Speed Limits

[jarhead]

L M A O

[SIKSUKR]

This reteric about not feeling safe on Winni because of the speeds of the big boats versus other smallboats is almost laughable with a few exceptions.My boat is only 10 feet long has no sidewalls (yes, I operate the often hated PWC)yet I am perfectly comfortable sitting in the broads watching all the marine activity go by.Where I am nervous is an area like between Eagle Island and the Weirs on a busy summer weekend.That place is downright scary.But that has NOTHING to do with high speeds.I don't think I have seen a boat going more than 45 MPH in that area when it's busy.It certainly wouldn't make me feel any safer there if we had a speed limit.Quite the contrary to some posts here,I find the Broads about the safest place to be on a busy weekend.I spend lots of time floating around with my motor off,taking it all in.I think the most reasonable solution to this debate is to have speed limits in areas and/or days where and when there is congestion.I see no problem with a speed limit in the area I just refered to.There is no reason to go 60 MPH there.At the same time there is no reason to limit speed to 45 MPH in the open water of the Broads.Even though I lean toward the no speed limit side,there are legitimate concerns voiced here for reduced speed areas.Arguments have been made here for a speed limit refering to speed limits on our highways.Well,we have higher speeds on highways than we do on sideroads or busy/congested areas don't we?Why not focus on where the problem really is and not paint such a broad brush.This goes for both sides of this issue.OK let me have it! SS

[lake4life]

Such emotional involvement.. I can see why. Personally, I don't want to see a fixed speed limit. I'm nervous enough watching my heavy foot on the highway. On the lake, I have plenty of other things to look at (scenery, other boaters, etc.) to be checking over my shoulder for our local LEOs. I would be in favor of increasing the minimum distance before supporting a speed limit. If Joe Schmo wants to take his Fountain or I want to take my Sea Doo 60mph through the Broads, far away from shore or other boaters, I don't think that's the law's business.

As for the viability, I don't have the facts or numbers, but I would rather that the Marine Patrol hire more officers than incur the expense of all of the equipment + training + calibration + court costs. I would guess that the total expenses would be able to cover quite a few salaries for seasonal officers. If anyone wants to support or challenge that with numbers, please do so.

The issue of enforcement with regards to catching the violator also came up. My two cents on this is that it will be difficult considering that boats, unlike cars, don't have rearview mirrors with which to see the flashing patrol boat. If I'm railing down the Broads on my jetski, there's little chance I'll see a patrol boat behind me and little chance he'll catch up. Then there are people who would be able to run and willingly do so. There are plenty of PWCs on the lake that can top out around 70mph... just trying to take a realistic standpoint. Ask any state trooper about pulling over people on sportbikes.

Anyhow, watch out for me in my canoe and I'll watch out for you on my PWC

[Great Idea]

If you think that speed is not a factor regarding fatal accidents and the potential for them occurring then think again..... check out the statistics regarding our highways and speed is a major factor in deaths. Come on people..... please. The funny thing about all this is that the off shore boating community laughs at these big go fasts on Winni. One friend who owns a very large go fast and races in Florida compared it to using an INDY car on a dirt track. Come on! If you like big go fast boats then go to the track suited for them.... OFF SHORE. I owned a go fast on Winni and soon saw the ridiculousness of it as I had to plane up, plane down constantly traveling the lake. They are too just too big. I had it for a few years , realized my error in judgement and sold it to someone for use in the ocean. Before you all go off and start the "ohh he doesn't know how to handle it etc" ... I use these type of boats often in the ocean were they belong. I love them more than most however they need to be used elsewhere. Can the broads handle a big go fast? Maybe yes but is it really that exciting tearing up and down the broads ???? Go out and do some real off shore running and then tell me it is. People please ..... the real issue isnt really that you want to go fast perhaps ? Show more than go??? If you really like speed then take your performance craft to the big boy track and use it were it was intended. Lets be reasonalbe for once before we get the headline regarding the tragic death of innocent people due to excessive speed on Winni. Its not if but when...... I have been on the lake regularly since the mid 80's and I see more close calls every year. Often the offending go fast's don't even see the little craft bobbing in the waves just feet from them. I would love to have all my cake and eat it too however I know better. Winni is just too small for high speeds and large performance boats. Time to grow up. Will a speed limit solve all the problems? No way , but being responsible and letting people know that 45 or 50 is a reasonable top speed in Winni is a step in the right direction. Don't worry local economy doom and gloomers.... there will be PLENTY of other boaters to take their place.

