Speed Limits

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

I had a guy go by me in narrow channel YESTERDAY at 60 plus within 40-50 ft of my boat near Bear and he and his buddy weren't even looking up or forward. They passed between mine and another boat while fiddling with something on or under the dash. Never even saw us or if they did they didn't much care.

I am far more worried about reckless boaters than simply fast boaters. These boaters were reckless and were violating existing laws. What you needed to be protected from is their stupidity and carelessness. Further, they would have been just as guilty if they had been traveling at 50, 40, 30, 20, or 10 MPH. If the idiots had actually hit you at 40 MPH do you think the outcome would have been significantly better than at 60 MPH? No MP was around to do anything about it either, which seems to be the case for most of these problems which happen far more frequently at speeds less than 45 than they do at higher speeds. Waving a speed limit law at the offenders won't make any difference. They are ignoring existing laws (and not getting caught) and one more to ignore won't make a difference.

I was also out yesterday, for the first time this season. A fishing boat approached from the port side and he should have been the give-way vessel. He did not slow and cut right across me at a close distance. I slowed to avoid a collision. He was probably doing 25 - 35 MPH. I was going 30 MPH. No MP for this close call either.

When I was clear of traffic I pushed my boat to 57 MPH (WOT). I saw a small powered inflatable fishing and gave him a wide berth. As far as I am concerned I was boating responsibly and enjoyably and I don't support your trying to define me as a criminal because I want to go faster than you.

Suppose I'd like to make it a crime for fishing boats to block traffic flow in a channel. If passed, it would immediately make these fishermen criminals as well. This seems to be part of the speed limit arguement, if there was a speed limit then the boats going faster would be breaking the law. Well, DUH.

If I can hear a discussion about the visibility and response time required to properly handle a boat at very high speeds and the specific lack of those conditions on Winni I would be glad to listen. In any case, at 55 MPH I can see and easily react to the conditions around me. I suspect this would be true for at least 65MPH as well. The responsible GFBL boaters that have posted indicate they can travel at 70+ and maintain control and visibility.

As for my credentials, I am a NH resident x 2 houses, both on the water, and I don't own a GFBL boat (and probably never will) but my next boat will probably go 60.

[PROPELLER]

Islander, The voting regulation you cite states NH residents can register to vote. Simply spending a few weekends at your Winnipesaukee cottage does not qualify. Chapter 654 under elections states that you must be domiciled in NH & you can only claim domicile in 1 state. You must also register your motor vehicles & apply for NH drivers licence within 60 days of becoming a resident. A domicile for voting purposes by definition is where a person more than any other place has established a physical presence & manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social & civil purposes.

I also recall when my mother in law was thinking of claiming NH as her primary residence instead of Florida that she would have to spend 180 days or 6 months in NH & she does not so she continued to claim Florida her primary residence.

Many boaters on Winnipesaukee claim Massachusetts as their primary residence & are registered to vote there. If you are registered to vote in another state & claim your primary residence in another state & own property in NH you can not register to vote in NH also.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

Islander, The voting regulation you cite states NH residents can register to vote. Simply spending a few weekends at your Winnipesaukee cottage does not qualify. Chapter 654 under elections states that you must be domiciled in NH & you can only claim domicile in 1 state. You must also register your motor vehicles & apply for NH drivers licence within 60 days of becoming a resident. A domicile for voting purposes by definition is where a person more than any other place has established a physical presence & manifests an intent to maintain a single continuous presence for domestic, social & civil purposes.

I also recall when my mother in law was thinking of claiming NH as her primary residence instead of Florida that she would have to spend 180 days or 6 months in NH & she does not so she continued to claim Florida her primary residence.

Many boaters on Winnipesaukee claim Massachusetts as their primary residence & are registered to vote there. If you are registered to vote in another state & claim your primary residence in another state & own property in NH you can not register to vote in NH also.

Propeller

You can read it in plain english. There is no minimum residence requirement, NONE.

You can only claim domicile in one state AT A TIME! There is no law about how often you can move back and forth. And yes, even weekends count.

From April to November I am domiciled in NH. I can and do vote in NH elections.

The 6 months residence is about taxes. Totally different story. They don't want people claiming residence in certain states for tax reasons. But when I lay my head down at my island home I am a NH taxpayer, resident and citizen. Lots of "locals" don't like this, but its the law.

They do give you some funny looks when you register to vote with a island address. But there is nothing they can do about it.

[Skip]

Wow,

We are really starting to digress on this thread, maybe its time Don locked this one down too.

That said, I have to put on my Ward Moderator hat and say that Propellor has done an excellent job of defining residency, an issue that many misunderstand (or confuse with citizenry)or try to pull an "end run" on.

Islander is correct, you can move as often as you like. But in the case given by Islander, upon "moving" to New Hampshire in April, by June Islander will have had to obtained a New Hampshire Driver's license and registered any vehicles owned by same in the State of New Hampshire.

And come September/November, as long as a New Hampshire resident and not voting in any other State, can happily go to the polling place and cast a ballot. But you must be claimiming bonified residency. If you took Islander at his word, imagine the havoc that could reign on election day. Thousands of people from neighboring States could come to New Hampshire on election day, claim "residency" for just that day, and sway entire elections. That does not happen (although some claim it may be happening in University and border towns) because residency cannot be turned off & on like a light switch.

Upon leaving New Hampshire in November, Islander can then follow the procedures in the State moved to in reference to licensing and registration, and surrender the New Hampshire license & taga as he is no longer a resident here. Upon moving back to New Hampshire the following april, again by June the old State's licenses & registrations must be surrendered, and New New Hampshire credentials secured.

Wow, pretty expensive and time consuming!

Of course other factors that come in to play is where, each year, Islander lists home address for Federal and State tax purposes.

As far as the motor Vehicle code goes, no...you cannot come to New Hampshire for 59 days, then claim you went back to your home state and start the clock ticking all over again. If Islander is living here for the better part of 8 months each year displaying out of state tags, with convenient breaks to avoid registration, that's called visiting!

You can stay at the Lake the amount of time indicated by Islander, and still have your residency in another State. Many people do. Or you can claim you really have moved to New Hampshire and secure all the necessary licenses. But New Hampshire is not a dual residency State. You may get away with it for years, or forever. But then again, you may not. The further inland you live, the less likely enforcement seems to be. Here along the Maine border, it is fairly common to see people getting caugght doing what Islander professes as legal....good thing the local judges don't agree!

Finally, if I was a law enforcement official in the mythical town we are talking about, and I saw an individual with out of State tags for 8 months out of the year registering and voting as a New Hampshire resident, I would pull the voting list as evidence. I would also obtain a certified copy of the individuals's motor vehicle license & registration data from the State being displayed and then summons the indivdual for failing to register. I would in turn present the evidence of my investigation to the Attorney General's Office for review in reference to possible fraudulent voting. Very seldom would I have airtight evidence like that!

Anyway, kudos Propellor!

