Hb 162 News

[Islander]

Stretched where?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/

[Lakegeezer]

The PAC solicited money, bought news coverage, and used fear to "educate" the voters. Advertising works. Money buys opinion. That doesn't make it right.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

Stretched where?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/

This poll shows support for speed limits, not necessarily those per HB-162.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

This poll shows support for speed limits, not necessarily those per HB-162.

The poll question did everything but say "HB162". I doubt the people polled were thinking about some other New Hampshire boating speed bill.

I was not surprised that 83% of Democrats favor speed limits. But that 68% of Republicans favor speed limits is a shocker.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

The poll question did everything but say "HB162". I doubt the people polled were thinking about some other New Hampshire boating speed bill.

I was not surprised that 83% of Democrats favor speed limits. But that 68% of Republicans favor speed limits is a shocker.

Not to go overboard on this but ... While the people who are either for or against HB-162 know what it is and the specifics, I doubt many in the general population know what HB-162 is. How many bills, by #, are you aware of ? My opinion is that the average guy in the street, who doesn't boat here on Winni (and probably doesn't even own a boat) may have heard about some speed limit thingee but didn't have enough interest to care one way or another. Had the poll mentioned HB-162 by name or 45/25 as the specific limits to be set then you could conclude that the voters supported HB-162. As asked, the poll indicates a desire for some (unspecified) limits.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Not to go overboard on this ...

I'm steering clear of this issue — BUT!

Was this a good choice of words?

[jrc]

with the right questions, you can get people to favor banning anything.

http://www.dhmo.org/research.html

[Cal]

Isn't dihydrogen monoxide more commonly know as H2o or WATER

[Woodsy]

Yup... its water!! LOL! Pretty funny website.

Polling all depends on how you phrase the question.

I think the speed limit debate is getting very old and tiresome. This issue has just divided the lake, and no matter what way the legislature votes, there will be alot of unhappy people, that would otherwise get along with one another just fine.

Its not about safety or facts or statistics. HB-162 is about fear, plain and simple. Anybody who thinks otherwise should talk to Rep. Pilliod. I have a message left on my answering machine from Rep. Pilliod where he unequivocally states that HB-162 is not about safety, but is about fear. (I will try to get it converted to an .mp3 format so everyone can listen to it) If Don will let me, I will post it here, but if not, I totally understand his position.

Woodsy

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jrc

with the right questions, you can get people to favor banning anything.

http://www.dhmo.org/research.html

Thanks JRC......I thought I had a good laugh when I read the title of the thread originator that this thread was based on "news" (we all know the vote cited was taken back in October)....but the site you have pointed us to shows the absolute absurdity of basing public policy on polling data!

Great site, I will be sure to point this out on many occasions to come!

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Skip

I thought I had a good laugh when I read the title of the thread originator that this thread was based on "news"

To be fair, I added the word "news" to the thread title to avoid confusion with another recent thread with the same title. Blame me, not Bear Lover.

It was just an innocent use of the word since I thought that HB162 being passed by the RR&D committee was news. If it had failed it would have been news as well.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by webmaster

To be fair, I added the word "news" to the thread title to avoid confusion with another recent thread with the same title. Blame me, not Bear Lover.

It was just an innocent use of the word since I thought that HB162 being passed by the RR&D committee was news. If it had failed it would have been news as well.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the clarification.

My point was that the event described took place six weeks ago and was discussed extensively on the internet, in the local print and radio/television media and through various letters to the editor. So when I saw it pop up again after it has become what can only fairly be described as "old news", I figured it was another attempt to troll the issue.

It was quite evident in the past discussions here (and elsewhere) that the two opposing camps on this issue are pretty firmly entrenched in their beliefs, and little swaying of either side was occuring...hence the escalation of the hyperbole seen here and elsewhere.

But as was pointed out by an earlier poster, this is really an obscure issue that is only being followed by a vocal minority in the State. I bet you would find that most people in New Hampshire would actually love to be in the position to have a desire to stake a claim in the debate (that is, having the means to boat on the Great Lake) and are looking slightly askew at those adults that do have the means but not the ability to work out a compromise that at least partially satisfies the reasonable wants and desires of both sides.

As I have said before, politics is the art of compromise. Regardless of claims to the contrary, there are still significant hurdles this bill must cross, including full passage in the House then Senate, followed by the Governor's signature. It is not unheard of for bills that have made it out of committee to be drastically altered or outright killed on the House or Senate floor, or even vetoed by the Governor.

