"Educating" those danged Winnipesaukee boaters

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I have been thinking about this for awhile now. Is speed really the issue or is it ignorance/lack or courtesy?

{snip}

4. Study the areas of the Lake with the most congestion, and look at ways to control the boat traffic. Initially try NWZ's, but if the congestion persists, perhaps weekend only "safety zones" where a reduced speed is mandated.

{snip}

Woodsy

Just to comment on this 1 part of your post. I've guess I've said it enough times but there are places where "high" speed is OK and places where it isn't. Seems to me it wouldn't be hard to figure which is which and then make some practical decisions such that the lake isn't a quiltwork of speed zones. That way those who can't seem to play together can go to their "separate rooms" BTW weekend only speed limits was mentioned in an old post. Lastly I recall an article (Citizen, Fosters ?) where somebody who thought something should be done (!).... and suggested lighted/flashing/?? buoys to be placed in the bays and activated (to indicate speed limit) by the MP when they thought it was necessary. Not sure the last one was practical but it was creative (which I favor over practical at this moment). Just thought you might find these similar ideas interesting ...

[winnilaker]

Frank,
We finally do agree on something! Everyone, it really does work, this was my favorite response from a rep after we informed him of the facts.

"If there should be a floor fight on this warm, touchy and fuzzy feel good legislation, I'd be happy to speak on the NH House floor and say how I was in support of HB162 and why I'm not now.

I not only see HB162 as unnecessary legislation. I see it as making the job of Marine patrol enforcement much more difficult to do."

[Fat Jack]

Winnilaker,
You seem to have a Frank on your mind a lot these days. What's up with that?
Jack

[winnilaker]

Jack or Frank or whomever,
I'm just having an interesting debate. Charlie St Clair from "In Focus", that public access TV show, wanted to have both sides on his show for a debate, but WinnFabs didn't want to do it, they taped WinnFabs portion and then ours and taped it together to look like one show. I would have liked to have you or Frank or anybody into a real good formal debate available for everyone to see. Regardless of who wins the debate, it would allow NH citizens to put faces with the information being presented here anonymously.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

WinnFabs didn't want to do it.

Ricky or Fred or whomever,
Do you really wonder why? How many times have you told us of your own run-ins with the police? Are we suppose to believe this is not an attempt to intimidate? How many threatening and abusive emails and posts have there been from your side once you found out a supporter's identity? Why else would you need to know anyone's identity? Why do you need to face the supporters down in some kind of intimidating man-to-man confrontation? What place does all that have in this debate? Would the facts be different? Why else would you need to sit across from Sandy or Rusty accept to intimidate? And why do you feel the need to identify everyone who opposes you? I notice that none of your members use their full legal names as their screen names either. But notice that no one on this side is asking to know your real identities. What would we gain from that? I'm sure you would all provide that willingly, but that is just because you have nothing to fear from us.
Anonymity allows people to voice their opinion without fear of reprisal. That is why we have secret ballots in November. Saddam did not have secret ballots.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

.
Anonymity allows people to voice their opinion without fear of reprisal.

Just like terorists Careful what you wish for

[Bear Lover]

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

That thread says a mouthful. Now watch it disappear.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

I thought the ostensible reason HB-162 was being proposed was because the speeds on the lake were too high and it was unsafe or perceived as being unsafe for the average boater. Supporters are worried about being run over. Then I read the above thread and the 50 referenced posts and the "accidents" they mention. Of those I find 7 mentioning boat-boat collisions and the remainder* are single boat incidents. Of the 7 I find the following:

#7: The operator of the GBFL runs over another boat while drunk. He ends up in jail and one of the victims says; "Colann " is a bad example that makes every boater look bad, but he is not your typical boater," said Maher, who had the flesh from his right hand ripped off during the wreck. "Boating on the Ohio River is like a fraternity. Most boaters behave responsibly."
So we have 1 drunk plus speed "accident".

#8: PWC swerves in front of a 32' Envision that was leaving the marina. Envision goes into reverse but still over-runs the PWC. No speeds are given. No BUI mentioned. So do we blame speed or the PWC or ?? The reversing indicates low speed to me.

