"Educating" those danged Winnipesaukee boaters

[Hottrucks]

I think Woodsy wether right or wrong should get a star!! at least he made an attempt to solve our problems.

Varney Point as far as stickers go I would proudly show my sticker right next to my Safety Sticker, yea every year I have my boat inspected (at my request by MP) and they give me a sticker and I put it on my windscreen for all to see. Maybe this sticker can be used for dual purpose???? How many of your cars have parking or dump stickers on them??? Don't they know you live or work there?? kinda the same thing I would think.

Lake George does something like this I think?? Don't you pay for water use there???or is it just a large launch fee??

As far as stickers on row boat types why not they do use the water and the $$ would help MP AND LAKE ISSUES ONLY. Maybe they could get those little red flags like on OHRVs too?? Then we could see them better?? It seems we all pay to use the lake some have more advantages than other and there for they pay more. (Home on the lake pays big tax$$ = alot of advantages, person wanting a day at the beach pays to park and use the beach, small $$ it's kinda a sliding scale on your lake use I guess)

Here one for the ha ha pile maybe we could charge by the pound for boats?? This way a row boats pays pennies while the big cruzers and GFBLs pay dollars ?? Since it's these boats everyone has issues with and seem to cause the must disruption on the lake??

How about we do away with the sea doo types on weekends like other smaller lakes in NH?? Also a great place for one of those red flags?? I know, I know, but they can find new ways to create reviniue just like before they where made so common??


Larger NWZs yes yes yes on weekends!!

As far as day trippers unless they hold a card from somewhere saying they have been tought the basic rules of the road then they get the test and sticker more $$ for MP with a card yea they have to buy a sticker??

With a Better funded MP the lakes will be safer for everyone and I don't think anyone can contest that!!


Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

I think Woodsy wether right or wrong should get a star!! at least he made an attempt to solve our problems.


How about we do away with the sea doo types on weekends like other smaller lakes in NH?? Also a great place for one of those red flags??

Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

You may not be picking on anyone but my only boat is one of those"sea doo types".I am pretty much only on the lake on weekends.So the heck with me right?If you have a boat,how about we do away with your type of boat?No,the answer is not to ban any types of boats.The problem is with the operaters that are violating existing laws.Do away with them and 99% of the issues people have with boating on Winni will go away.I wish people could use some comman sense.

[Woodsy]

I am open to any other ideas to insure compliance with the SBC (Safe Boater Certificate) law. I think the law as it is currently written has no teeth at all. There are no signs of any sort telling daytrippers or weekenders that a SBC is required, they can plead ignorance and actually have a valid excuse. If there is no way to insure compliance with the law and enforce the law, then the prevailing attitude will be "why bother?".

The same goes for HB-162 as it is now written. Although they did take the step of linking boating offenses to your drivers license, there is still no funding package attached to the bill. Radar guns will cost money, Training the officers will cost money, the courts will cost money. Where is the money supposed to come from?

Woodsy

[Bear Lover]

It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes was. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes was. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes were. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.[/QUOTE]


Bear,

Are you happy with with a 1% pay raise when the cost of living increases by 4%.

I think that supporters are driven by emotion or perhaps misrepresenting their motives. The same budget will make more improvements if it were allocated to an identifiable problem. USCG Accident Statistics show education to be the best area of focus. This is a state program and any potential benefits associated with HB162 would only be seen by a minor group of Winnipesaukee residents who seem to be afraid of the increased boating population which lags far behind local community and business growth. There are currently fewer registered boats in NH and nationwide than in 1980. Growth and congestion on the lake can only be due to an increase in tourism which supporters claim is being lost. This contradiction backed by statistics proves that perception is not reality. As a taxpayer everyone should want to see state funds allocated to make statewide improvements (greater than 1%), and oppose funding of porgrams that benefit small group agendas.

Chase1

[Seaplane Pilot]

There was some woman on WGIR AM this morning talking in support of the boat speed limit. In my opinion the overall arguments in support of the speed limit are totally groundless, but this women was really weak. She was stating that the NH has speed limit laws on their "back country" snowmobile trails, where there sometimes is no traffic, which provides a substantial reason why there should be a boat speed limit on Winnipesaukee in all areas, 24/7. Huh??