Skip

[Rayhunt]

Wow is this a hot topic here.. Perhaps another point of view can bring this thread somewhat back to center..
The speed limit ...
Personaly I think the idea has merit . However as a regular winni boater I can attest to rarely having problems with the speed of any boat ..but the lack of knowledge as to the rules of safe passage .And the lack of awareness as to ones surroundings.. I would much rather see some sort of limit to the numbers and size of vessels on the lake.. I dont believe a speed law will have an effect on either. And this has been reitterated by the head of the Marine Patrol himself ! Wouldnt it be more beneficial to have them available immediately in case of an accident rather than tied up with a speeder that MAY contribute to an accident. We live on the lake and see less high speed boats every year for whatever reason.. And the noise level has also improved greatly since that law was passed.. If you aske me ..HERES THE PROBLEM

[Islander]

Skip

Get serious for a minute. If you know as much about elections as you claim you know that you can't come to NH for the day and vote. You need to reside for 10 days and come up with utility bills etc. to prove residency.

And sorry, I have a NH CDL license and all the vehicles I own are register in NH.

The 60 day limit to get an in state license is broken more that the speed limit on 93. That would mean most summer residents need a NH license even if they don't vote. And if you leave the state to winter in, say Florida, you should be getting a license there.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...You need to reside for 10 days and come up with utility bills etc. to prove residency...

I guess being the elected Ward Moderator for a number of years in one of this State's Cities doesn't qualify me to retort, but against better judgement here I go....

First, you need to carefully review RSA 654:28. There is no ten day residency requirement, the ten days you refer to is the deadline supervisors of the checklist are required (on a Saturday ten days before the election) to pre-register voters for an election. At that session, or on the same day as the election, voters must identify themselves and prove some form of residency. If the potential voter identifies themself properly, but has no paper means of proving residency, they can sign a sworn affadavit (citizenship affadavit) provided by the Attorney General's Office in lieu of evidentiary material.

Originally Posted by Islander

The 60 day limit to get an in state license is broken more that the speed limit on 93. That would mean most summer residents need a NH license even if they don't vote. And if you leave the state to winter in, say Florida, you should be getting a license there.

No, no , no....a summer resident does not need to obtain NH licenses or registrations unless they intend to declare New Hampshire as their domicile, simple as that. And virtually all of our fine NH summer residents already know this. And going to the polls and voting in a New Hampshire election is prima facie evidence that the person(s) indeed intended this State to be their domicile. Really nothing hard to understand here....if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck..well, you know the answer.

Thank you Don for letting me digress here, this will be my last post in this particular thread.

And Islander, if you would like to e-mail me off-line I will be more than happy to provide you with my credentials (no need in boring the long time readers here who already know me), which areas of New Hampshire State Statutes that your advice is in conflict with, and if you want to pay the postage I will even let you borrow my election bible....the New Hampshire Election Procedure Manual: 2004-2005 as published by the Department of State, William M. Gardner Secretary of State.

By the way, my darling wife and long time suffering Supervisor of the Checklist (suffering, because she has to put up with me all day every election) has verified this post. And lord knows she can't be wrong!

Have a good evening, and thank you for being a resident of this beautiful State!

Skip

[codeman671]

Lets say for a sec that HB162 actually passed (won't get my vote...) and a speed limit is put into place. What are Winnfabs and everyone else on this forum going to blame the next accident or death on??? It will happen and a speed limit is not going to prevent it. Where will you point your fingers at then??? What will you try to ban next??? I would love to see how that will play out...

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Lets say for a sec that HB162 actually passed (won't get my vote...) and a speed limit is put into place. What are Winnfabs and everyone else on this forum going to blame the next accident or death on??? It will happen and a speed limit is not going to prevent it. Where will you point your fingers at then??? What will you try to ban next??? I would love to see how that will play out...

Has anyone here even suggested that a speed limit will eliminate all accidents? No. But it will likely prevent some. And, in doing so, it will make the lake safer for the average boater. Is this so hard to understand? After all, highways have speed limits for this exact same reason.

The opponents to a speed limit have one main concern ... that they will have to slow down to a reasonable speed. (And I do understand that "reasonable speed" is not the same figure for all of us.) The opponents say that we cannot prove that a speed limit will make the lake any safer. But can they prove that it won't make the lake safer? Yet they are so arrogent that they are willing to bet other people's lives that they are right. And for what reason? Just so that they can legally go as fast as they want on Winni. This seems rather selfish to me.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Seeing as this thread had turned in another speed limit discussion I thought I'd try a different approach. For the moment how about everyone on either side of the issue take a breather (you can rest now to hyperventilate later) and consider one possible alternative concept. It seems to me that the safety concern voiced by the pro-SL side is one of getting hit by a boat traveling at high speed. The talk is about reaction times (? though not about sight lines and distances ?) and how the GF boater won't be able to avoid hitting them. What if every concerned boater was able to equip his/her vessel (of any type) with a portable, battery powered device that would warn, with sufficient time, other boaters of their presence. Every "GF boat" would be required to equip themselves with a "detector" that would work in conjunction with the portable warning device. Indeed even non-GF boats could opt to install a "detector". Lets assume for the moment that the reliability of the advance warning is 99.999999 % (ie - more perfect than your brain surgeon). Further more the cost of the portable device would be $10 - $20 and the "detector" somewhere between $100 - $120. Any boat going faster than a SL (mph is TBD) w/o the "detector" is subject to a fine and the "detector" itself is easily detectable by the MP when it's in operation. Of course such devices have practical safety warning uses beyond mere "high" speed collision avoidance, they're useful in avoiding "low" speed collisions where visibility is obscured (fog, rain, sun, glare) or when it's dark and can provide additional safety against inattentive and/or stupid* boaters (when a "detector" is installed). It's not impossible that you could get an insurance break to offset the cost. So forgetting for a moment about how it could be done, assume for this post that it can be done, would this be an alternative that you would consider in place of all encompasing SL or no SL ?

*of course you can't ever defeat really stupendous stupidity but you can try.

**again before everyone says it can't be done because of X, Y and Z imagine just for moment that it can be done. Besides I know it can be done, the only issue is cost and I have a strong suspicion that for this non-demanding implementation the costs mentioned above are in the ballpark.

[ITD]

You know, I find it interesting that some of the people advocating a SL seem to be OK with interpreting or ignoring significant data to suit their own purposes. Some, not all mind you but some, post as though many bad things have happened to them on Winni. when in fact they had never even been on the big lake. Now we have someone who based on the amount of time he spends in NH probably should be registered in NH year round yet seems to vote where ever his purpose is best suited. A simple call to your town clerk would inform that this is not acceptable behavior and probably against the law. Voter laws are in place to prevent fraud.

The call for a SL seems to be based on dislike of GFBL boats. But GFBL boats are already illegal on Winni. because of the BL (Be Loud) part. Yet they are still there, seems to me that would be an area of focus were I against these boats. When I look at the statistics, I see nothing that says to me that there are more accidents caused by boats going over 45 mph. Quite the contrary actually.

