them, and it would all be legal. But would it be safe?

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

This post is not meant to chastise speed limit supporters. I am just trying to understand where they are coming from. If these reasons I have discussed here are why they are in support of HB162, I understand them but I do not agree that they should be used by legislators as a basis for passing HB162. Statistics showing that speed in excess of 45 mph is causing too many collisions with property damage & injuries is what the legislators should be demanding before they consider passing HB162.

Or perhaps they should be obeying the mandate of their constituency. That is what this is really about. There is no "right" to drive fast in a boat in this state, so this should and will come down to the number of NH citizens who are in favor of a speed limit versus the number of NH citizens who oppose it. The way our government is set up, legislators know that they will subject themselves to being voted out if they do not adhere to the wishes of those whose votes they will need, and if they hope to be re-elected, they will vote according to the majority of their constituents. I'm anxious to see which way that will go. That is why don't want to waste my time listening to the opinions of GFBL boaters from New Jersey and Oregon. Their opinions simply don't count here. The opinions of people from Mass who own NH real estate and pay NH real estate taxes are always going to be given a certain amount of heed, but it is really going to come down to how NH voters feel.