I've been swamped and endangered in my small skiff by cabin cruisers plowing through the water, throwing giant waves. These are the real problem makers and I, for one, will start a personal crusade to target the cabin cruisers that make huge, dangerous waves if the speed limit crowd succeeds. Never have I felt endangered or threatened by any boat going 45+ mph.

[SIKSUKR]

I heard the same show this morning Seaplane pilot.She was on the Charlie Sherman show.Her stance was the same weak position when questioned by the female co-host about why we need this bill when she agreed there have been no speed related incidents."The public is afraid to boat on winni because of the high speeds" she says.She refered to the tourism being affected.This really flies in the face of there argument when we all know the lake has gotten more crowded on weekends.Doesn't seem like the tourists are staying away at all.I'd be surprized if any tourists even know about this bill and that they are being used as amunition.Look.there is no question in conjested areas speed should be reduced.In 99% of my observations,in my little 10ft boat by the way,fast boats slow down when the situation warrants..In the same observations,the ones that don't are not the gofast boats.It's the ones that can't go more than 40-45 mph that don't recognize when one should slow up or worse yet,keep 150ft away when travelling above headway speed.The hb 162 supporters know this is the case if they spend any time on Winni.I know there are exceptions to this,but there it's not even close as to who the captain boneheads are out there.I've had 4 or 5 encounters the last five years and none have been"gofast" boats.Let's speak from actual experience than from what I see is a fear campaign to insite the uneducated.OK,I'll take a breath now!!Breath...just breath SIKSUKR!!

[Bear Lover]

Are you happy with with a 1% pay raise when the cost of living increases by 4%.

I think that supporters are driven by emotion or perhaps misrepresenting their motives. The same budget will make more improvements if it were allocated to an identifiable problem. USCG Accident Statistics show education to be the best area of focus. This is a state program and any potential benefits associated with HB162 would only be seen by a minor group of Winnipesaukee residents who seem to be afraid of the increased boating population which lags far behind local community and business growth. There are currently fewer registered boats in NH and nationwide than in 1980. Growth and congestion on the lake can only be due to an increase in tourism which supporters claim is being lost. This contradiction backed by statistics proves that perception is not reality. As a taxpayer everyone should want to see state funds allocated to make statewide improvements (greater than 1%), and oppose funding of porgrams that benefit small group agendas.

Chase1

The motives of most speed limit supporters are exactly what they say they are. And contrary to what some believe, HB162 does not require any funding. The radar guns have already been donated to the MP, and the speed limit is just one more law the MP will be enforcing when on their patrols.

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

The motives of most speed limit supporters are exactly what they say they are. And contrary to what some believe, HB162 does not require any funding. The radar guns have already been donated to the MP, and the speed limit is just one more law the MP will be enforcing when on their patrols.

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Bear Lover...

You bring up the Littlefield/Hartman accident. It was a tragic accident and most certainly does "count". Nobody, regardless of thier stance on HB-162 has forgotten about or tried to dismiss this tragedy. I take great offense to that accusation.

It's is your opinion is that accident is the real reason for the existence of HB-162. Please explain how exactly a speed limit would have changed the events of that night?

How also can you say HB-162 doesn't require any funding? Even if the radar guns are donated, the MP officers have to be trained in thier use. That training costs money. The radar units will have to be calibrated at least once a year, that costs money. When people choose to fight thier ticket in court, that costs money. There is a cost to HB-162, regardless if the guns are initially donated!

Woodsy

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

My sympathies go out to your neighbor as they did in 2002. But you didn't again , state "THE FACTS" that theESTIMATEDspeed was 28 mph . Now was that "fact" or "estimate"? If it was and estimate , it could be 30 but then again it could be 25. I'm confused as to how you can state an estimated speed as fact. The only Fact is that it is an ESTIMATE. We both know there were other , more pertinent reasons for this tradegy , that the speed limit people WANT everybody to forget and concentrate on speed with a tunnel vision type view. If I was going to be hit by 8000 lbs and given a choice of 25 or 28 mph I seriously doubt it would make much difference
But this falls under the education catagory , which unless something is done about that , I don't feel things will change much , particularly on the crowded weekends. That's my primary reason for timing my visits to weekdays. I just have to figure out how to stay for two weeks at a time without a weekend in the middle

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Cal

... state "THE FACTS" that theESTIMATEDspeed was 28 mph:confused

Cal, you're beating your head against a stonewall on this one.