Looking objectively at the data I would say canoes and such are extremely dangerous when compared to boats that travel over 45mph and should be further regulated. I would have a strong case for a law, based on the data and the concerns of some on this forum, that prohibits canoes/kayaks to be more than say 300ft from any shore and require the best possible life jackets and helmets be worn at all times. I could just imagine the outrage were this type of bill to be submitted.

Based on history and statistics and the fact that when you bolt an engine to ANY type of vehicle, accidents will happen. Unfortunately, those who want a SL seem to be waiting for a tragedy to occur so they can exploit it and get their way. I'm sure when something happens, reporters and legislators will find or be directed to the comments on this forum. I just hope that whoever those people are, they get the whole story based on facts rather than emotional hype.

[Cal]

This same story transpired in New Jersey last year after a high ranking money man bought a mega mansion on the water at the Jersey shore. He didn't like the noise...so he pulled some strings and had a SL bill introduced for ALL TIDAL WATERS. This meant the entire ICW for the length of NJ plus rivers feeding it. There are NWZ's but nowhere is there 150' rule. The facts were presented calmly , orderly and precisely. The ruling was a couple more NWZ (with one in front of his house of course).
Maryland also has crowded inland (tidal) waters. They put a bandaid on the problem by making some particularly busy areas NO WAKES on Sat.Sun and Holidays. So Tuesday morning when there is three other boats nearby you can buzz though these areas at any speed. Sat/Sun /Hol's when it's crowded , like Weirs Beach area , it's all NO WAKE. Certainly makes sense since these are also large "rafting" areas.
This probably wouldn't work in NH since all of these posts have been totally one sided(me,me,me) and we all know who you are , don't we???

[Jan]

On my street we were concerned about cars speeding through. We got the town to lower the speed limit and post Slow signs to PREVENT anything horrible from happening. According to some of you, just the threat of problems was not enough. Our children needed to be hit first before anything was done.

Originally Posted by Cal

...all of these posts have been totally one sided(me,me,me)

It is sad that those against speed limits only think of themselves.

[lake4life]

Originally Posted by Jan

It is sad that those against speed limits only think of themselves.

Yes, and how dare people oppose warrant-less wiretaps. Such selfishness in putting ones personal freedom over the security of the nation!

The gas prices will curb the 100mph, triple-V8, GFBL boats. Chill. We just got the boating license thing enacted.. give it a chance to produce some results.

I think that keeping the lake safe and enjoyable for the majority is paramount. However, I think that throwing legislation at it is a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that is more complicated. Something like more NWZs would be much more practical, as they are far easier to enforce and they are already part of the lake institution. I don't think more bureaucracy is the answer to the problem. I wish that when people came to this state, they would abide by the most recognizable symbol of the state, our motto: Live Free or Die. Learn it, live it.

[Great Idea]

Prevention is key and the goal..... wiretaps??? What does that have to do with boats hurdling around a crowded lake at 90 plus. If only the live free or die really meant that...... often times it means " live free or die taking a few folks with me as a consequence of my selfish acts"...... Are we really "free" when we all as tax payers end up "paying" for this "freedom"? examples ...... no seat belt law, no helmet law and soon we will "pay" for no speed limit on Winni..... who do you think ultimately "pays" all the outrageous medical bills/court costs that are incurred not to mention the emotional toll on the family's when these freedom lovin folks bounce off a tree????? I wish it was that easy lake4life. Unfortunately often trying to protect the few idiots from themselves and utimately protecting the general public requires laws restricting the majority, an unfair yet neccessary result. Common sense would be preferrable yet unfortunately in very short supply.

[PROPELLER]

Gross exaggeration of the alleged problems on Winnipesaukee are the biggest beef I have with some of the posts on this forum.

Great Idea says the lake is crowded when in fact it is only crowded in 2-3 areas on weekends probably between 11am-3pm. The rest of the time & the rest of the lake are wide open. Apparently many of the posters have not boated in other areas of the lake or other areas beyond Winnipesaukee.

Great Idea says boats are hurdling around the lake at 90 plus when in fact the the vast majority of high performance boats on Winnipesaukee are traveling between 50-60 mph. See Cals post previously where he says his most efficient speed is 50 mph. Unless you do something custom to some of these boats I don't think the Formulas, Bajas or Fountains being sold on this lake are capable of speeds beyond 70-75 WOT & 90% of the time they are not WOT. I took a ride on 38' Sonic in Ft. Lauderdale last year operated by a former professional racer. When I asked him how fast the boat would go on its best day in the best conditions he answered 70 mph tops.

You can be passionate about what you believe, I respect that. But lets stop the gross exaggerations being used to try & prove a point or support a viewpoint.

[lake4life]

First off, the discussion is a law limiting the speed to 45 mph, not "90 plus." A lot of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding that and do not have speedometers.

As I stated before in a previous post, a speed limit only goes after a symptom, not the problem. The problem is reckless and oblivious boat operators. If I am riding down the broads on my Sea Doo at 60 mph, I am being neither reckless nor oblivious. The means to protect people should be from better use of the ideas already in place. A NWZ near busy areas like the island choke-point near the Weirs would actually make the lake safer.

If the cost of "paying" for this freedom is so great, why hasn't anyone brought up any facts or figures? As if there were hundreds of people dying on the lake every year.... please. By that logic, we should outlaw all motorcycles. Doesn't the public pay when someone messes themselves up on a machine that is known to be much more dangerous than a car, even if the accident wasn't their fault? Sorry, I think there's only so much we can do to protect people from themselves.

Where do you think the cost of paying for enforcement will come from? The cost of the equipment, training, etc. Would that money be better used just putting more marine patrol on the lake to catch the reckless idiots already out there?

Yes, there are idiots on the lake, but I think it's a mistake to rushing into a broadbase law without considering the much more viable alternatives.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I have just received the propaganda mailing from WinnFABS in the mail. Interesting it was postmarked from "Suburban Maryland"...They got my name from the Long Island Land Owner's Association. I also know first hand that they have approached several, if not all, of the yacht clubs, condos and other organizations on the lake looking for endorsements for their speed limit efforts. This mailing is the biggest bunch of rubbish I have ever seen and they should be ashamed to have sent it. If I ever doubted my position on this issue (which I have not - I'm against it), this mailing would have rapidly pushed me to the other side. Referencing the Littlefield collision of what is happening to the lake is totally outrageous. Excessive speed was not even an issue in this case, yet they refer to this in an effort to support a speed limit.