#17: A 21' boat hits an 18' boat killing father and son in New Orleans. The collision happened in the Grand Bayou area, near the old Happy Jack's Marina north of Venice, said Maj. John Marie of the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Office. Authorities had no further information about the kinds of boats involved in the collision, which happened in an open area of the bayou. One boat swerved to avoid the other, "and they still collided," Marie said. Speeds not mentioned but if I believe FLL (most small boats limited to <45) I don't think either boat's speed was above HB-162 legal limits. Very unlikely to be a case for "excess" (>HB-162) speed.

#30: This is the case ApS/madrasahs mentioned before. Grier Dean Rush runs over another boat killing 3 and then leaves the boat and escapes on foot. A few days later he turns himself in. A speed of 55 mph was mentioned. No BUI citation but sounds like "a Ted" to me. So we have 1 over the HB-162 limit (? w/o alcohol involvement ?).

#42: A "leisure boat" runs into a pontoon boat killing 1 and injuring 3 and then takes off. He's later caught and arrested for BUI. No speeds mentioned. Is this a speed case ? Certainly it's a drunk case.

#46: An LAPD officier takes his 20' boat and hits a PWC from the rear, injuring 1 of 2 riders. He and his buddy onboard are both later arrested for BUI/DUI. No speeds mentioned. Is this a speed case ? Certainly it's a drunk case, again.

#49: A 31' Cigarrette and a 30' Searay collide nearly head on. No speeds mentioned. 1 operator cited for BUI. Is this a speed case ? Certainly it's a drunk case, again.

So what does the aforemention list of 50, collected from 4 years of posts on OSO, from all across the country, say about "our" safety and HB-162 ? Seems to me I have more to fear from the drunk boater than the fast boater. Now if I were worried about people hurting themselves in fast boats (the remainder of the posts) I might use this list to push a speed limit bill but frankly I am against laws designed to protect people from themselves.

* They were 3 posts I couldn't read, certainly 1 (and maybe all 3) was about the Smoke on the Water accident (single boat, no collision). Another post was about a guy who ran his performance boat into a barge and disappeared in an effort to fake his death and escape from the various illicit frauds and schemes.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If safety is not an issue then what about this?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162

And why are members here asking to have data on boating accidents hidden from public view?

Good find Bear Lover. Lots of useful information over quite some time.
Of course you will forward all the other NON speed related fatalities also (such as BUI), so the politicos can see how small a percentage it truly is. I'm sure you wouldn't weight the facts in your favor by not telling ALL the facts.
They probably want it hidden so the facts won't be used in the wrong manner.
Quite an interesting site BTW

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Good find Bear Lover. Lots of useful information over quite some time.
Of course you will forward all the other NON speed related fatalities also (such as BUI), so the politicos can see how small a percentage it truly is. I'm sure you wouldn't weight the facts in your favor by not telling ALL the facts.
They probably want it hidden so the facts won't be used in the wrong manner.
Quite an interesting site BTW

I guess you guys miss the point. The accident information is interesting but more importantly.....

1. The same people that are arguing here that safety is not an issue, are asking for the thread to be deleted or hidden. They don't want the truth about accidents to be known. If the truth is on your side...why hide the data!!!!!!!

2. Since I posted the link to that thread, 7 posts have been deleted from it. There were 32 posts when I gave the link, now there are 25. Once again they hide the truth. They are deleting their posts to cover up the cover up. Reminds me of Watergate.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I guess you guys miss the point. The accident information is interesting but more importantly.....

1. The same people that are arguing here that safety is not an issue, are asking for the thread to be deleted or hidden. They don't want the truth about accidents to be known. If the truth is on your side...why hide the data!!!!!!!

2. Since I posted the link to that thread, 7 posts have been deleted from it. There were 32 posts when I gave the link, now there are 25. Once again they hide the truth. They are deleting their posts to cover up the cover up. Reminds me of Watergate.