This is a direct quote from Sandy Helve, described as the leading proponent at WinnFabs as reported in the Citizen article on Monday:

[Sandy] Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle.

"We are looking for the flagrant violators," said Helve.

The Littlefiled boat was estimated to be doing two or three miles over the proposed speed limit the night of the crime. If the MPs were in the area that night, following the wishes and intents of the lead proponent of HB162 and her organization, than Littlefield's speed would have been of no concern to them as they would have been on the lookout for flagrant violators (which is what they should be doing).

There are many valid arguments that the proponents of a speed limit can and have made over the past year. The few that continue to represent that HB162 would have prevented the crime that evening not only defy logic, but defy the claims of the same organization that is leading the charge to put limits on the Lake!

I think it is tragic that some misuse the senseless death that occurred that night by misrepresenting proposed legislation and not questioning why ample present legislation was not enough to keep Littlefield from behind the throttles that evening!

Skip

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Skip

Cal, you're beating your head against a stonewall on this one.


[Sandy] Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle.

"We are looking for the flagrant violators," said Helve.

The Littlefiled boat was estimated to be doing two or three miles over the proposed speed limit the night of the crime. If the MPs were in the area that night, following the wishes and intents of the lead proponent of HB162 and her organization, than Littlefield's speed would have been of no concern to them as they would have been on the lookout for flagrant violators (which is what they should be doing).

Skip

I have NO problem with that. As a matter of fact , I have no problem with the night time speed limit. There are times I've been out on a moonless night and haven't gone above idle speed. One of the last times I was up there , we returned from Weirs , through the channel and past Naswa and Channel Marine and beyond that it looked like the end of the earth...totally BLACK. I was going to take a ride down Paugus Bay a ways but thought better of it and headed back to Naswa where we normally stay.
I'm personally a proponent of education and making "hit and run " penalties the same or worse than BUI. Most boaters who drink don't get caught. Most drunk boaters don't get caught. Usually the only ones that get caught have aready caused a serious mishap and that's too late .
I just wonder what the cry would be if Littlefield had been piloting a cruiser instead of a go fast.
Maybe it's just me but I always keep a watch behind myself even before this event and even more so after.
Decades ago , when I got my drivers license , my father told me "Boy , you have to have eyes you a$$ when you drive". That's still true today and on the water too , and guess what? Speed limits won't change that on crowded weekends. It's common sense and education.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Cal

...Most boaters who drink don't get caught. Most drunk boaters don't get caught. Usually the only ones that get caught have aready caused a serious mishap and that's too late ...

Cal,

Sadly you don't even know how true that statement is. Anyone call pick out a falling down drunk, but many people who are at or just over the limit don't show the stereotypical drunk antics portrayed on TV. While their judgement and ability to operate machinery is severely compromised, there may be little smell of an alcoholic beverage on their breath, no staggering, no slurred speech and very little other outward sign of their intoxicated state.

I will have to do a little digging, but I did posess a statistical report at one time (obtained at one of my certification classes) that stated during a certain study, law enforcement officials identified only one in seven legally intoxicated individuals during routine traffic stops.

This was not due to incompetence on the officers part, but caused by the limited amount of time a reasonable stop can occur coupled with the limited outward effects many people show at and just above legal intoxication levels.

It also explains why on many occasions witnesses will watch someone leaving a bar or party and later state that the individual appeared fine to them, only to have that individual involved in an alcohol related horrific incident. Many times over the counter and illicit drugs only amplify the effect, whether used in conjunction with alcohol or not.

I have too many first hand horror stories relating experiences with my previous comments. All I can say is it is no means as easy to pick out a legally intoxicated individual as some would have you believe. We all tend to relate to that person who becomes a falling down fool after a few drinks, tending to overlook the problem drinker or drug user that can consume copious amounts of alcohol or drugs, and initially even fool well trained observers.

Anyway, back to your quoted statement.....it is true enough to warrant the get tough attitude that has prevailed in the last decade, a momentum to remove inebriated individuals from our roads, trails and waterways (and airways) despite the constant roadblocks law enforcement must negotiate to ensure that a free society truly remains free from excessive government intrusion.

Trust me, it ain't easy....especially during the Holiday season!

Merry Christmas, be safe.....