It will be interesting to watch as this bill continues to take on a life of its own.....but there will not be any "real" news (since October) until the legislature takes it seat again early next year.

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[Bear Lover]

I didn't start this thread. At least I don't think I did. I posted a response to the question by Phantom in the other HB162 thread. I don't understand how my post started a new thread but it's probably just a computer glitch.

I hope the division this topic has caused will soon heal. The voters of NH may not understand the issue and they may have been led in one direction. However that's politics, it happens every day. And in the end it is the people of NH that own Lake Winnipesaukee.

[JDeere]

The voters of NH may not understand the issue and they may have been led in one direction. However that's politics, it happens every day.

The voters of New Hampshire understand the issue just fine. Making a decision if 45 MPH is fast enough does not require anything but common sense IMHO.

[fatlazyless]

If HB 162 makes it all the way to Gov Lynch's desk for his signature, I am 75% certain that he will sign it into law. If Gov Benson were still the Governor, I'd be about 75% certain that Gov Benson would veto it. I can remember the Benson for Gov sign up on the big sign board at Lakeport Landing Marina. Yes, last Governor's election was a very close race. And, getting this law passed will not be easy.

[pm203]

I was talking to a gentleman from Lake George.He informed me not to worry about the speed limit.At lake George,it is business as usual.Unless you are blatantly breaking the speed limit close to shore, you can cruise well above the posted limit. Not only is it very hard to enforce,most law enforcing officials dont see the validity of the law enough to make it a high enough priority.They would rather police more threatening situations that may arrise on the lake daily.

P.s. Is it going to be like the highway? if the speed limit is 65, most police officers will not bother you if you are doing 75 or less. What do you think?

[fatlazyless]

Out on Route 93, I've seen a bright yellow Corvette get stopped while going about 70mph. A 32' go-fast hull with a bright color graphic design is not hard to see. Supposedly, it's the reflective finish and not the fiberglass material that is detected by a radar gun.
Maybe, the Formula-Baja-Fountain-Donzi-Cigarette go-fasts will come out with a new Winnipesaukee-stealth-natural blend-low detection camoflage color and finish?

[Orion]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

a new Winnipesaukee-stealth-natural blend-low detection camoflage color and finish?

They'll get run over by the other go-fast boats that don't see them!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

... Supposedly, it's the reflective finish and not the fiberglass material that is detected by a radar gun...

Sorry, the reflective finish of the target being tracked by the radio frequency pulse emitted by the police radar unit is not enhanced by the optical reflectivity of the tracked object. That is one of the many misconceptions of police radar that has been bantered about during this debate.

The amount of signal returned from the target is directly related to the material the object is made of (metal reflects more rf energy than plastic or fiberglas) and the relative amount of material the tracked object offers as a reflector to the signal (along with target range, interference, etc.)

Simply put, two identical fiberglass boats presenting an identical target aspect to the radar unit will return the same amount of signal, regardless of what colors they are painted. And a metal boat of the same dimensions and same aspect will return more signal than the fiberglass boat.

Also, it is up to the discretion of the Court having jurisdiction....but most Courts using the unreasonable speed standard will allow a driver up to and around 15 MPH over the posted limit before convicting. In short, regardless of the posted limit, the officer must show that the speed you were cited for was unreasonable given the prevailing overall conditions at the time of the stop.

However, if the speed limits enacted are referenced as "absolute" limits, such as in neighboring States and some roadways in New Hampshire, then all the officer needs to show for a conviction is any speed above that posted.

There is one particular thing that is constantly overlooked in the debate about police radar. The radar unit is only an extension of the officer's sense of sight, and a tool used to verify the officer's opinion that the offender was operating above a certain limit, or unreasonably. The officer has to be able to testify that given his/her experience and based on his visual observations of your operation, that the speed displayed on his radar unit correlated with the speed that he visually interpreted that you were going. Blind testimony based on a radar unit readout without a visual correlation to the offending operator will not result in a conviction. Simple as that. The radar is a tool, one of several, that the officer will testify to led him to believe it was you, not someone else, that the radar was tracking along with his sense of sight and sometimes hearing. Most experienced radar operators not only use the visual speed tracking component of the radar, but the audio doppler portion of the radar unit while visually observing the relative motion of the objects in the field of view to ascertain the correct target and speed.

It still continues to amaze me that police radar, in use now for almost half a century, is so misunderstood by the general motoring public. But the folks that sell you radar detectors, jammers and hubcap foilers are still laughing all the way to the bank!