All the posts (50) that were there earlier are still there right now. I just clicked on them. As to their motivations ... I care about them as much as I care about yours. Sombody's motivation doesn't matter to me. So do the accidents mentioned tell us something about HB-162 or not ? Am I, boating about in my 24' non-performance boat, likely to get smacked by someone going fast or by some drunk ? How much safer am I with HB-162 ? What makes 25/45 and not some other limits the correct numbers ? Is there any way to solve the "safety" problem other than HB-162 ?

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

All the posts (50) that were there earlier are still there right now. I just clicked on them. As to their motivations ... I care about them as much as I care about yours. Somebody's motivation doesn't matter to me. So do the accidents mentioned tell us something about HB-162 or not ? Am I, boating about in my 24' non-performance boat, likely to get smacked by someone going fast or by some drunk ? How much safer am I with HB-162 ? What makes 25/45 and not some other limits the correct numbers ? Is there any way to solve the "safety" problem other than HB-162 ?

If you click the link and count the posts you will find 25, not 50. Posts are being deleted! Are you just trying to confuse the issue by saying 50?

The accidents mentioned show that speed is dangerous, speed kills. There is no way to "solve the safety problem", HB162 is just one step in the right direction.

Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!

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

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf

US Coast Guard also defines safe speed without arbitrary speed limits! Why shouldn't we implement that!

"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."


http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule06.htm

[Skip]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

US Coast Guard also defines safe speed without arbitrary speed limits! Why shouldn't we implement that!

"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."


http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...les/Rule06.htm

And of course Coast Guard statistics also reveal that given overall deaths on the waterways of this nation, one of the most unlikely ways that you will be killed or injured is by a performance boat.

Even cursory examination of readily available Federal & State data also reveals that year after year, as more & more boaters take to the water...the waterways are also becoming more safe! Fact is you are much more likely to be killed or injured on your way to the Lake, or even just puttering around your cottage. Actually, you have more chance of being struck by lightning than being struck by a Lightning....

But this debate has once again spiraled far away from facts and statistics and relevant local data and has been hijacked by argument based emotion, perceived threat and prejudice (by zealots on both sides of the issue).

And no one can win a debate or sway imbedded opinion based on those attributes.

But hey, Don, thanks once again for providing the forum...it started out with good debate and decorum...but as usual......

Anyway,

Merry Christmas to all! (and to all a good night, on this thread anyway)

Skip

[Hottrucks]

Why is always about Performance boats what are the over all statistics? I would think that the odds of falling out of a row boat is alot higher since there are so many more of those?? or maybe tipping over in a canoe as unstable as those are getting in or out??

[chase1]

[QUOTE

Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf[/QUOTE]

Bear,

Please read the definition of speeding as per this report glossary:

Speeding - Operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a
reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances.

The #4 reason for accidents will not be changed by posted limits......

Chase1

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If you click the link and count the posts you will find 25, not 50. Posts are being deleted! Are you just trying to confuse the issue by saying 50?

You're kidding right ? I'm trying to confuse the issue by saying there are most posts in the "dirty laundry list" ?? See my reply to FJ below. Again I see 51 URLs which reference 50 different posts of which I can't see 3 or 4. Are you clicking on those URLs in the OSO post or those URLs listed by FJ ? I believe there is some error in how those were copied and pasted into his post. They don't work for me from his post.

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

The accidents mentioned show that speed is dangerous, speed kills. There is no way to "solve the safety problem", HB162 is just one step in the right direction.
Read the link below. It's a US Coast Guard report. It lists speed as the #4 reason for accidents!
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf

I have read that report and the prior one and there's also one for 2004 available online as well. Perhaps you should read page 41 which lists fatalities by speed. For the accident reports that list speed, only 4% of the fatalities were due to speeds above 40 mph. Now they don't breakdown what percentage of that 4% were due to collisions (ostensibly the reason for HB-162) and what % was due to to single boat mishaps. Care to guess from the OSO posts you've highlighted which is the predominate number ? This is why many opposing HB-162 see it (chance of being run over due to high speed) as a non-issue. I have a somewhat in-between view where I can see there can be too high a speed, it's just a lot higher than HB-162's 45 mph.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

All the posts (50) that were there earlier are still there right now.