Skip

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Cal

{snip}We both know there were other , more pertinent reasons for this tradegy , that the speed limit people WANT everybody to forget and concentrate on speed with a tunnel vision type view. If I was going to be hit by 8000 lbs and given a choice of 25 or 28 mph I seriously doubt it would make much difference

Aside from all the other reasons pointed out in this thread, it's important to remember that the speed difference between the 2 boats that night was less than Littlefield's actual speed. He hit the Hartman boat from behind as it slowly travelled up the bay. If somebody is worried about a boat hitting another and wants to claim that 28 or 30 or 35 made all the difference (vs 25) then how do they feel about 2 boats headed towards each other at the proposed limit. The difference in speed is now a legal 50 mph. How is this OK and 28 not ?

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

The motives of most speed limit supporters are exactly what they say they are. And contrary to what some believe, HB162 does not require any funding. The radar guns have already been donated to the MP, and the speed limit is just one more law the MP will be enforcing when on their patrols.

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Bear,

I am sorry for your loss. I do not mean to disrespect the situation but the accident you refer to would not have been prevented by HB162. Other laws more serious than speeding were broken that night and the estimated speed of 28mph is within a reasonable margin of error to the proposed limit of 25mph.
I am a no speed limit person and I am in no way trying to "forget" this accident but it just does not support HB162. If the state set laws based on personal feelings derived from each individual fatal accident we would not be able to canoe, sail, swim, ride a bike, snow ski, boat in rough conditions, water ski.........

Where can I find information regarding the radar equipment you claim was donated? Is this equipment adequate for the environment???? Is there enough to cover the entire state???? It seems unlikely that anyone would make an investment and donate costly equipment that may never be needed. This bill still has a long way to go. Perhaps they could have donated cash and funded more MP payroll so current regualtions could be enforced better.....

Chase1

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Seaplane Pilot

I have been endangered by a boat going over 25/45. More importantly one of our neighbors was killed by one. It was that accident that the no speed limit people keep trying to forget. Or they list a bunch of reasons why it shouldn't count. But it does count, and it IS THE REAL REASON FOR HB162!

Without a doubt, that was a tragic, unfortunate accident. However, from my recollection I thought the driver of the Baja was only going somewhere around 25mph. Given the circumstances, this fatality would most likely have occured even if the Baja was going 15-20 mph. Your reference to this accident lends credence to the idea that the proponants of HB162 are really just targeting the cigarette boats, such as the Baja involved in this accident.

[Bear Lover]

What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. Then I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer.

There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee

I also notice they think HB162 will pass.

[fatlazyless]

For the last 80 years, Lake Winnipesaukee has been the place to go boating in a fast boat. If you had a fast boat on one of NH's many smaller lakes, someone would say; your danged speed boat is too fast for this little lake, you should take it to Winnipesaukee. And the fast boats all came to Winnipesaukee, and there was not too much problem because it's so big a lake. So, all the go-fasts have been here for a long time. They have here a history and a heritage.

So, what's really needed to help accomplish compliance with a newly created 45day-25night speed limit is linking a boat speeding violation to your automobile driver's license. Give it some big nasty teeth! ......ouchey, ouch, ouch! A single auto speeding violation for going more than 10mph over the limit takes three years of no-violation driving to erase, and eliminates your good driver discount which could be $500./year for three years. Maybe the NH automobile insurance company lobbyists could influence the State legislature on this. (frown face!)

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So, what's really needed to help accomplish compliance with a newly created 45day-25night speed limit is linking a boat speeding violation to your automobile driver's license. Give it some big nasty teeth! ......ouchey, ouch, ouch! A single auto speeding violation for going more than 10mph over the limit takes three years of no-violation driving to erase, and eliminates your good driver discount which could be $500./year for three years.

Something that impacts a person's driving record should have the evidence behind it. How will Marine Patrol prove the violating speed?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. The I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer.

There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee

I also notice they think HB162 will pass.

Directions to other lakes???????? I saw a few suggestions like Champlain and Sabago but the guy from Lake George said their 45 mph limit hasn't changed anything and nobody posted a rte # or compass direction. Did I miss something???? Or was it just wishful thinking

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What I can't understand is how opponents say nothing will change, none of the high performance boats will leave. The I go to another forum where I am a member, and the same people are posting directions to other lakes. Looks to me like a lot of people ARE going somewhere else next summer.