One thing I have not seen referenced too much in these posts is the existing Boater Education Certificate requirement. This was passed into law and requires an operator to learn the boating rules and laws as they now exist. The biggest violation I have seen on the lake by far is the 150' rule. Out of everything taught in the class, this seems to be the easiest to remember and abide by on the lake, yet it's the most violated. I've been on the lake a lot of years and it's not violated most often by go-fast boats, but rather seems to be most violated by personal watercraft and family bowrider operators with 5 kids, 3 dogs, and a tube strapped to the back of the boat. Some of these people really don't have a clue as to the rules or where they are going. I mean no offense to anyone, but again, I call it as I see it. Do some of the go-fast boats violate the rules? Yes, of course. But the arguments of "safety" made by WinnFABS don't just apply to the go-fast boats. A speed limit is NOT the answer and I will do my part to fight this. Enforce the laws as they now exist, don't write new laws thinking that they'll solve the problem - they won't.

[Great Idea]

Propeller,

I will remind you of my "gross exaggeration" again when one of the 4 or 5 large Formula/Fountains/Donzi's or Cig's that race up and down the lake every weekend hit someone or one another at high speed....... Remember , its not a question of if but when. There are quite a few boats on Winni that will do 90 and even some that will exceed 100 to 110. You need to be out our way on Saturday or Sunday. On another note I have nothing to do with WinnFabs are whatever it is. My position comes from experience with large power boats and contact with those that make/race large power boats.
Many of them feel as I do that these boats on Winni are silly. As for the arguement regarding the unfortunate accident in Merrideth applying to speed limits? Perhaps it does relate directly to the issue since that type of 36ft Baja would most likely never have been on the lake if a speed limit had existed..... chew on that. The very nature of the poor visibility in these boats due to the bow being high in the water and obstructing the drivers vision while bringing the boat on plane is a BIG reason as to why they don't belong on a congested lake.

[jarhead]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Propeller,

As for the arguement regarding the unfortunate accident in Merrideth applying to speed limits? Perhaps it does relate directly to the issue since that type of 36ft Baja would most likely never have been on the lake if a speed limit had existed..... chew on that. The very nature of the poor visibility in these boats due to the bow being high in the water and obstructing the drivers vision while bringing the boat on plane is a BIG reason as to why they don't belong on a congested lake.

Great Idea = No Idea

What manufacturer is going to say that there boats don't belong on the lake ? You people bring up this one accident , as tragic as it is ,and use it to scare people over to your way of thinking what a joke. Come up with facts not your narrow minded opinion.I can tell you that visibility is a none issue , and will show you first hand if you like , as my 30' boat hops up on plane with little or no bow risein meer seconds . I have been trying to stay quiet but you narrow minded individuales with your hidden agenda are realy starting to annoye me.Your scare tactics, false facts and personal acounts may sway a few people but i feel that if you took a pole today you would find the vast majority is not thinking the way you are and is a lot smarter than you think.EDUCATION AND MORE FUNDING TO ENFORCE EXISTING REG'S ARE THE KEY TO A SAFER LAKE!

[chase1]

Great Idea,

I will remind you of my "gross exaggeration" again when one of the 4 or 5 large Formula/Fountains/Donzi's or Cig's that race up and down the lake every weekend hit someone or one another at high speed

Are you really upset about 4 or 5 boats running up and down the lake on a weekend? That’s it....... 4 or 5. You think that restricting 4 or 5 boats will make a significant change and better serve our tax dollars than if put toward enforcenent and education?

My position comes from experience with large powerboats and contact with those that make/race large power boats.
Many of them feel as I do that these boats on Winni are silly.

Regardless of what people think it was you that pointed out, we are welcome to use our boats anywhere we like as long as we do so safely. (Or was the invite just of me)

As for the argument regarding the unfortunate accident in Merrideth applying to speed limits? Perhaps it does relate directly to the issue since that type of 36ft Baja would most likely never have been on the lake if a speed limit had existed..... chew on that

I am purchasing property on the lake this spring and my boats ("GFBL" included) are coming to stay, regardless....... What’s for desert?

Chase1

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Propeller,

I will remind you of my "gross exaggeration" again when one of the 4 or 5 large Formula/Fountains/Donzi's or Cig's that race up and down the lake every weekend hit someone or one another at high speed....... Remember , its not a question of if but when. There are quite a few boats on Winni that will do 90 and even some that will exceed 100 to 110. You need to be out our way on Saturday or Sunday. On another note I have nothing to do with WinnFabs are whatever it is. My position comes from experience with large power boats and contact with those that make/race large power boats.
Many of them feel as I do that these boats on Winni are silly. As for the arguement regarding the unfortunate accident in Merrideth applying to speed limits? Perhaps it does relate directly to the issue since that type of 36ft Baja would most likely never have been on the lake if a speed limit had existed..... chew on that. The very nature of the poor visibility in these boats due to the bow being high in the water and obstructing the drivers vision while bringing the boat on plane is a BIG reason as to why they don't belong on a congested lake.

Have you ever been on the lake??? Winni ..RIGHT ???
There are a handful of boats that will reach over 70-75 , never mind 90 or 100-110
Please stop ranting and raving ..these are just not the facts
I was on winni over 200 hours last year and never once had a problem with a speeding boat..

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

...... no seat belt law, no helmet law and soon we will "pay" for no speed limit on Winni..... who do you think ultimately "pays" all the outrageous medical bills/court costs that are incurred not to mention the emotional toll on the family's when these freedom lovin folks bounce off a tree?????

I think someone is crazy to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but if that's their choice.... Maybe we should stop people from water and snow skiing, and ice and rock climbing, and hiking, and biking, and canoeing, and snowmobiling, and walking (my Mom fell and broke her wrist a few years ago). All these activities and many more cause injury and death every year. Many of the activities are unnecessary, i.e done for sport. Further, people have to spend money and run risks to rescue the injured. 40,000 people are killed in car accidents every year and we continue to drive cars. Should we all sit at home where we would be nice and safe? But a lot of accidents happen at home ....

Supporting freedom IS usually expensive, and often painful because someone concerned with freedom will sacrifice it only when the need is very strong.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

What I and others have proposed is the use of existing laws and the extension of some things like NWZs to control the reckless behavior that is the root of the problem on the lake and will not be significantly addressed by a speed limit because most of the bad behavior happens at speeds slower than 45 MPH. Education about the existing rules and better enforcement via better supported MP services is also essential.

[Islander]

ITD

Before you suggest in a public forum that someone is a criminal perhaps you should call the town clerks office in Meredith. I already checked with them before registering.

I'll give you the basic info so you will know what to ask. In NH about 5 months a year, Massachusetts about 4 months, Florida 2 months and about 1 month out of the country.

[ITD]

Islander,

I didn't call you a criminal, but I think what you claim to do is not right even if by some reason it is legal. I think voting in two different areas because it suits you is not right. Most people will get an absentee ballot if they are out of their home area during an election. Looks to me like you should be voting in NH, maybe you should call the clerk in the OTHER town that you vote for an opinion. Anyhow, best of luck in however you vote.

My fascination with this SL thing is the many arguements for the limit. I can easily deal with the arguement: We don't like GFBL boats and want them gone. That to me is an honest reason for a SL although I don't think a speed limit will produce the desired result. When I see the hysteria comments such as: speed (above 45mph) is killing or causing most accidents, I look and see that is just not true. Other reasons stated are wakes, noise and so on. Problems which will not be solved by a speed limit.