I don't know about that. I was able to go to BL’s link (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162) last night and open the author’s listed links pretty instantly. It was quiet revealing. If there are any reps out there, I hope they will have their admins take the time to open all these links and print them out. Although a speed limit might not have dissuaded many of these boaters, the totality of this stuff gives a pretty scary image of high speed boating and makes one wonder how we have survived this long with no speed rules on Winnipesaukee. Anyone involved with the decision on HB162 should surely appreciate the observation that this thread provides.

But today, while the links themselves are still in the original massage, many are dead-ending and many are saying “you do not have access to this page”. Those might have been moved to the private section mentioned above (and maybe M&M is still able to view them), or they might have been deleted.

It is very hard to connect to the OSO forums anyway, so I will summarize;
The initiater of the thread, a 4-yr member of OSO, expresses his deep concern over the unbelievably high number of tragic accidents within the "OSO family" that have happened in the short time he has been a member there. He listed 51 links that discuss just some of those. In a later post, he explains that there were even more that were not listed. He cautions that this GFBL group had better start to police themselves, or they will face legislation. A myriad of other members then weigh in to express their amazement at the numbers and their agreement with him. Some talk about things like how fast 60-70 MPH really is, how dangerous high speed boating can be, etc. It is incredibly similar to the "night time speed limit" thread and poll elsewhere on OSO that I mentioned in one of my other posts...Why is the rest of the GFBL community recognizing the problem while our local chapter is not? Then a member called CMG explains that this thread could provide "ammo" to the "grey hairs" in NH and asks that it be moved to that private forum. The thread gets pretty tame after that.

If one is able to visit the links that the author provided, it is extremely enlightening. I post them below in a different order to avoid any copying concerns. I’ve added a short description of the subject for those links I was able to open today.
Clearly, some of these accidents would not have been prevented by an obeyed 45/25 SL, but any argument that high-speed is safe to the boaters or innocent bystanders becomes pretty silly in view of this abundance of contradiction.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=99947 (Sunsation "driving like a nut and doing spinouts", "probably in excess of 75" crashed in IL. one passenger "airlifted")
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=90865 (An Outerlimits accident in a poker run in FL - no injuries)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=70082 ( a “catamaran tunnel-hull racing boat flipped at “over 100mph” in Tampa Bay, killing driver)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=87159 ( A“cig top gun” hit a marker on the Pontomac in DC and sank - occupants “swam to shore”)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=86831 (a Cheetah ran up the back of an Eliminator, killing one occupant on Lake Havasu in CA)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=100074 (you really have to see this one. A 38’ Fountain hit the shore and “went airborne”, ending up well inland. Luckily, no house to hit)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=57502 (a Baja Outlaw “traveling at a high rate of speed” hit and interstate causeway, went airborne and hit a car on the interstate)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=104363 (Missouri accident between a Sea Ray and Cig with 14 passengers on board pulling a bullet at night)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=68440 (related to the arrest of a boat operator who fled after his boat crashed into a barge in the Houston Channel) http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=70023 (a 34’ Spectre flipped in Gulf “near 100mph”. One killed)
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=107353 ( Driver and 3-5 teen aged to early 20's girls were ejected from a 30 or so foot Donzi as it made a sudden left hand turn at around 60mph in IL)

After this, it was just getting too slow, but the theme is obvious. Here are the remaining links;
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=83065
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82624
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82605
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=85210
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82375
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=82205
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=80400
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=80337
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=79236
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=78721
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=78530
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=78286
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=76965
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=76847
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=72990
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=72900
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=60356
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=59824
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=58250
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=58166
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=57729
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=56641
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=55563
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=54748
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53909
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53302
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53302
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=32266
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=28866
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=16902
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=10501
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=107488
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=107327
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=106976
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=105954
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=105816
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=105410
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=104299
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=103831
http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=95785

[ApS]

The confusion between "25" and "50" is that there are 50 URLs (the blue address/entries) listing recent crashes. There are just 25 "posts" in response.

