Citizen Article - The Other Side

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

First of all the poll on the forum means nothing in terms of any sort of real info. I think we all know that.

So lets see you feel perfectly confident traveling at 146.6 fps? You can close the 150 gap in the blink of an eye. In less than 10 seconds you have traveled .25 miles. You never look anywhere but straight ahead expect maybe when you are checking your speed, talking to the person behind you or whatever. You superhuman eye sight allows to see anything in the water. Hmmmm you are an amazing human.

I have in early spring hit a variety of junk in the lake. Traveling as slow as 30 MPH and looking for debris I can still come on it too fast to avoid. Not a doubt in my mind that at 3X plus that speed you can see a swimmer in the water. Get real. Oh and I know those boats that flipped where taking low speed turns oh but wait the must not have upgraded to your steering system.

You must be the reincarnation of Baja Boob the man who could handle it all.

What a load of crap. Have I ever stated that I travel the lake at 90mph (3x your 30mph debris run) nonetheless the 100mph in your fps calculation??? Maybe you have confused my post with Overlookers discussing steering systems and 100mph. Its not me, get it straight and direct it where it should go. My vision is just fine thanks, Zyoptix does wonders...We probably all have had some close call with debris but how many incidents on this lake has involved a swimmer being hit? Any data on that? And quite frankly if you feel that even at 45mph or 30mph you are not capable of handling your boat you should downsize. Try a canoe, I hear that the canoeing is wonderful here...Just keep an eye on the weather!

While we are at it I am still waiting for the accident data...Prove me wrong instead of taking pathetic, cheap shots...

I have 4 boats on the lake, 3 of which can do over 45mph but none of which will break 55mph. None of thru-hull exhaust and none of which are GFBL's. All are family boats, a sport cruiser, a fishing boat, a small bowrider and a pontoon. Does this fleet qualify me to be Baja Bob?

As far as the poll goes, maybe some light can be shed on the so-called fixing. Yep, some IDIOT claimed yo have tried to double vote yet someone else has posted that they tried to double vote using a few methods as a test and it did not work. Maybe Don should take out any votes for members that have joined since the poll was started and see how the data changes. This might clear the air on deceipt once and for all. And heck, if it is possible how many supporters actually did this as well and just simply were not stupid enough to post what they did?

[BroadHopper]

I have posted in another thread about the commercial fishermen in the coast, being effected by the 25 mph night rule. They are fuming. The proponents of HB162 did not want to touch this subject. Obviously they have not think about what effect at will happen outside of Winnipesaukee. The commercial fisherman endure enough rules and regulations. And the proponents are adding another one. I wish them a Happy New Year.

[Island Lover]

codeman671

Yes, somebody posted that they tried to double vote but could not. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact it is quite easy to vote twice on a poll, and it is not always possible for an administrator to know that it's happening. And people that have joined since the poll started is not the problem or the issue here.

Although double voting is simple I don't think it's my business to tell you how to do it.

The polling capability this site has is far from infallible. It may be fine for a friendly poll. I made a mistake in thinking it would work for such a contentious issue as HB162.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

Yes, somebody posted that they tried to double vote but could not. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact it is quite easy to vote twice on a poll, and it is not always possible for an administrator to know that it's happening. And people that have joined since the poll started is not the problem or the issue here.

Although double voting is simple I don't think it's my business to tell you how to do it.

The polling capability this site has is far from infallible. It may be fine for a friendly poll. I made a mistake in thinking it would work for such a contentious issue as HB162.

Case in point. It is quite possible that people on both sides have done it, not just attempts made in the opposing side to hijack the results.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

Yes, somebody posted that they tried to double vote but could not. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

In fact it is quite easy to vote twice on a poll, and it is not always possible for an administrator to know that it's happening. And people that have joined since the poll started is not the problem or the issue here.

Although double voting is simple I don't think it's my business to tell you how to do it.

The polling capability this site has is far from infallible. It may be fine for a friendly poll. I made a mistake in thinking it would work for such a contentious issue as HB162.

I guess those who voted twice are from Chicago, Illinois where the saying is "vote early and often"! I think that's how Mayor Daley won.

Hey lets have a Happy New Year!

[Mr. V]

At the risk of being accused of having some common sense, I will attempt to craft a workable compromise, as BOTH sides of the argument have some merit.

Do not impose a lake-wide speed limit; rather, designate an area or areas which allow unlimited speed, and limit it elsewhere.

For example: the broads, or any area which is at least a half mile from land / an island would permit unlimited speed.

Yeah, the distance thing is somewhat vague and amorphous, but by thunder, it could work!

Indeed, it DOES work for our freeways, where we allow and channel those vehicles wishing to travel at high speed.

While I thrill at the sight of a speed boat flying along (I used to own a Donzi), I recognize it not everybody's cuppa.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

What a load of crap. And quite frankly if you feel that even at 45mph or 30mph you are not capable of handling your boat you should downsize. Try a canoe, I hear that the canoeing is wonderful here...Just keep an eye on the weather!

While we are at it I am still waiting for the accident data...Prove me wrong instead of taking pathetic, cheap shots...


As far as the poll goes, maybe some light can be shed on the so-called fixing. Yep, some IDIOT claimed yo have tried to double vote yet someone else has posted that they tried to double vote using a few methods as a test and it did not work. Maybe Don should take out any votes for members that have joined since the poll was started and see how the data changes. This might clear the air on deceipt once and for all. And heck, if it is possible how many supporters actually did this as well and just simply were not stupid enough to post what they did?

So, Codeman tell me why is it that so many of the people opposed to the speed limit seem incapable of making a post without slinging the mud. I must admit I have slung a little mud too. But it does amaze me the way so many of the anti-speed limit folks get so rude so quickly. How does anyone get upset about the forum poll……………..it is not an accurate poll for either side.