[Great Idea]

Woodsy,

" Holes" in my story? Perhaps you need to look at some of the data regarding collisions at various speeds? Would you rather the reckless driver hit you at 45 or 65? Considering your chances of survival and the significantly higher odds of the offender avoiding the collision altogether, your chances of living are greater at 45. You don't see the benefit of slower speeds??? Yikes..... fairly obvious regarding improved safety. And before you go off on the "can't enforce it" bit perhaps you should consider the fact that while reckless operation is extremely subjective and hard to measure or agree as to what is reckless a speedometer is rather objective. A speed limit is far more likely to have an impact on behaviors than a law that doesn't define "reckless". Looking down at one's speedo and seeing the speed will slow many boaters down. The 150ft rule isn't easily measured, speed IS. While many will still violate the speed limit the occurances of speeding would drop dramatically. Why the need for that? To LOWER the odds of fatalities. Worth the price to slow down? I would think so.
As for the suggestion that all of us who support a speed limit "hate" Go Fasts??? Obviously your not reading all the posts? I LOVE Go Fast boats and all things speed. I operate a large such boat often OFF SHORE where it belongs. Once you do that the "excitement" of speeding on Winni dies quick. (Chase1, we don't agree on the "pretty Chase" part of my post). Also the suggestion by the last poster that pro speed limit folks want an accident to push the cause????? Thats pretty sick..... I'd say that proposing a speed limit is an attempt to prevent such an accident from ever happening. A speed limit will lower the odds. Will reckless accidents and perhaps deaths still happen as Codeman suggests after the speed limit is in place? Yes... however reducing the number of speeding boats will reduce the odds and the number of accidents. Perhaps those who want to speed should consider this.... are they really willing to tradc someone's life for their "right" to speed. Kinda selfish maybe?

[Mee-n-Mac]

I find it most curious that you would use the concept of a reckless driver and a 45 mph collision being more survivable than a 65 mph one as somehow supporting the SL. Surely then a 25 mph one is yet even more survivable. Using this reasoning how do you decide what's the appropriate allowable speed ? I think using survivability in the case of a collision as a means of supporting a SL is disingenuous. If the Littlefield incident proves nothing else, it proves that even in "low" speed collisions there's a risk of severe injury or death. Better stick to the case where collisions are avoided.

Implying that those who want to "speed" (clever use of a loaded word) are selfish because they are willing to trade peoples lives for their "right" to speed is pretty insulting don't you think ? How about the argument that there are people who moderate their speed appropriate to the conditions and don't see the need to have, what appears to them, an unreasonably low limit placed on them at all times and at all places on the lake. Saying that people who don't agree with a 45 mph limit are putting other peoples lives at risk conveys the unproven (in so far as this or other threads on this topic go) quality of being a fact that speeds above the proposed limit are always dangerous. What others are asking for is just this proof. What they get is hyperbole about 90, 100, 110 and greater speeds and that these demonstrate the appropriateness of a 45 mph (? vs some higher ?) speed limit. I can understand the concerns but concern by itself isn't sufficient for restricting peoples actions. Comments akin to GF boats are "ridiculous" and that people don't "need" to go "that fast" are subjective judgements that by themselves don't lend any weight to the necessity or reasonableness of a 45 mph SL. There are a number of people who don't think that speed > 45 mph is the #1 or even the #10 problem on the lake and diverting resources to combat this issue is perhaps not the best thing to do. I'd rather see the MPs have the funds to buy cameras or camcorders to better prove "recklessness" (stupidity, arrogance, call it what you will) that I see in more abundance, and most always at speeds < 45 mph, than have to them equipped with the latest radar guns catching people who may be guilty of nothing more than violating an arbitrary limit. If "speed" can at times be safe and at other times and under other conditions be reckless, then perhaps what needs beefing up are the anti-recklessness (pardon my inventive wording) laws and not the speed statutes.

From Saf-C 404.12;

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

I add that including doesn't mean limited to.

[codeman671]

Well said Mee-n Mac as always...

By the way, Evenstar if you are so worried about your safety on Winni why do you want to kayak on Winni? You seem to have pretty strong opinions against it and also have made some pretty strong statements about boating in general for someone who claimed back on April 2nd to be fairly new to kayaking and boating.

And I quote "I do most of my paddling up here, but I do get down to the Lakes Region fairly often as well, as it’s only about an hour drive for me. I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn."

Searching the internet and reading NH statutes does not make up for on-water experience.

[PROPELLER]

Great Idea, as I have said in previous posts I am out every weekend from ice out to mid October & I spend 2 weeks vacation on the lake and I have done this for several years now. I travel all around the lake not just one area all the time & I put over 100 hrs on my boat with several more hours at anchor in different areas around the lake. I think I am qualified to make judgements about what I see on the lake & I do not see high performance boats hurdling around the lake recklessly at speeds of 80 or 90 + mph. I also have never witnessed or experienced a close call with one.

As far as how fast some of these high performance boats are traveling, are you in possession of some kind of equipment thats confirming the speed of these boats? Or are you that good with estimating speed? If you are that good then the marine patrol would love to hire you. If HB162 passes the marine patrol could save a whole lot of money on the equipment that may not even work & just use your powers of estimation.

[ITD]

Boating Statistics 2003 from the US Coast Guard

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf


Categories in the accident column Canoe/Kayak also Rowboats, pontoon boat, Sail only, inflatable, among others, all nicely spelled out.

More people died in Canoe/Kayak than PWC, interesting, flies directly in the face of comments by the anti-PWC crowd. Just an interesting point that I would not have suspected had I not looked.

In 2003 in New Hampshire there were 6 fatalities related to boats, 5 were drownings 1 was listed as other. This is for the whole state.

Nationwide, 1469 collisions with other boats, 70 fatalities. Probability of a fatality from a collision with another vessel - 4% you should be much more worried about falling overboard - probability of death - 34%.

The arguement that you need to use only data from Winni just doesn't hold water, pun intended. There are probably not enough "events" for a reasonable statistical study of just Winni and if there were I would be willing to bet that the data would show it is safer to boat/kayak on Winni. than other comparable lakes. (Big reach here, but mild compared to some of the other "estimations" in these threads). NH is ahead of the curve with the boater education requirement, a valid requirement based on the STATISTICS. From the report:

�� Consistent with previous years, nearly 80% of all reported fatalities occurred on
boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction (Page 19).

Trust me, had the stats in this report pointed to speeds above 45mph as a problem we would have seen this report pasted all over these posts.

I just don't see the need for a speed limit.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Categories in the accident column Canoe/Kayak also Rowboats, pontoon boat, Sail only, inflatable, among others, all nicely spelled out. More people died in Canoe/Kayak than PWC, interesting, flies directly in the face of comments by the anti-PWC crowd. Just an interesting point that I would not have suspected had I not looked.