[codeman671]

I got the WinnCRAB's mailer today, sorry but you can probably guess where it ended up. In the trash...When Winnfabs realizes that boating education is key and that speed is not the root of all evil I will sign on. Until then my letters to the state will look a bit different than they suggest.

I honestly could see having a night time speed limit due to lack of visibility even though traffic is decreased at night but 45mph during the day is not the answer. Enforce the 150' rule, I see it broken probably on average 40-50 times each day I spend on the lake. Its mostly small family boats, bowriders, pontoon boats, etc. I see the big boats staying clear. Do random BWI checks coming out of the bars in the Weirs Channel. I am sure that would generate a considerable # of citations/arrests.

Throttles do not push themselves, not do boats steer too close to other objects by themselves. Educate and enforce what is already in place. As much as people complain about the speed I am sure the hike in tax dollars on property owners to pay for more boats, more equipment and more officers to inforce HB162 will cause a whole new complaint.

[Just Sold]

OK, Like Grant here I go and throw my 2 cents into the already flaming waters.

I have read most, if not all, of the posts in this thread. So here goes:

A.
A NWZ in those areas with heavy boat congestion is needed to make everyone feel safer. I will not go to the Eagle Island, Weirs or Weirs Channel areas very often and it has to be for a good reason that I would. Wolfeboro needs an expanded NWZ area. There are other areas too.

I believe we need increased NWZ's.

B.
A day time speed limit of 45 MPH does not seem to be the answer but maybe with some real study and not the rhetoric here or in other forums but by qualified people maybe another speed limit would be appropriate. The qualified study people should then report to the Legislative Committe that is looking at HB 162. This issue is so hot on either side of the aisle that the Legislative Committee needs more input but from qualified sources more than just we plain folk. Our intentions are good but do we have the real facts or rumors about what we perceive to be fact.

I do not think this is the year for a day time speed limit.

C.
Now a night time speed limit does seem appropriate. The Meredith accicent and some others even from years back support that view.
Such as:
1. Lack of observation by the driver of the boat that struck another. Could that be called Reckless Operation?
2. Higher Speed contributed to the accidents.

Unfortunately the Coast Guard and NH Marine Patrol do not report the accident data related to speed. Doesn't Reckless Operation seems to fit when speed is involved? I think it might come from the law enforcement point of view.

In the late 60's in Alton Bay there were 2 night time accidents in the same week no less and speed was a factor. Both were rear end accidents and all boats destroyed. Luckily no one was seriously injured or killed. I saw the damaged boats and the one who did the hitting in both cases was not going very slow for the damage observed.

So the danger at night has been there all along and is not a new issue. It is just more crowded and with more boats comes more accidents or at least close calls that do not get reported. They become rumors and tales of night time scares.

To me a 25 MPH speed limit at night is right.

D.
Congratulations on the boaters organizations that have come to our area. Both have a place for those with a similar view. I have not subscribed to either at this time. I am leaning to a more open discusion membership but I have concerns that neither group mentioned here in this Thread is heading that way at this time.

So I will wait on joining any.

Just my Humble Observations and Opinion - Others are welcome to continue this but I am finished.

[PROPELLER]

Islander, I am not ignoring the Meredith accident. It obviously was a collision. But I do not find it relevant to the speed limit debate because my recollection of the Marine Patrol investigation was that operator inattention & BWI were the contributing factors not speed.

[Woodsy]

I really didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into another speed limit debate. I should have known better than to try to reason using scientific logic, statistical data and cost vs emotional rhetoric.

I posted some basic scientific data on radar, how it works, and some of the reasons why it really isn't feasible to use on the lake without spending some serious money. I was backed up on the scientific side with much better explanations by some others who are more qualified than I am to state how exactly the radar proposed on the Winnfabs site works.