If you your read over the myriad of posts the rudest ones seem to come from just one side. I think that is very telling of the personality that is fighting the speed limit.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

So, Codeman tell me why is it that so many of the people opposed to the speed limit seem incapable of making a post without slinging the mud. I must admit I have slung a little mud too. But it does amaze me the way so many of the anti-speed limit folks get so rude so quickly. How does anyone get upset about the forum poll……………..it is not an accurate poll for either side.

If you your read over the myriad of posts the rudest ones seem to come from just one side. I think that is very telling of the personality that is fighting the speed limit.

I think that you have slung plenty of mud...I think that all have. Shall we revert once again back to the post where you compared me to Baja Bob (or Boob as you typed) yet it wasn't even my post that should have actually torn apart? Other than recommending that you take up canoeing if you are not confident in your skills I did not see much slinging from my posts to you yet you had to make it personal. I have seen equally as much slinging from the proponents if not more than the opposition. This is a hot topic and its going to be a long winter...

Instead of tossing another mud pie why don't you dig up the data I requested to prove your points, prove me wrong. The interpretations of CG data were quite inconclusive since they did not detail further how speed related accidents took place. And the factual data on Winni? I would love to see it. Put up or shut up.

[Island Lover]

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671
HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

Congratulations , you're beginning to make sense
Plus the fact that "by the poll" most of you speed limit supporters , support a speed limit OVER 45. If the go fast crowd did skew the poll , I'm sure it was for "no speed limit" not 60/65/70. So it would stand to reason this part of the poll may be correct .

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Congratulations , you're beginning to make sense
Plus the fact that "by the poll" most of you speed limit supporters , support a speed limit OVER 45. If the go fast crowd did skew the poll , I'm sure it was for "no speed limit" not 60/65/70. So it would stand to reason this part of the poll may be correct .

I averaged out the speeds that have been voted on. The average was 54.2 MPH. Obviously there is no way to average in a "no limit" vote.

This supports the comments by supporters that they would have preferred a higher limit. Last summer a member of the RR&D committee was pushing for a 60/30 amendment. With some support by the opposition it would have happened.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

The applicability of the USCG data to our situation on Winnipesaukee and just exactly how this data can/should be interpreted seems to be a good place for factual analysis. Problem is that "we" don't have the data to look at. When we get past the holidays I'll send an e-mail to the USCG to see if there's anyway mere mortals can get access to the boating accident reporting database (BARD). For instance they list % of fatalities that had speed in excess of X mph and they list % fatalities by boat-boat collisions but not the intersection of the 2. I think the answer to this question would be interesting. Perhaps we all could come up with some other database inquiries (look at the form to see what's possible) we'd like to see ?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The applicability of the USCG data to our situation on Winnipesaukee and just exactly how this data can/should be interpreted seems to be a good place for factual analysis. Problem is that "we" don't have the data to look at. When we get past the holidays I'll send an e-mail to the USCG to see if there's anyway mere mortals can get access to the boating accident reporting database (BARD). For instance they list % of fatalities that had speed in excess of X mph and they list % fatalities by boat-boat collisions but not the intersection of the 2. I think the answer to this question would be interesting. Perhaps we all could come up with some other database inquiries (look at the form to see what's possible) we'd like to see ?

From the USCG :

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Infoline.

We do not have the information that you are seeking available to us here at the Infoline, however, we will be forwarding your e-mail on to a specialist. If you have not received a response within 48 business hours, please feel free to contact us.

For more information on U.S. Coast Guard Office of Recreational Boating Safety, please visit our website at www.uscgboating.org. If you need additional information, please call the infoline at 1-800-368-5647.

Thank you
Larry
U.S. Coast Guard Infoline "

I'll let you know what, if anything, comes from this.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

From the USCG :

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Infoline.

We do not have the information that you are seeking available to us here at the Infoline, however, we will be forwarding your e-mail on to a specialist. If you have not received a response within 48 business hours, please feel free to contact us.

For more information on U.S. Coast Guard Office of Recreational Boating Safety, please visit our website at www.uscgboating.org. If you need additional information, please call the infoline at 1-800-368-5647.

Thank you
Larry
U.S. Coast Guard Infoline "

I'll let you know what, if anything, comes from this.

Can you please post the question you are asking them?

Thanks

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Can you please post the question you are asking them?

Thanks

It's on the home PC so when I get back tomorrow AM I'll dig it up. Basically I asked if the BARD (database) was accessible to the general public or if the general public could pose questions/queries to the database to get correlations not available in the yearly report. For example what is the cross correlation of boat collisions and speed of boats (where speed was input). Looking at the USCG forms there aren't that many fields so it just might be possible that the whole enchilada could be downloadable in a MS Access readable form. I'm not betting the farm on it though ....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

You are correct, it will not stop all speed problems as well as another problems that are more prevalent. I think that all we are asking for is the proponents to make their arguements fact based to prove the need instead of using individuals interpretations and arguing with comments like we "just don't get it".

My opinions on this have been steadfast since the start. I do not feel that a 25mph night limit is a bad idea and would vote for it. The daytime limit is unacceptable in my opinion. Concentrating more on education, training, noise control and enforcement of current laws will do much more than HB162 will/would ever accomplish, it would leave a resounding effect that would make all parties happy. I do still believe that there is some alterior motives/conspiracies emanating from the Bear Island area and feel that this really does tie back to Hartman/Littlefield. I also find it humorous that the Common Man sides for this yet if they had not served someone 6 merlots this all probably would never have happened. Sounds like CYA on their part to me. Pass the blame.