Now I recall many more responses, and I'm currently away from my hard copies, so I can't say whether that forum is deleting their objectionable posts, e.g., ("The water cops can't catch ME!") or not.

It used to be that a deleted post would appear only as a single line, saying, e.g., "post deleted by 'mopower'. (And no other explanation).

None of those appear, which is odd, given their past HB162 history.

[ApS]

That's what it says here:

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=118901

There's something wrong in those speedboat posts? Reeeaaally?



EDIT: Never mind, the thread itself was deleted prior to 6:00PM today, 12/22/05, by the author. The reason?

Thread deleted by xx***
Reason: Thread being used for propoganda

I love that site SO much, I may just make it my home page. So much bravado in one package. So much entertainment.
"Should I paint my windshield white or red?"
"The correct anchor for my Formula scratches my paint."
"Delete your cookies, then vote again and again."
"Too bad he has only two knees."

It's 45,000 Moes, Curleys, and Tony Sopranos.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

the thread itself was deleted

I hope the reps that the opposers have been inviting to this forum have been getting a look at what is being said on that forum before it is being deleted. This explains why it has been impossible to view any of the other links I provided yesterday. But in case anyone missed it, I will summarize;

OSO member "pm203" explained that the supporters of HB162, the new proposed speed limit law on lake Winni are using OSO members posts "to help win their battle". He asks them to "please take a look and delete any posts that you have initiated that they may use against us." He tells them that we (the supporters of HB162 use this info to "add to their propaganda of false facts.", because we are "focusing on all threads regarding accidents and forwarding them to their legislative supporters"

This all seems to fly in the face of M&M's assertion that nothing is being deleted, no? Now, they are censoring themselves.

Isn't the best decision going to be made in Concord if all of the facts are on the table?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Isn't the best decision going to be made in Concord if all of the facts are on the table?

Somehow I doubt you really care if the best decision is made. Your posts clearly demonstrate that you are only concerned with the bill passing as though that could be the only best decision.

I'd love to see some good data that shows what a great idea the speed limit is. I could be easily convinced that it's a good idea with simple facts. Please post some facts. By "facts", I don't mean "so and so deleted 50 anti-speed limit posts on OSO". I really don't think anyone with much intelligence thinks this sort of debate matters at all.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Somehow I doubt you really care if the best decision is made. Your posts clearly demonstrate that you are only concerned with the bill passing as though that could be the only best decision.

I said from the start that I was so adamant about all this only because I felt from my personal experience over the past few years that HB162 represented what the citizens of NH wanted. I said I'd drop out the debate and even support the opposers if I learned otherwise. Last summer, via a lot of misinformation, your side almost had me convinced I was wrong. Notice that I did not take part in this discussion for several months? Once I saw how overwhelming the support for this law by the lake's owners was, and how the RR&D Committee even saw fit to strenghten and expand it after all their research, my passion returned. If you are the sincere ones, publish the NHRBA poll, the one they had done, the one that was also commissioned to a legitimate polling house using proven methodology and asking a fair and simple question, the one that says that a majority of NH citizens want to see the no-rules, no-limits, fast-fun environment on Winnipesaukee continue, and I'll bow out. My personal feelings aside.
If you guys were half as sincere as me, then you'd have bowed out as soon as the ARG poll published. So please don't challenge my sincerity.

[Bear Lover]

Fact - NH has enacted several boating safety laws and rules in recent years
Fact - The number of boating accidents is going down
Opinion - These laws are working, we need more
Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni
Fact - According to a poll 68% of voters want a speed limit
Opinion - The poll is valid, voters should get their limit
Fact - Members of the opposition are hiding and deleting accident information
Fact - Most experts say HB162 is good for tourism and the economy
Opinion - HB162 is necessary, even vital

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Opinion - These laws are working, we need more

What we really need is personal responsibility.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Fact - NH has enacted several boating safety laws and rules in recent years
Fact - The number of boating accidents is going down
Opinion - These laws are working, we need more
Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni
Fact - According to a poll 68% of voters want a speed limit
Opinion - The poll is valid, voters should get their limit
Fact - Members of the opposition are hiding and deleting accident information
Fact - Most experts say HB162 is good for tourism and the economy
Opinion - HB162 is necessary, even vital