So how many of these fatalities were white water rives? And how many of these fatalities were caused by a larger boat? This is also from the report, on page 6, under Executive Summary Boating Statistics – 2003:

- The most reported type of accident was a collision with another vessel.

- Overall, operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inexperience, and excessive speed are the leading contributing factors of all reported accidents (Pages 7, 37).

- The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (42%), personal watercraft (PWC) (27%) and cabin motorboats (14%)



I honestly had forgot that row boats and inflatables were in separate catagories. but there is only a single category for canoe/kayak, and this includes all lengths from ~7 to 18+ feet. They are not separated at all, but are just lumped together. And, as I stated in my previous reply; “there’s a huge difference between canoes, recreational kayaks, and sea kayaks, when it comes to seaworthiness.” And you keep leaving out the fact that this is for all types of water, not just lakes. The data is for boats on ponds and on rivers, including white water, where the larger boats don’t even go.

The arguement that you need to use only data from Winni just doesn't hold water, pun intended.

I never said that. What I actually wrote was; “To use the data objectively, you would have to use only boating accidents that occur on the larger lakes.”

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...I never said that. What I actually wrote was...

Honestly, I don't know what you actually wrote anymore. A quick check has revealed that in little more than a month you have posted your opinion on this general subject in excess of fifty times!

But not to single you out, others have responded point-counterpoint dozens of times back & forth.

How about we let those who have not offered their opinion chime in, if there's anyone out there left, then move on and enjoy the summer?

This bill will not be heard until sometime next year, if at all. While there are claims of public hearings being held "all over the lake", not a single one has been scheduled.

Hmmmmm, reminds me of that old kitchen saying; "a tempest in a teapot"....

Of course, your apetite may vary!

Bon apetit!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So how many of these fatalities were white water rives? And how many of these fatalities were caused by a larger boat?

I don't know, how many were caused by boats going faster than 45mph? I'd be very surprised if any or more than a very small percentage of canoe/kayak accidents had that cause.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is also from the report, on page 6, under Executive Summary Boating Statistics – 2003:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- The most reported type of accident was a collision with another vessel.

Again, nothing surprising here, we are talking about boating accidents, for instance I wouldn't expect boat hitting car to be a top category, boat hitting boat is what I expect.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- Overall, operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inexperience, and excessive speed are the leading contributing factors of all reported accidents (Pages 7, 37).

Bold print on excessive speed was added by you, but excessive speed doesn't mean above 45mph. In fact the top speed for a LARGE MAJORITY of boats in less than 45mph. So a reasonable person could conclude that a LARGE MAJORITY of these accidents happened at a speed of less than 45MPH.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (42%), personal watercraft (PWC) (27%) and cabin motorboats (14%)

OK, just about what I would expect, as far as I can tell these numbers correspond with the numbers of those types of boats that are registered and used every year, what does that have to do with speeds over 45mph? Let me answer that question, except for the PWC, most of those boats can't go faster than 45mph.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I honestly had forgot that row boats and inflatables were in separate catagories. but there is only a single category for canoe/kayak, and this includes all lengths from ~7 to 18+ feet. They are not separated at all, but are just lumped together. And, as I stated in my previous reply; “there’s a huge difference between canoes, recreational kayaks, and sea kayaks, when it comes to seaworthiness.” And you keep leaving out the fact that this is for all types of water, not just lakes. The data is for boats on ponds and on rivers, including white water, where the larger boats don’t even go.





I never said that. What I actually wrote was; “To use the data objectively, you would have to use only boating accidents that occur on the larger lakes.”

You forgot the ocean, which technically is what a "sea" kayak is built for. If I ignore the data that you want me to ignore things only look better. Winni. has only had a few deaths over the past few years and from what I can tell no deaths in the past two years from speeds over 45mph. ( I don't know this for sure but I'm sure I will be quickly corrected if wrong.)

Finally from a different post:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Why do I have to keep defending myself and my abilities? Because I'm being honest?

Many of your posts in a previous thread gave the impression that you had many "problems" kayaking on Lake Winnipesaukee. You never came out and said that you had problems on Winni. but reading your posts certainly gave the impression. You also stated many times that you had been "to" Winnipesaukee again giving the impression that you had kayaked on Winni. when in fact as you finally say, you hadn't been kayaking on Winni. That is why people keep questioning you. I don't think you are dishonest, but the posts I just referred to are why I questioned you.

[chase1]

- Overall, operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inexperience, and excessive speed are the leading contributing factors of all reported accidents (Pages 7, 37).


Evenstar,

You have got it......data. I agree the best way to improve boating safety is to target the top contributing factors. A speed limit would have no affect reducing operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inexperience, and excessive speed
Education and enforcement would.

Chase1

[ApS]

Just 1½ of four paragraphs seems to sum it up for us on Winnipesaukee:

"...Unfortunately, the Lake Winnipesaukee we enjoyed in the 1970s was very different from the lake we have today. While the change over time is inevitable, we do have an obligation to protect more than the quality of the lake water. We must protect the "quality of family life" on the Lake for generations to come.

"Can all the activities in, on or around the lake co-exist in harmony? Will our children and grandchildren still be able to enjoy swimming, sailing, water skiing and other activities or are changes on the lake compromising of their safety? Perhaps we need a new group of "preservationists"… stewards for the protection for the family life as we wish to enjoy it on the water...I am pleased that such an effort is under way. House Bill 162, currently in committee, may be an answer, or at least one of them...."

http://granitestatenews.com/1editorl...ooptracking=51

[Great Idea]

PM203,

So I can add being called a liar to the list of insults such as "NO Idea" and "narrow minded" as suggested by Jarhead???? And you wonder why many folks are turned off and avoid these threads? Stop the insults and stick to the thread's topic. Trying to bully and discredit opposing opinions and forum users shouldn't be what the forum is about. I will be leaving next week to go use my "pretend" Lightning in St Pete , (I own it jointly with my cousin and keep at slip in the Bay ) .... headed to Marco Island with the family ..... Can't wait!!! Unlike Winni there is room to let it rip down in the Gulf.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

...if you are so worried about your safety on Winni why do you want to kayak on Winni?

So Evenstar should go somewhere else so as not to get in the way of a GFBL?

Is personal freedom and the right of access only for fast boaters?

I guess you guys are missing the pioint. A speed limit will make kayaking SAFER in Winni!

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Islander

So Evenstar should go somewhere else so as not to get in the way of a GFBL?

Is personal freedom and the right of access only for fast boaters?

I guess you guys are missing the pioint. A speed limit will make kayaking SAFER in Winni!

Islander,
Any restriction could be argued to show safety improvements, including the restriction of Kayaks. (Would hate to see it - I have two)
The point is...Data does not show a speed limit will have an impact on Winnipesaukee safety, but it does show additional enforcement and education efforts will make all boating safer, in all NH waters.

My boating and tax dollars are not limited to Lake Winnipeasukee.