As usual, if anyone would like additional information on the truthful way that radar does work, why the conviction rate for cited offenders is extremely high (despite claims to the contrary here) and how it can be used successfully and unsuccesfully on the water, please PM me off-line.

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[fatlazyless]

Three cheers for Rep Jim Pilliod of Belmont and his understanding of the 'fear factor' when sharing the lake w/ the go-fasts. As someone who likes to cruise all over the big lake in an old Starcraft aluminum 18'er than gets up on plane at about 18 mph, I am all too familiar with the Winnipesaukee fear factor. Sharing the waters with much larger, faster, heavier, and thundering go-fasts is no picnic. A 45mph day /25mph night speed limit that is linked to your automobile driving record is definately a good thing. Out on the waters, 45mph is hardly a slow speed. And, a big thankyou to Rep Jim Pilliod.

[pm203]

Rep Pilliod and 162 is a disgrace. Laws should be passed on fact,not unfounded fear from the minority. If anything should scare you in your smaller boat, it is the cabin cruisers throwing the 6 foot wake! Are you going to try and outlaw them next? I understand your right to feel safe, but targeting a relatively small group of boats is not the answer. Just like a go-fast cannot go fast all the time, maybe there are times that you should not go out in your 18 footer.

[Woodsy]

PM... Please dont' use harsh words to describe Rep. Pilliod. Although you disagree with him and HB-162, I don't think disgrace is the right word. He is a respected member of our legislature and should be treated as such. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion. Treat them with respect even when you are angry or disagree with them.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Three cheers for Rep Jim Pilliod of Belmont and his understanding of the 'fear factor' when sharing the lake w/ the go-fasts. As someone who likes to cruise all over the big lake in an old Starcraft aluminum 18'er than gets up on plane at about 18 mph, I am all too familiar with the Winnipesaukee fear factor. Sharing the waters with much larger, faster, heavier, and thundering go-fasts is no picnic. A 45mph day /25mph night speed limit that is linked to your automobile driving record is definately a good thing. Out on the waters, 45mph is hardly a slow speed. And, a big thankyou to Rep Jim Pilliod.

FLL,

Your post really cuts to the heart of HB-162 and why it is such a divisive issue. I thought that Lake Winnipesaukee belonged to the citizens of NH, and as such was to be shared by ALL. It seems to me most HB-162 supporters do not want to share the lake with anything larger, faster or heavier than than thier particular boat.

Fear is not a basis for implementing law. It is in fact a very dangerous and slippery slope. Laws that limit an individuals personal freedoms must be very carefully considered. A law should never be crafted to restrict or limit an individuals personal freedom, just because a person, or in this case a group of people doesn't like them. A law that limits or restricts an individuals personal freedom needs to be supported by facts and statistics, not fear. What's happens next? People fear getting swamped by the wake of the big cruisers? Are they the next target of fear based legislation? Perhaps we should restrict the usage of canoes and kayaks because more people get hurt or drown in them than any other watercraft? I know it sounds absurd, but the facts & statistics support that position better than they support a speed limit.

The sad part is a speed limit will do little or nothing to alleviate fear or make the lake any safer.

1. It will not make boaters more courteous, however mandatory boater education will. (Mandatory for everyone, including boat renters & day trippers)

2. It will not alleviate any of the weekend congestion, however, strategically placed NWZ's will ease it somewhat, especially in the Weirs area and perhaps the SW entrance between Bear Is and Meredith Neck.

3. It will not eliminate 150' rule violations, however mandatory boater education will cut them down somewhat. (Mandatory for everyone, including boat renters & day trippers)

4. It does nothing to reduce BWI infractions.

5. It does nothing to reduce the noise level.

Rep. Pilliod mentions in the message that he was doing this because a marina owner (Merrill Faye) asked him to because he was losing boat rental business because of crowds and speed. I take an issue to this as Merrill is adding to the crowding by renting boats. Should everyone else get off the lake so he can make a buck or twenty renting boats? I also have an issue with Rusty and his rental boat story. However, I really take exception to the whole boat/PWC rental business in general.

How is it acceptable that ANYONE with a credit card, with absolutely NO PRIOR EXPERIENCE, can rent an 1800lb boat (average weight of an 18' boat) and be let loose to drive around on ANY lake (Not just Lake Winnipesaukee) with nothing more required than an easy 20 question checklist? Most reasonable people would NEVER consider renting a car to someone who had never driven one, just because they had a credit card and did a quick checklist. How is this acceptable with boats?