Don't forget, HB162 is bad for the commercial fishing industry. They need to get to the prime fishing spots before dawn every morning. NH fishermen will suffer because the Maine, Mass fisherman do not have to obey speed laws in their states.
I just attended a Christmas Party in Seabrook, and told about 20 or so fishermen about it. They are fuming because they were not aware that this law will effect them. They will be calling their state representatives. The HB162 folks have completely left them out when the had their hearings in The Lakes Region. HB162 have sent them a very Merry Christmas.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Fact - NH has enacted several boating safety laws and rules in recent years
Fact - The number of boating accidents is going down
Opinion - These laws are working, we need more
Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni
Fact - According to a poll 68% of voters want a speed limit
Opinion - The poll is valid, voters should get their limit
Fact - Members of the opposition are hiding and deleting accident information
Fact - Most experts say HB162 is good for tourism and the economy
Opinion - HB162 is necessary, even vital

Thanks for summing it up. Truth is, I would need to see the second fact reversed to be convinced we need more laws. Being an engineer, I live by the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" creedo. I am sure we can respectfully disagree on that forever.

Granted, it's not a full 68%, but Richard Nixon got around 61% of the popular vote in 1972. Bill Clinton, the only other impeached president in recent history, got a smidge more than 68% of the vote in 1992. I have little faith in the ability of most voters to make a good choice... That said, I'm not a fan of making laws based on opinion, be it popular or not. I think facts are far better.

Not that it would convince me either way, but can anyone share the credentials of the "experts" that claim HB162 would be good for tourism and the economy? Not trying to be a jerk, I am truly curious. Maybe it would sway someone your way.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Fact - We have had a speed related fatality on Winni

Please tell me this isn't in reference to Littlefield.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I don't know about that. I was able to go to BL’s link (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...ighlight=hb162) last night and open the author’s listed links pretty instantly. It was quiet revealing. If there are any reps out there, I hope they will have their admins take the time to open all these links and print them out. Although a speed limit might not have dissuaded many of these boaters, the totality of this stuff gives a pretty scary image of high speed boating and makes one wonder how we have survived this long with no speed rules on Winnipesaukee. Anyone involved with the decision on HB162 should surely appreciate the observation that this thread provides.

But today, while the links themselves are still in the original massage, many are dead-ending and many are saying “you do not have access to this page”. Those might have been moved to the private section mentioned above (and maybe M&M is still able to view them), or they might have been deleted.
{snip}

Let'd tend to the small details first. When I follow the link to the OSO website (today, again, and on a different computer) and click on the URL/posts their I get them to come up except for the 2 that are gone and 1 (?2?) that is (are) in a section I can't get to because I'm not a paying member. If 2 makes "many" (I always considered 2 to be a couple) then I guess you can make a case for the above. FWIW I can't get to the OSO site from the URL's posted in FJ's post. Perhaps there's a copy and paste error. Perhaps that's why there's some confusion.

In any case I think FJ is correct in that the reps should view those posts ! As I said above the majority of people who are getting hurt aren't "us", innocent bystanders, but the GFBL boaters themselves. If you get rid of the criminal BUI behavior that number (where a bystander has been injured) halves. And that is assuming the speeds in all the other cases are even above 45 (which is clearly not the case for 1 and probably 2). If the purpose of HB-162 is to protect the innocent boater from being run over, than those posts clearly show how unlikely this scenario is. Now if you want to spin the bill so it's supposed to protect the boater from himself .... well time to change that state motto. What the reps will realize, even though it's not listed in a series of posts, is that there has to be many thousands of GFBL boaters who have run many thousands of hours in the years that the OSO original poster covers and not had a mishap, not run over someone. Seems to me that in any honest consideration of the totality of the boating environment this would have some meaning.

ps - Yup 51 URLs but one's a duplicate hence my number 50.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

In any case I think FJ is correct in that the reps should view those posts !

