Lake George Speed Limit working?

[Taz]

Many of the speed limit supporters have used Lake George as an example of how speed limits can work. Here is how good its working. I read an article in the latest edition of "MOTORBOATING". It was about a woman who had a wellknown man in boat racing build her a custom hydroplane capable of exceeding 100 mph. Guess where she plans on using it? You guessed it, Lake George. I can see the word is out not to come to Lake George if you want to speed.

[Island Lover]

I don't see your point.

If she operates it at 45 MPH or less she will be fine. If she operates it at over 45 MPH she is breaking the law.

How does one person buying a boat capable of exceeding the speed limit mean the law doesn't work? Plenty of people buy cars capable of exceeding the speed limits on our highways. Does that invalidate our highway speed limits?

[ApS]

Click on a 2005 Donzi thread for this Lake George comment:

For several years I had a towing business on Lake George...I would say that 90% of the night accidents I showed up at involved alcohol and speed.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthre...566#post343566 (Scroll to Post 67...Post 7 is instructive, too.)

[Taz]

Island Lover, If you think someone is going to pay over $100k for a custom hydroplane to go 45 mph or less, you are not thinking straight. The point is the Lake George speed limit is a joke, there have been posts on this forum from people who have boated on Lake George who confirm boaters are exceeding the speed limit on Lake George regularly without consequences.

The reason someone would buy a boat like that on a lake with a speed limit is because the speed limit is not being strictly enforced. THINK ABOUT IT. You heard it hear first. If Winni does end up with a speed limit the high performance boats will not leave and there will be plenty of boats exceeding the speed limit because the marine is underfunded and understaffed.

The speed limit supporters are in for a rude awakening if it passes. They don't really think their paradise is going to suddenly appear like turning on a light switch. Nothing much will change.

[Island Lover]

So your argument is don't pass a law because if you do we will just break it. Once again the opposition puts both feet in its mouth.

Have you forgotten the people that have said they WILL leave if HB162 passes?

And what about the argument that a speed limit will hurt the lakes economy. If nobody leaves or stays away, how is the economy effected?

I did an internet search and found a story about a woman that is having a hydroplane design built for use on Lake George. Is this the woman you are referring to? If so you failed to mention that she is duplicating the boat that won a famous hydroplane race on Lake George in 1933. Her purpose is boating history, not breaking the law. The boat is heading for a museum.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Taz

You heard it hear (sic) first. If Winni does end up with a speed limit ... there will be plenty of boats exceeding the speed limit because the marine is underfunded and understaffed... Nothing much will change.

Breaking the law must be exciting too, eh? Will this just add another level of "excitement" to the weekend go-fast experience?

[HotDog]

Originally Posted by Taz

You heard it hear first. If Winni does end up with a speed limit the high performance boats will not leave and there will be plenty of boats exceeding the speed limit because the marine is underfunded and understaffed.

I AGREE!!...
marine patrol CAN NOT prove that a boat was going 70 mph in court.. in order for a radar to work you need to know the exact distance from point A to point B !!

when people get a ticket for "speeding." they will be fighting that in court and will win because marine patrol can't prove unless they no the exact distance. so when the speed limit doesn't pass don't be upset!

[Taz]

So Island Lover, I suppose you obey speed limit laws every time you drive your car? Why would you think it will be any different on the lake.

I have never thought that boaters in any significant quantity will leave the lake if the law passes. I think the speed limit opponents are guilty of scare tactics when they use this one. But the speed limit supporters whole basis for a speed limit is a scare tactic so I will give the opponents a pass on that one.

The majority of high performance boats I see on the lake either call Winnipesaukee home or they call NH home so I do not see many leaving. Even if they all did obey the speed limit they will still be noisy. What will all the supporters do then? Personally, I believe this is the biggest reason this law was started, noise, not speed.

And no, I am not saying don't pass a law because it will be broken. I have always believed the law should not pass because its not necessary. I am simply pointing out what I believe is reality. And I believe reality is that most high performance boats are not leaving, many will exceed the speed limit, the marine patrol will be relatively ineffective in enforcing it and nothing much will change.

And no I did not FORGET to mention that the woman buying the hydroplane did it for historical reasons or that the hydroplane will go to a museum. I didn't mention it because the article I read said nothing about historical reasons or a museum. She said she bought it because her daughter bought one and enjoyed it so she thought she would to. She also admitted in the article to breaking the speed limit the first time she used it (55 mph). I have no doubt that as she gets used to how it handles she will be going faster.

[Woodsy]

I wonder how many of the Pro HB-162 crowd have actually boated on Lake George? I boat there, and there are two well publicized Donzi events held on Lake George every year. I think 2006 will be 10th year for these events.

In any case, Lake George does have a speed limit. They don't have a 150' safe passage rule, with the exception of distance to the shoreline.

However, this speed limit is NOT aggressively enforced. I have never witnessed anyone getting a speeding ticket on Lake George. I read somewhere that NY publishes the amount of tickets written on Lake George because its a state park and there is an access fee. I believe the grand total was 5 speeding violations written. I am going to try and track that report down. It should make for some interesting reading...

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

We all know that you can drive through speed traps on Rt 93 at 5 or 10 MPH over the speed limit and not be stopped. The same will be true on the lake.

But we also know that if you were to drive Rt 93 at 100 plus, then before long you will have serious trouble. And if that guy with the boat that goes opens it up, the Marine Patrol Will be happy to deal with him.