There are a few that say they will be staying and going as fast as they want, let the MP try and catch them. Just the kind of boaters we don't need on Winni.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...=winnipesaukee

I also notice they think HB162 will pass.

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

[BroadHopper]

The insurance companies are going to see big bucks on this bill. Of course they are going to stand behind this. It'll be a sad day if NH ever become a no fault state like Mass.
After reading the last Citizen article, I am under the impression the hospitality industry and some of the marinas are sending out a signal to the tourists that the lake is safe if the bill is passed. I wish they will say that this is less than 1% of the problem on the lake. I'm tired of the 'feel good' rhetorics of the proponents.
I commend Skip for speaking on behalf of bothe sides and to bring into perspective the law enforcement side as well. I wish him a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous new year.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

There was a few that were bashing and yes, they are welcome to leave. Overall the opponents of the speed limit are good people that think as I do that there are alternative motives behind this and that the entire bill is an attempted bandaid but will not truly heal the real problems.

One of the posters in that forum mentioned posted the following:
"i heard a story from a marina the no longer offered rentals - customer came back (towed) and the lower unit was destroyed, guy jumps out and screams at the top of his lungs "THERE WASN'T A DOTTED LINE!"

At the time of the rental they gave a guy a chart and it had a dotted line of areas to avoid - yup, he actually thought the dotted line would be on the water."

I think that spells out the true problem!

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

Don't forget, not all performance boaters are like that, please remember a great comment by Bear Lover.

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

However I have changed my opinion since I wrote some of that many months ago. This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I was feeling sorry for the people that owned fast boats on the lake. I thought suddenly passing a speed limit wasn't fair to them, wished there could be a compromise. Then I read the Offshoreonly posts, now I don't care. They have only been talking nice on this forum and then attacking us behind our backs, unbelievable!

They say they will go to Sebago, Champlain and the ocean. Well goodbye.

I have copied the posts and I will send a few plus the link to my state rep.

It's precisely these sorts of emotions (all emotions actually...) that our law makers need to suppress or ignore when wieghing this decision. The need for this law should be based soley on fact, not how offensive one group of people finds another group of people.

The real problem is the lack of politeness and respect from a few folks in fast boats and a general lack of tolerance from another group of folks who probably don't own fast boats. Try as we might, we can't legislate politeness, respect or tolerance. Best we can do is be a good example of politeness, respect and tolerance and hope others try to emulate us. This law will not do that, nor will it improve anything on the lake.

I will be completely unaffected by a speed limit law and perhaps should not really care. I only hope my elected officials do what is right, even if it's not popular.

[Woodsy]

I don't agree with bashing of any kind. People have have a right to form thier opinions, but bashing certainly isn't acceptable behavior.

That being said, when you attempt to take away an individual's personal freedoms, the response tends to be be less than agreeable, and sometimes downright nasty. This is especially true when there is a serious question as to what the real intent of the law is.

In the case of HB-162, the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Pilliod, has stated that HB-162 has nothing to do with speed or safety. If HB-162 has nothing to do with speed or safety, then what is it really about? He has stated it is about fear. What exactly are people afraid of? The accident statistics for Lake Winnipesaukee don't support a need for a speed limit, in fact we had fewer accidents last year than the year before.

So what is the real issue then? After reviewing the statements of Rep. Pilliod and others, one can reasonably conclude that the real reason behind HB-162 is that some people just don't like high performance boats. Dislike is not a basis for legislation that severely restricts or limits an individuals personal freedom.

Woodsy

[winnilaker]

#1
In the recent article from the citizen I believe this was stated:

"Also supporting the bill are numerous conservation groups, such as the Audubon Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club and the New Hampshire Lakes Association."

Not sure if anyone got the recent New Hampshire Lakes Association mailer looking for more donations to help fight their causes. Guess what bullet #4 was, representing usage of our lakes that they want to protect?

"* A young man speeds by in his new motorboat (a lifelong dream come true), reliving his memories of his first water skiiing lesson with his dad."

For once I agree with NHLA, I look forward to the day when my children get to experience the excitement of this beautiful lake speeding in a new motorboat. However I find it ironic that they support the speed limit and they are the ones that wanted it on all NH lakes, waterways.