M&M,
I guess all this seems to have become moot today anyway, since everyone started deleting everything there today after reading pm203's request. Now I guess nobody will be able to read any of this stuff. Wonder why it was all deleted if it was not a problem? It's too bad there wasn't any way to have saved any of this stuff.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I guess all this seems to have become moot today anyway, since everyone started deleting everything there today after reading pm203's request.

It is unbelievable that they removed ALL those posts. The same people that always talk about "facts" remove them if they don't serve their purpose.

This speaks volumes and I hope our legislators are catching these shenanigans!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Boater

It is unbelievable that they removed ALL those posts. The same people that always talk about "facts" remove them if they don't serve their purpose.

This speaks volumes and I hope our legislators are catching these shenanigans!

I hope that our legislators are smart enough not to make laws that effect the entire state of New Hampshire based on unsubstantiated, anonymous posts, linking to anecdotal evidence. I hope they realize that very little on the internet is fact checked and any bozo can post or un-post anything. I hope instead the use rational thought, and reliable research. But I also hope that Santa Claus brings me good presents

[pm203]

The posts were deleted because you take them and twist them to meet your own agenda.Safety is not the issue here,and you know it.You and your group do not like performance boats and will do what ever it takes to make them go away.You have gone to great lenghts to instill fear in the general public and even have the commitee backing an unneccessary law based on political agenda,not fact.If you look at the way they voted,you can tell it was political and not based on fact.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.
Paul

[Woodsy]

Regardless of if they were removed or not, they were viewed by many. I personally don't think that deleting the threads on accidents was a good idea. I also don't think one should sensationalize the accidents either. Look at the facts!

My point is, that of the thousands of Hi-performance boats in America, Over a period of 4 years, the original poster was able to compile a list of only 50 accidents, nationwide! 50 ACCIDENTS OVER 4 YEARS, NATIONWIDE! That's it 50! 12.5 accidents per year! Most of the 50 accidents compiled were the result of driver error of some extent or BWI! To be sure speed was a factor in some of the accidents, but not all.

Accidents will happen if a human being is operating the piece of equipment, its a statistical fact. Nothing, no amount of laws, training or education will eliminate accidents completely. However, as the number of registered boats has increased here in NH and nationwide, the number of accidents has DECREASED. Explain that? Lake Winnipesaukee has had less accidents this year? Explain that?

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Regardless of if they were removed or not, they were viewed by many. I personally don't think that deleteing the threads on accidents was a good idea. I also don't think one should sensationalize the accidents either. Look at the facts!

My point is, that of the thousands of Hi-performance boats in America, Over a period of 4 years, the original poster was able to compile a list of only 50 accidents, nationwide! 50 ACCIDENTS OVER 4 YEARS, NATIONWIDE! Thats it 50! 12.5 accidents per year! Most of the 50 accidents compiled were the result of driver error of some extent or BWI! To be sure speed was a factor in some of the accidents, but not all.

Accidents will happen if a human being is operating the piece of equipment, its a statistical fact. Nothing, no amount of laws, training or education will eliminate accidents completely. However, as the number of registered boats has increased here in NH and nationwide, the number of accidents has DECREASED. Explain that? Lake Winnipesaukee has had less accidents this year? Explain that?

Woodsy

Woodsy

I think I can "Explain That"

The decrease in accidents on Winnipesaukee can be attributed to....

Boater Safety Certification law still being phased in
Bear Island NWZ law from the 90's
Meredith NWZ law recently enacted
Several recent laws regarding PWCs and where they can be operated
Increased enforcement of the laws by the MP

See, these laws do work! And just think how much more the accident rate will drop when the Eagle Island NWZ and HB162 take effect!

To be fair there are other factors also involved like better equipment, increased public awareness and a few more I'm sure you can think of.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Look at the facts!

Unfortunately, now that will not be possible, because your members have had them all deleted. Of course, I'm sure that at least some of those facts have been saved , but when they are publicized now, we will be accused of selecting. Now your side can conveniently claim that things were not really that bad, but that you are the ones who are unable to prove that.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Lake Winnipesaukee has had less accidents this year? Explain that?