Chase1

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Islander

So Evenstar should go somewhere else so as not to get in the way of a GFBL?

There are many areas on the lake (150 ft around all shoreline, shoal, coves, channels, ...) where it is not possible or desirable for larger boats to go at all, let alone to go fast. Those areas are completely open to smaller boats. However, Winni is also a BIG lake and has areas appropriate for other uses as well. In those areas the smaller boats will need to share the lake with larger, faster, and yes, potentially more dangerous boats. Kayaks and other small boats are looking for paths to stroll through the woods. Powered boats are looking for highways. It is not inherently "right" that all modes for travel be paths or all be highways. Both are needed. Most smaller lakes in NH have been designated as "paths". Where we tend, I think, to disagree is whether parts of the big lake are really highways and may be more dangerous for vessels that are looking for paths.

We don't play in roads because there is danger from cars, even though all the rules say that the cars should yield to pedestrians. We can walk along a road and walk across it (walkers have "access") but prudence says that we should minimize our time spent on a road to keep personal danger to a minimum (thus we have mall walkers ). And on the busiest highways we DO exclude walkers, bicyclists, and other smaller, slower modes of transport.

[codeman671]

Islander, if we want to get into the "you guys" stereotyping syndrome why are "you guys" being the speed limit proponents saying that the GFBL's are the only ones that Evenstar should stay away from??? The ones that are taking away your personal freedoms? Don't you think that there are plenty of other boats on the lake that can exceed the proposed speed limit? There are pontoon boats with outboards that can exceed 45mph and I am not talking about the ones with I/O's and thru-hull exhausts like the Manitou. My 21' fishing boat is capable of 53-55mph with a 225 optimax, does this make me a GFBL? I think not.

I never stated that Evenstar should take her kayak elsewhere. I do not see the lake as being a place dangerous enough where I would not want to kayak there myself. If she feels that threatened about her safety and bashes boaters in general why would she want to come to Winni at all? That was my question.

I do not think that the GFBL's are trying to force anyone off the lake, they are not trying to take away anyones liberties. However the speed limit proponents are.

[Great Idea]

OK Jarhead,

You can take me out in your 30fter and give me a lesson..... then I will take you out on my 48ft triple on the ocean ( where is belongs). Bring a clean diaper and your blanky because you'll need it. My opinion is narrow minded so that means yours is highly enlightened? Give me a break... its emotional rants like yours in response to counter opinions that turn people off to this site. Aggressive posting, aggressive boating perhaps? State your opinion and stop throwing stones. As for experience on Winni? I live on Winni and have spent 100's of hours on the water here since the mid 80's. Large go fasts require time and space in order to get up on plane. This presents a problem on busy weekends at Winni when the lake is busy. There are very few areas on the lake in which these boats can be used for their intended purpose. As for 4 or 5 boats Chase 1? Thats 4 or 5 AT A TIME, 4 or 5 across going by several times during the weekend. We can go on and on.... blah , blah.... the facts remain this.... Winni is becoming a congested area on weekends. Saftey during these times has become a concern. Measures will be taken to address the problem. A speed limit will most likely become PART of the changes considered to address the issue. Hopefully along with increased enforcement and eduction. We all agree that is the most important way of improving the situation. As I have said several times, I would love to avoid the speed limit however as boat usage and congestion on the lake increases its gonna happen.

[lake4life]

I agree that congestion is getting to be a problem.. it was once just a nuisance on holiday weekends, but I have been hoping it would plateau. Maybe NH could take a lesson from NY (not the speed limit part) and reserve more public land on the waterfront. I'm more concerned about preserving what makes the lake great than safety (as if boating were so dangerous).

I definitely think that the lake has something for everyone, whether they want to canoe between islands or throw a rooster-tail, but I also believe that there becomes a point when the sheer amount of congestion and commercial development ruins it. That being said, how about giving some more alternatives that would keep the lake enjoyable for the long-term (besides a bloody speed limit ) ?

[chase1]

Great Idea,

As for 4 or 5 boats Chase 1? Thats 4 or 5 AT A TIME, 4 or 5 across going by several times during the weekend

Sounds like you are in a great location................ Any homes for sale next door?

Seriously.

Chase1

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

OK Jarhead,

You can take me out in your 30fter and give me a lesson..... then I will take you out on my 48ft triple on the ocean ( where is belongs). Bring a clean diaper and your blanky because you'll need it. My opinion is narrow minded so that means yours is highly enlightened? Give me a break... its emotional rants like yours in response to counter opinions that turn people off to this site. Aggressive posting, aggressive boating perhaps? State your opinion and stop throwing stones. As for experience on Winni? I live on Winni and have spent 100's of hours on the water here since the mid 80's. Large go fasts require time and space in order to get up on plane. This presents a problem on busy weekends at Winni when the lake is busy. There are very few areas on the lake in which these boats can be used for their intended purpose. As for 4 or 5 boats Chase 1? Thats 4 or 5 AT A TIME, 4 or 5 across going by several times during the weekend. We can go on and on.... blah , blah.... the facts remain this.... Winni is becoming a congested area on weekends. Saftey during these times has become a concern. Measures will be taken to address the problem. A speed limit will most likely become PART of the changes considered to address the issue. Hopefully along with increased enforcement and eduction. We all agree that is the most important way of improving the situation. As I have said several times, I would love to avoid the speed limit however as boat usage and congestion on the lake increases its gonna happen.

Id realy like to see your 48 with triples ..What kind of boat is it?

[Great Idea]

Actually its a 47 Fountain Lightning with triple 525's...... does that qualify? lol. The Marina calls it a 48 plus due to some of the extra's on it so that I have to pay more to store it.... I used to have a 32 on Winni. It's too big for Winni so we use it on the ocean OFF SHORE.... you know the rest.

Chase 1 , are neighbors have been around for 20 plus years and I expect their family's to stay on but I will keep my ears open for you. Have a great summer guys. This thread is worn out..... Hey we have fun in our slow Winni boat(s) too!!!!

[jarhead]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

OK Jarhead,

You can take me out in your 30fter and give me a lesson..... then I will take you out on my 48ft triple on the ocean ( where is belongs). Bring a clean diaper and your blanky because you'll need it. My opinion is narrow minded so that means yours is highly enlightened? Give me a break... its emotional rants like yours in response to counter opinions that turn people off to this site. Aggressive posting, aggressive boating perhaps? State your opinion and stop throwing stones. As for experience on Winni? I live on Winni and have spent 100's of hours on the water here since the mid 80's. Large go fasts require time and space in order to get up on plane. This presents a problem on busy weekends at Winni when the lake is busy. There are very few areas on the lake in which these boats can be used for their intended purpose. As for 4 or 5 boats Chase 1? Thats 4 or 5 AT A TIME, 4 or 5 across going by several times during the weekend. We can go on and on.... blah , blah.... the facts remain this.... Winni is becoming a congested area on weekends. Saftey during these times has become a concern. Measures will be taken to address the problem. A speed limit will most likely become PART of the changes considered to address the issue. Hopefully along with increased enforcement and eduction. We all agree that is the most important way of improving the situation. As I have said several times, I would love to avoid the speed limit however as boat usage and congestion on the lake increases its gonna happen.