It seems the rallying cry for the pro-speed limit side brings up the night time accident that occured in August 2002 in Meredith Bay. The driver of the boat involved in the collision was charged with and convicted by a jury of negligent homicide by failing to keep a proper lookout. The Marine Patrol's Accident Reconstruction Team put the Baja's speed at 27-28mph. I ask what would a speed limit have accomplished in this instance? It was approximately 3mph over your proposed night time limit? I doubt very seriously a 25mph limit would have changed anything that night. The accident wasn't due to excessive speed, but operator negligence. How many times to we really have to beat that horse? Especially when the operator has been tried and convicted in a court of law. If the speed was excessive for the conditions that night I am sure it would have found its way into the trial as such. If it was a large Crownline or Bayliner would there be such finger pointing?

I am not for a speed limit, and my reasons are as follows...

1. I don't like having my persoanl freedoms infringed upon with no good reason (see below) other than people in small boats not liking people in bigger faster boats.

2. Lake Winnipesaukee is really only busy about 14 WEEKENDS a year, from Bike Week 18-June to the weekend after Labor Day 10-September. The only places its congested with lots of boat traffic is the destination towns, Weirs, Meredith, Wolfeboro, and Alton. If you go out during the week, between Sunday afternoon about 3ish to friday early afternoon, the lake is pretty much deserted. I have gone out on many a beautiful summer day midweek and encountered less than 10-15 boats. We need to impose a speed limit because the Lake is busy 28 days out of a possible 167 days? (Ice out to end of September) I boat well into November, but then again, thats just me.

3. Nobody has produced any cold hard factual data on why we need one. There are no accident stats from Winnipesaukee that show excessive speed was a factor in ANY accidents. You don't need a speed limit law to cite speed as a factor in an accident report.

4. COST! Nobody has proposed how this is going to be paid for? Who is going to pay for all of the equipment, training, new officers and court time to handle the appeals? This is certainly not an inexpensive proposal.

5. Extended NWZ in the congested areas is a far better and cheaper solution to 90% of the problems. Maybe hire a few more MP officers, but again that comes down to cost and funding.

Do we want to become like Lake George and have all boaters pay some sort of access fee to use Winni? Not to sure about the legalities of that one as Lake George is a state park and Winni is not!

You need to take the emotional rhetoric out of the equation, (from both sides)! What you need to make an informed decision is facts. I have yet to see any facts that say we need to pass a Speed Limit Law, any and then spend all sorts of money to enforce it. When the pro-speed limit faction presents facts from Winnipesaukee, not some lake that belongs to NY, and these facts are presented in a clear, cohesive, non-emotional argument, then I will reconsider my position.


Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I really didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into another speed limit debate.

Come again? You initiated this thread with a string entitled "Speed Limit : why it will ot work", threw out a bunch of opinions, and you did not intend for it to turn into a speed limit debate? I find that as hard to believe as the rest of your statements on this forum. You sound like an intelligent guy, so please try to give the rest of us some credit.

[Mink Islander]

I have long believed that the lake needs more NWZ's to address the combination of reckless boating (all vessel classes) and congestion in key choke points in the lake in the hot summer months. Between Eagle and Governor's is a nightmare on a busy weekend. Likewise between Cattle Landing and Bear Island. I get scared in my Montauk there on a busy Saturday. Expand the NWZ in Wolfboro bay and Center Harbor as was done in Meredith. The favorable impact in Meredith proves that helps. I'm sure there are plenty of other places. You don't need a radar gun to enforce a no wake zone and you don't impact one boating group more than another either. Doesn't fully address the "speed" topic, but gets at probably the greatest single true "safety issue". I know, I know, existing laws regarding the 150 ft rule just need to be enforced better. Sorry, I don't buy it. NWZs work better. My two cents.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Extending (and widening) the NWZ at the end of the Channel is probably long overdue.

[lake4life]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

NWZs work better.

Agreed. Please let common sense prevail. We already have to deal with reckless/ignorant boaters, we don't need to add overzealous lawmakers to the trouble-list.