Does this really need an explanation? How bad were things going to be with HB162 hanging over you all last summer? As one example, you surely heard the strong warnings given to racers before this year's Donzi Poker Run to behave exceptionally good and go especially slow this time. This sounds a bit like the Tookie Williams "but he's been so good lately" argument.

[winnilaker]

I agree with Woodsy, I wish they wouldn't remove them.

Originally Posted by Boater

This speaks volumes and I hope our legislators are catching these shenanigans!

This is a classic, shenanigans? How about when a Winnfabs officer logged into another site, posing as a performance boater (fasterthanthou), using a fake name, BUT real phone number, posted this.

"I heard that the RR&D committee said they will not pay any attention to online petitions because they are "too easy to fix" and non-residents can "too easily forge them". But at least the one that WinnFABS started at http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/HB162 will not get any respect either. A friend of mine was at that Winnfabs meeting yesterday and said they already have over 6000 signatures on their petition, signed in ink by legitimate NH residents. So this might be a waste of time. I'm jut going to wait and see what happens and go to Lake Champlain if the bill passes."


And when a thread that was discussing on how to oppose House Bill 162, his post was:

"Count me in. Let me know how I can help."

Look honestly, removing posts was not a good approach, especially since that data can be found publicly in other ways. I say keep them, since when you look at each issue/accident, the information will detail what really happened.

But I will quote Bear Lover here to illustrate not everyone is like that:

"This summer I spoke to several performance boaters at the hearings and found them to be responsible and considerate."

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

from a rep ...."I'd be happy to speak on the NH House floor and say how I was in support of HB162 and why I'm not now. "

Todd,
I look forward to his speech. Let's hear from all sides, all reps, all citizens, and see how the legislature decides. Knowing NH politics, I'm sure there will be some legislators who will stray from the wishes of their constituents to the opposition. After all, there is a lot of campaign money (and?) at stake here. And you might even be able to sway a majority...this time. But the tide has turned...for good. Now it is just a matter of time before no-rules boating is a memory in NH.

As to the notion that any rep was once "in support" and has now changed sides (for non-political reasons), I'll believe that when I see it. I notice that you don't post his name. Is he a member of the secret society?

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I notice that you don't post his name. Is he a member of the secret society?

Secret society? This response was from a WinnFabs officer earlier this year, now explain to me who is the secret society.

"Winnfabs SOLE purpose is to "educate" as many people as it takes to get HB162 passed. And they can be and are very selective about who they allow to join and what info they share. While people like Fat Jack and ApS can easily infiltrate NHRBA, guys like Custie cannot stroll right in to join Winnfabs. they are cross-referencing user names, email addresses, personal profiles, phone numbers, etc and just feeding back garbage to any pretenders."

So I guess I'm surprised if you don't know who the rep is!!

We have so much more information to provide on this matter, why did you start a new thread to stop talking and start writing. I agree with the writing part, but why stop talking? If representatives are reading this, I think it can be very informative.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

now explain to me who is the secret society.

I can't speak for Winnfabs. Nor would I wish to. And keep in mind that Winnfabs is just a drop of water in the flood of support for HB162. But I am confused about your point. Are you saying that Winnfabs is a "secret society" because they state publicly and emphatically what their well-defined and specific goal is, and deny membership to those who differ? How's that a "secret society"? Just sounds more like an exclusive ad hoc organization to me.
On the other hand, NHRBA/Winnilakers professes itself to be an "all inclusive" and "democratic" organization formed to represent the rights of "all boaters", but does not even allow most of its own members full access to its website. What's that all about? Do you count those members in when you quote your membership size? Since they can't even make their opinions known to the organization, how do you know they are not on our side? For all you know, many of them might have been fooled by the sailboat photos on the home page into thinking it was a sailing organization, but now have no way to view your own forums to find out what the group is really about.

Originally Posted by winnilaker

So I guess I'm surprised if you don't know who the rep is!!

How could I know when you will not tell me? Sounds made-up to me. Doesn't seem like something you'd need to hide if it was true.