Rusty has told the story numerous times about his angry hotel guests after renting a boat (I assume from him that part of the story was never made clear) came back to the hotel and vociferously complained to him about the lake. Specifically telling him that it was his responsibility to inform them that the lake was crowded/busy and there were speeding boats. Quite frankly I agree with the angry guests! They had never rented a boat before (I believe Rusty came out with that tidbit on the Charlie St. Clair show). It certainly was the Rusty's/hotels (or whomever rented the boat) responsibility to inform the guests that Lake Winnipesaukee is in fact a very busy lake, especially on weekends. If these guests stayed down in Meredith, and lets assume they left from Meredith Marina (Not clear in the story) they would have run the virtual congestion gauntlet in the busiest part of the lake until they got past Weirs. I don't blame them for being angry, especially if they were not forewarned! I don't like that part of the lake on a busy weekend with my 26' boat.

There are lots of other ways to make the lake safer for all without imposing a speed limit.

Woodsy

[chase1]

It is often said that 45 is not slow when refering to HB162.

I agree that 45 is not slow for some boats but how can one say that any boat traveling over 45 is unsafe. There is no evidence of it...... just "fear".

I remember being afraid of going to school on the first day......I cried, and my mom made me go!

My first time merging onto the highway was no picnic....I currently drive 45,000 miles a year.

Boating in NH is a very safe activity and Statistics show that. Anyone afraid of boating on the lake must live a sheltered life. The USCG Boating Statistics report for 2004 shows that there were a total of 35 boating accidents within the entire state resulting in two fatalities. Even with an increase in boater registrations (sadly not the case for many states) boating accidents and fatalities have continued to fall from year to year which proves current programs are effective and accommodating growth.

All this energy over 35 accidents and two fatalities with no proof that the speed limit will make a difference. If anything, statistical data shows that there will be no measurable effect.

Yes, I can not argue the standard reply "one live is worth saving" but....What could we accomplish if we actually put the same effort and funding into a real problem.

Go boating in what ever you have and be happy you can.
Chase1

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Skip

most Courts using the unreasonable speed standard will allow a driver up to and around 15 MPH over the posted limit before convicting. In short, regardless of the posted limit, the officer must show that the speed you were cited for was unreasonable given the prevailing overall conditions at the time of the stop.

Skip,
Can you give any specific examples where a court has released a speeder on this basis? Was this in NH? Where in the statutes or case law is this burden on the officer addressed?

[winnilaker]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...oc/nhspeed.pdf

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm

Commisioner Sweeney (Dept of Safety) testified to the R, R & D to his successful convictions using this law. You might find this interesting, but you can use this law to fight a speeding ticket if you can prove that given the conditions you were driving reasonable and prudent, regardless of the posted speed limit. (This is how Commisioner Sweeney explained it to the committee, not me) For example: a performace car on rt106 traveling at 65 mph and no traffic may be perfectly reasonable and prudent. It can handle and stop better than a minivan and there were no other cars on the road.

Keep this in mind with your next speeding ticket.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Skip,
Can you give any specific examples where a court has released a speeder on this basis? Was this in NH? Where in the statutes or case law is this burden on the officer addressed?

There are two basic types of speed laws......prima facie & absolute.

If you go read New Hampshire's speed regulations (RSA 265:60) you will find that exceeding the speed limits posted in most cases is prima facie evidence that you violated the RSA. Therefore most of New Hampshire's speed limits are prima facie limits. Basically, prima facie means "sufficient to establish fact or case unless disproved". That's where the individual cited has an opportunity to go to court and plea his case that the speed cited given the conditions at the time of stop were not unreasonable.

The second type of speed law is absolute. RSA 265:60 makes speeding on the 65 MPH turnpike system an absolute violation by clearly stating that no person shall travel beyond the posted limit. Several surrounding States also have absolute limits, where the State must only prove that you exceeded the limit, not that the exception was unreasonable.

Each Department in New Hampshire is well aware of the preferences of the Court they prosecute in, and each has their own internal guidleines as when to stop a speeder and give that person a warning or summons. There is also great latitude given to the individual officer to use his own discretion when dealing with speeders. There is no "etched in stone" speed windows that you can guarantee yourself a not guilty finding, just general guidelines that officers learn through training and experience.