#2
It's been stated that this law would have prevented that unfortunate accident, at 28 mph, that's only 3 mph above the proposed speed limit. However, that same Citizen article:
"Helve said the law is not designed to assure the issuance of tickets to people going two or three miles over the proposed limit, but rather to give reckless boaters something to think about when they hit the throttle.
"

So what is it then to prevent accidents or not???

#3
It's been stated that the bill IS NOT aimed at performance boats. However this response from the bill's sponsor says it quite differently:

"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. "

If you read that carefully, notice it says the vessels have lack of courtesy, not the people. So if that's not obvious enough, that the boats are the problems, why not come out and be honest with everyone about it!!!

I'll stop with three for now.

[Bear Lover]

winnilaker

None of these arguments hold water, in my opinion.

1. The young man speeding by in his motorboat could be going 35 or 45. And I doubt if dad was going over 45 during his first waterskiing lesson.

I hope you children do get the experience, and that they keep it at 45 or less.

2. The Littlefield boat was going over the proposed speed limit. I don't care even one little bit about the arguments and quibbles about this. 28 is more than 25, END OF STORY.

Sandy's opinion of what the law was intended to do doesn't matter. 68% of NH voters support a speed limit, THAT MATTERS!

3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

to winnilaker

3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

Then why don't you PROMOTE safety??? If that is the problem.
Creating more laws do not PROMOTE safety. It creates more confusion and work for the MP.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

winnilaker
28 is more than 25, END OF STORY.

ESTIMATED 28 might be more than 25. Then again maybe not.
Get the "facts"straight! please

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

3. I guess in your mind you can disconnect fear from safety. But fear is the manifestation of unsafe conditions. The lessening of safety on the lake creates fear in the minds of boaters. This fear inspires them to request and support legislation.

I fear driving my motorcycle in Boston, its unsafe. Your approach would be to eliminate trucks and cabs, correct? Don't I have the right to feel safe driving in Boston on my motorcycle. Or would most people just say "you're crazy, go use your motorcycle in the country where there is less traffic"

With all the accidents on our highways, WHY don't we just lower everything to 45, that sure would make my grandmother feel safer driving on the highways. Her words "crazy people out there driving fast"

If you want to compare boating with driving, let's look at the demographics of the ages with the most accidents (the young and the elderly). Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury-related death for people ages 65-74 and second only to falls for those 75-84, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.You want to make the lake safer let's target them, there are statistics that prove this. However, I bet that would not go over well with the Bear Island crew. I was at the first hearing, needless to say there was a generation gap, pro HB162 and oppose HB162.

I, however, would oppose targeting them, it's discriminatory. If you want really want to make the lake safer, why not point out the problems, exactly? I happen to know a bunch of responsible boaters who would gladly help find resolution to the few bad apples. Shouldn't be hard to find them.

Originally Posted by Boater

Geez Woodsy, I'm really surprised that after all the debate here, you still try to spin this into a discrimination issue.

See my previous post of the response of the bill's sponsor, how do you interpret that?? Is it ONLY the ocean going vessels that lack courtesy? Any statistics to prove that??

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

winnilaker

None of these arguments hold water, in my opinion.

1. The young man speeding by in his motorboat could be going 35 or 45. And I doubt if dad was going over 45 during his first water skiing lesson.

I hope you children do get the experience, and that they keep it at 45 or less.

2. The Littlefield boat was going over the proposed speed limit. I don't care even one little bit about the arguments and quibbles about this. 28 is more than 25, END OF STORY.

Sandy's opinion of what the law was intended to do doesn't matter. 68% of NH voters support a speed limit, THAT MATTERS!

1) Speeding is relevant to the equipment and qualification of the operator

2) If Joe officer was sitting at the end of your road with radar you would have a driving record that read like a calendar day after day all at 3 or more over the posted speed limit.

Sandy's opinion is as good as anyones because like the rest of us it's the opinions that matter. As far as 68% of the voters Big questions to be answered
1) are these people Boaters??
2) do they live on lakes??
3) where do they live?? only the voices of the Winnie area where heard? and it now cover all the lake in the state? I think all should be heard!!

I would just like to see educated voters thats all. I think that some of the Reps up north no nothing about this or probably care not too, just don't cut one of their trees or close another Mill.

hey Boater which website I would like to read what else I'm missing??