Throwing stones who did that ?well at least i'm not calling some one a baby.I have reread your posts on this topic,wich is the only thing you have ever posted on , and find it hard to believe any of it .What will a speed limit do that more funding for education and enforcment won't do.My 30' GFNL planes out in under 5 seconds , runs wot mid 70's and handles well at speed so your visibilty argument doesn't apply.I would be more than happy to show you sometime , but somehow doubt that by returning the favor you will scare me.I'm not ranting just telling it like it is.Give me some facts on speed and i'll shut up. I don't rate my opinion that high but atleast it doesn't infringe on others rights.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

First off, the discussion is a law limiting the speed to 45 mph, not "90 plus." A lot of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding that and do not have speedometers.

Huh? First off, there are very (very) few boats on this lake capable of speeds in excess of 90. Please define your definition of a lot.

I have a 33' with HP500s (470 HP each) and on a good day, it will top out at 72 (GPS). It spends most of it's "cruising" time at 3,500 RMP which equals out to about 45 - 48. Only time I tend to open it up is during the middle of the week when most everyone has gone home.

In terms of speedos, where did you get that factoid? I have never seen a HP boat without a speedo. Most have GPS (for accurate speed measurements) as well.

Large go fasts require time and space in order to get up on plane. This presents a problem on busy weekends at Winni when the lake is busy

Don't know about your's, but when conditions warrant it, I drop my k-planes and am on plan with virtually no bow-rise.

Also, one thing that bugs me are posts were people say "I was buzzed at 50, 60, or whatever". I doubt most people can tell the difference between 45 and 60 (especially on the water). Heck, most people don't even know how long 150 feet is

I keep sensing that there is another agenda here, other than speed (MHO).

Let the debate go one, but lets try to keep it rational, factual and unemotional.

OK, I'm done.

[jarhead]

Originally Posted by Islander

So Evenstar should go somewhere else so as not to get in the way of a GFBL?

Is personal freedom and the right of access only for fast boaters?

I guess you guys are missing the pioint. A speed limit will make kayaking SAFER in Winni!

I think you should read codemans post again what part did he say don't come to winni.I ask you a question is the personal freedom and right to access the lake only for kayaking? NO !!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS FOR ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE AND BOATS !!!!!! What some of you SL suporters can't seem to get thru your skulls is the lake is for everyone not just yourselves . You provide no facts just ramblings of personal acounts that make absolutly no sense to anyone but yourselves. What is next for some of you, large diplacement boats , pwc's, skiers and wakeboarders, what. YOU START WITH THE MINORITY ON THE LAKE AND GO FROM THERE I GEUSS.Lake winni is lake winni that's the way it is if you don't like it leave that's the beauty of this country , freedom to do as you will.Obviously without harming others. What kills me is why people want to be sheep and be told how to everything.Stop putting blame and trying to tell people what to do and just enjy the lake for what it is.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

By the way, Evenstar if you are so worried about your safety on Winni why do you want to kayak on Winni?

Why do YOU want to boat on Winni? Because it's there, and I have the right to use it. And I have the right to feel safe when I'm kayaking there. Plus I'm going to college in Concord, where I'll be closer to Winni. Enough reasons?

You seem to have pretty strong opinions against it and also have made some pretty strong statements about boating in general for someone who claimed back on April 2nd to be fairly new to kayaking and boating.

I don't have anything "against Winni". What I do have problems with are people who seem to think that Winni is just for their own personal pleasure, no matter how baddly their actions affect others.

What strong statements have I made about boating in general? Most of my "strong statements" have been about kayaking, or from the perspective of a kayaker.

Why do I have to keep defending myself and my abilities? Because I'm being honest? Ok, here goes: I've spent well over 100 hours kayaking, since last spring ... mostly on large lakes, but I've also done some white water kayaking, on Class II and III rapids. I've taken lessons from an expert and attended hours of seminars, given by people who have been kayaking for over 30 years. I've learned advanced paddling techniques, and I can do self rescues. And I can out paddle most guys. I've even taken a navigation seminar. How many powerboaters have put in this much effort in all their years of boating?

So I am fairly new to this, but I've learned a great deal in less than a year. I've been kayaking up here this spring since April 16th ... and I've already paddled on 3 lakes and on 2 rivers. Sea kayaking requires a great deal of skill to do well. You really have to know what you're doing. So I've worked hard and I've learned a great deal, both on and off the water. I do know what I'm doing, and I do know what I'm talking about.

[Evenstar]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ITD

You know, I find it interesting that some of the people advocating a SL seem to be OK with interpreting or ignoring significant data to suit their own purposes.

Just as some of the people opposed to a speed limit "seem to be OK with interpreting or ignoring significant data to suit their own purposes."

Some, not all mind you but some, post as though many bad things have happened to them on Winni. when in fact they had never even been on the big lake.

I have repeatedly stated that I have yet to kayak on Winni (that should be corrected later this month), but I have spent a great deal of time on other large NH lakes, including some with, and some without a speed limit. There’s a noticeable difference, which is probably much more obvious to others like me who are in small, slow moving boats.

When I look at the statistics, I see nothing that says to me that there are more accidents caused by boats going over 45 mph. Quite the contrary actually.

Ok, now you are "interpreting or ignoring significant data to suit your own purposes". I pointed this out in an earlier post; the data includes ALL types of boating accidents, on ALL types of water. To use the data objectively, you would have to use only boating accidents that occur on the larger lakes. And you would have to also know how many of the accidents involving small boats were caused by the actions of larger boats.

Looking objectively at the data I would say canoes and such are extremely dangerous when compared to boats that travel over 45mph and should be further regulated. I would have a strong case for a law, based on the data and the concerns of some on this forum, that prohibits canoes/kayaks to be more than say 300ft from any shore and require the best possible life jackets and helmets be worn at all times. I could just imagine the outrage were this type of bill to be submitted.

First of all, you’re not looking at the date objectively. (As I just pointed out.) Secondly there’s a huge difference between canoes, recreational kayaks, and sea kayaks, when it comes to seaworthiness. And the small boats in the accident data also include inflatable rafts and rowboats, with no differentiation between any of the small boats. So you can’t know how many of the accidents actually involved canoes and kayaks. And of the accidents that did involve canoes and kayaks, how many actually happened on fast moving rivers? The data just doesn’t give this information.

Based on history and statistics and the fact that when you bolt an engine to ANY type of vehicle, accidents will happen. Unfortunately, those who want a SL seem to be waiting for a tragedy to occur so they can exploit it and get their way.

I seriously doubt that anyone is doing that. I’m certainly not waiting for a tragedy to occur! After all, since I’m planning on kayaking on Winni soon, I could be the victim.