One of the key points to this whole debate will be how the final law is drafted. Will the 45/25 limits be addressed as prima facie limits or will it be an absolute limit.

Please read RSA 265:60 carefully. I believe the latitude I describe is self evident in its language:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm

As always, please feel free to PM me if you have any additional questions....

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Skip,
Can you give any specific examples where a court has released a speeder on this basis? Was this in NH? Where in the statutes or case law is this burden on the officer addressed?

Happened to me twice while fighting "silly speeding tickets" in court, once in Plaistow and once in Salem. Both times the judge ruled that while he believed I was indeed exceeding the posted limit and I wasn't doing anything unsafe considering the conditions. He was, of course, correct.

I won another court battle similarly when I was cited for a double yellow line violation for starting to overtake a few feet before the dashed line started. There was no difference in visibility, just an issue with a painted line being in the wrong place. Why the police officer was so concerned about it was beyond me. That was in Wolfeboro.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by pm203

I was talking to a gentleman from Lake George.He informed me not to worry about the speed limit.At lake George,it is business as usual.Unless you are blatantly breaking the speed limit close to shore, you can cruise well above the posted limit. Not only is it very hard to enforce,most law enforcing officials dont see the validity of the law enough to make it a high enough priority.They would rather police more threatening situations that may arrise on the lake daily.

P.s. Is it going to be like the highway? if the speed limit is 65, most police officers will not bother you if you are doing 75 or less. What do you think?

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the head of Marine Patrol said it won't be enforceable. It's just another law for folks who have no common sense and need a law to tell them what not to do. My boat barely exceeds 45MPH so this law really won't make a bit of difference in the way I operate but I still think it's silly.

Not that I would condone it but, If someone is ripping accross the water at a high rate of speed, what is the incentive to stop if the marine patrol boat can't keep up? It would be quite easy to argue in court that you were unaware there was anyone trying to stop you if you were finally caught. Either way, a speeding conviction is the worst that could happen (assuming you were just speeding and not doing anything reckless). The fine probably wouldn't cost much more than the gas it takes to go real fast anyway.

I think it would be amusing to get a bunch of boats and competent drivers together to make a video of boats constantly crossing eachother's paths with just over 150' spacing at just under 45 MPH and just over 150 feet from the end of the Weirs Beach docks, so that no laws are broken. Make it kind of like a motorcycle skills dispaly in a Shriner's parade, if you know what I mean. Submit that to the local news along with a video of a boat going 60 MPH across the broads with no other boats in the vicinity. That would glaringly point out the absurdity of a speed limit on the water.

[pm203]

I pretty much cruise at 45 most of the time anyway. If I am doing 50-55, I do not think it would much of a problem.I will save the high speed runs for the broads during the middle of the week.Common sense and a respect for your fellow boater is what I will strive for.

[BroadHopper]

Fatlazyless hit it on the nail. It is the reflective property of the surface. That is why the stealth fighter and bomber is designed the way it is. The bow of the boat has a lot less reflective property than the sides. So a boat is very stealthy head on, unless you have a flat windshield that is vertical with the horizon. Many Engineers from high tech companies have all the facts to throw out any radar convictions except for the obvious, like 25 mph over the speed limits.
Many of my law enforcements friends says, as long as you are under 10 mph over the speed limit and the conditions are reasonable and prudent, chances of being pulled over is very slim.

[Woodsy]

MP Director Barrett has said he will do what the legislature tells him to do. If we get a speed limit, there will be enforcement. I have no doubt about it. Will the tickets be beatable? In most cases, probablyin some cases not. I am guessing over time Winni will become like Lake George, in that for the most part, a ticket won't be issued unless your a complete bonehead. Will the speed enforcement change anything? Not really. Some, will still lack courtesy and education, still violate the 150' rule, and still generally not care at all. You cannot legislate courtesy and good judgement.

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

I have posted the transcript of the message left by Rep Pilliod below. For the record, I have the utmost respect for Rep. Pilliod. He left this message in response to an e-mail I sent him expressing my opposition to HB-162. If anyone wishes, I can post that e-mail here as well. I will try to get the message converted to an MP3 or WAV file over the weekend so you can hear it "from him" so to speak. It was pretty eye opening as to the "real" reasons behind HB-162.

"Hi Mr. Wood, This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "

(that is when the answering machine cut him off)

Reading the text, doesn't really give you a sense of the voice inflections, I will try to get it converted.

Form your own opinion as to what HB-162 is really about.

Woodsy