[Woodsy]

Boater...

1. If safety is the primary concern and the reason behind HB-162, why did Rep. Pilliod say it wasn't?

2. Where is the accident data to support your belief that Lake Winnipesaukee isn't safe? Specifically, where is the accident data that points to excessive speed (over 45mph) as a major factor in boating accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee?

3. As far as marinas and hotels that support the issue, how many of them are in the boat rental business? How many of them are like Rusty McClear and think its perfectly ok to rent a boat on a busy summer weekend to someone who has no prior experience boating? All the renter has to do is a 20 question checklist? As long as they can afford the $200/hr its perfectly acceptable? Can you imagine if we rented cars & motorcycles with nothing but a 20 question checklist? But for some reason this is acceptable with a boat?

4. Tell me why is it the marina/hotel rental customers feel threatened? Because of speeding boats? Not likely, especially as speed is extremely difficult to judge on the water, as is distance. Perhaps it is as Rusty McClear said in his story, the rental customer was upset because nobody told them that the lake is busy, especially on summer weekends. But its not Rusty's responsibility to tell his rental customers...


Woodsy

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

one can reasonably conclude that the real reason behind HB-162 is that some people just don't like high performance boats.

Geez Woodsy, I'm really surprised that after all the debate here, you still try to spin this into a discrimination issue. It's obvious to me that for most supporters this is a safety issue. You've read that many (most?) marinas and hotels support HB162 because so many of their customers feel threatened and have told them so. These are real people with real concerns. I personally have had some frightening encounters with boats at high speeds that all of your spin can't erase.

I just got through reading the thread on the other forum that someone referenced. What a surprise that the same names that try to dominate the discussion here appear there too. Also interesting is that there is not a single opposing point of view there. Who would dare? Apparently they have a private area (the bilge?) where they can get really nasty and insulting. To bad the legislature can't read that. I think most supporters of HB162 don't get involved in this nonsense, they just contact their legislator.

I guess the real question for the legislature is whether they should side with the vocal minority who use intimidation and insults as tactics and who think unlimited speed is a "personal freedom" or the thousands of other boaters who see their safety and enjoyment of the lake jeopardized and want some reasonable limits.

One more question, why is it that Porche and Ferrari owners aren't crying about "personal freedoms" when their 150mph vehicles are limited to 65?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

...It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented...The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type...

However, what about these other quotes from Bear Lover????

Originally Posted by bearlover

...The "real truth" is that we don't want you to slow down. We want you to take your boats to a body of water that is appropriate for them... when this speed limit passes that is exactly what you will be doing...

or

Originally Posted by bearlover

...When the bill passes there will be lots of long slips available on Winni...

or

Originally Posted by bearlover

...I don't need to prove speed is dangerous. And why I want you off the lake doesn't matter...Before long the only place you will be able to go fast is "Offshore"...

or

Originally Posted by bearlover

...What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit...And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake...

Gee Bearlover, how can anyone be misrepresenting your position on this important matter???

Merry Christmas (but hey, thanks for the chuckle ).....

Skip!

[ITD]

Skip,

Very, very interesting,
Thank you.

[Bear Lover]

Skip

As an intelligent man I'm sure you can tell the difference between what "I" want, what "most speed limit supporters" want and what are predictions for the future.

However I have changed my opinion since I wrote some of that many months ago. This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate. I do still want them to slow down.

And Sandy does not speak for me.

Plus, in fairness, you should have indicated the age of some of those quotes. And some are taken out of the context, read the posts before mine.

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

You may not be picking on anyone but my only boat is one of those"sea doo types".I am pretty much only on the lake on weekends.So the heck with me right?If you have a boat,how about we do away with your type of boat?No,the answer is not to ban any types of boats.The problem is with the operaters that are violating existing laws.Do away with them and 99% of the issues people have with boating on Winni will go away.I wish people could use some comman sense.

Hold on a second!!! all I was saying is that there are other lakes that do not allow sea doos on weekend already!!! I live on one.. It's not any type of boat it's the people operating them!!!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

{snip}
Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

I think "codeman" started an "compromise" thread (which I can't quite find time to collect my thougts into) which might be a good place to post more ideas. FWIW "JohnNH" had a similar thread a while ago, I'll post a link to it when I find it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1454