This is what the official opposition web site says about boaters leaving the lake, read the statements.

http://www.opposehb162.com/opposehb162/economy.htm

[Aquadeziac]

Looking at that link:

First of all, the logic there is the same type used by the guy that got up at a forum meeting this summer in favor of the Bill by saying "I am a Bass fisherman and my boat will only do 45 mph, Please pass the speed limit so I can be more competitive in the tournaments" duh!

Secondly, if all these go fasters do leave as they threaten to, that just means the lake will become more appealing to families with pontoon boats and smaller, slower family boats. They will now rent where the go fasters vacated and pump money into the local area. The down side of that is??

Thirdly, "Property values will go down if the go fasters pull out" Maybe that just means property will be more affordable for the middle income families that will be bringing their slower boats and revenue to the Lake's Region. Again, the downside is?

Finally, my feeling is, pass the Law, and wave good-bye as the go-fasters leave, and post their McMansions 'For Sale' cuz there is always someone ready to come in. Bottom line is, there will always be someone there to come in and take the go-fasters place. They will continue to pump money into the regions economy. And if the Law does pass, you will see just how many empty threats of leaving were made.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

Secondly, if all these go fasters do leave as they threaten to, that just means the lake will become more appealing to families with pontoon boats and smaller, slower family boats. They will now rent where the go fasters vacated and pump money into the local area. The down side of that is??

Yeah , that's just what the lake needs ...more clueless "rental" captains on the water.

I'm seriously beginning to hope you get what you wish for

[Taz]

So Island Lover, you just confirmed that its acceptable to break speed limit laws (going 5-10 mph over the speed limit) Does that mean it will be acceptable to break the speed limit if it passes for the lake? What were you saying about inserting "foot in mouth" in your earlier post?

you can count on one hand the boats that are capable of going 100 mph on the lake & even less that even attempt to exceed 90. 99.9% are operating in the 50-70 mph range. So what happens when these boats continue to operate in this range, creating the noise that the supporters are trying to stop? This is what is happening now, its reality & it will not change. It will be business as usual because as you said earlier, exceeding the speed limit will not be an issue with regard to the marine patrol as long as it is not outrageous.

Those statements you reference are a very, very very small representation of the total of boaters who use the lake during boating season. The few that do not return will not be noticed. As I said earlier, in my opinion thats not a good argument to oppose the bill.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"I wonder how many of the Pro HB-162 crowd have actually boated on Lake George? I boat there...Lake George does have a speed limit. They don't have a 150' safe passage rule, with the exception of distance to the shoreline..."

Here's the exact quote from the Lake George site:

"...Near shore maximum is 5 mph within 100 feet of shore, dock or stationary boats, rafts, floats, etc. On the main lake: Daytime limit (6am-9pm) is 45mph; Night limit (9pm-6am) is 25 mph. Remember: Safe boaters travel at more conservative speeds..."

Hopefully, this will clear up -- too -- what was written here as fact.

[fatlazyless]

6am - 9pm, 6am - 9pm, 6am - 9pm, that's about 15 hours from 6am - 9pm. Now, that makes some good safe boating sense to me, thisy here 6am -9pm side of the speed limit law. You know, that summer-time sun takes a long, long time before it goes ker-ker-ker-kerplunk.....splash, and sets down behind the twin peaks of Mts Belknap & Gunstock.

6am to 9pm.........................hut-hut!

[Cal]

APS,
I read this on the LG site you posted. Sounds like these people really know what they're doing.
"Personal Watercraft (PWC)
Personal watercraft may be operated between 8am and 7pm(or until sunset)-whichever is earlier. Speed must be limited to 5 mph within 500 feet of shore except when proceeding directly to and from shore. "

By the sounds of this , a jet ski can run right up to the beach at 45 mph. Smart people huh?

[Woodsy]

APS...

Have you actually boated on Lake George?

I stand by my post... Lake George does not have a 150' safe passage law. They have a 100' safe passage law, that as you so nicely pointed out only applies to shorelines, docks, rafts, stationary boats etc. Their safe passage law has nothing to do with two moving boats, who can legally pass as close as they want, as long as they are traveling under 45MPH. So you are right, because you were moored, you were technically a stationary boat. Had you been in the process of rowing your boat to your mooring, the other boater could have come as close to you as he wanted, certainly far more that you would have been comfortable with, legally.

Here is the link to your original story/post.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...99&postcount=1

I didn't think legal moorings could be that far out into the lake.

I stand by my post!

Woodsy

[SAMIAM]

The go fast boaters don't worry me...they are experienced and educated drivers.It's the rental boats that scare me.Most of them head out without any training or knowledge of the laws and account for far more accidents than other boats.
I still say that education is what is needed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

APS...

Have you actually boated on Lake George?

I stand by my post... Lake George does not have a 150' safe passage law. They have a 100' safe passage law, that as you so nicely pointed out only applies to shorelines, docks, rafts, stationary boats etc. Their safe passage law has nothing to do with two moving boats, who can legally pass as close as they want, as long as they are traveling under 45MPH. So you are right, because you were moored, you were technically a stationary boat. Had you been in the process of rowing your boat to your mooring, the other boater could have come as close to you as he wanted, certainly far more that you would have been comfortable with, legally.

Here is the link to your original story/post.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...99&postcount=1

I didn't think legal moorings could be that far out into the lake.

I stand by my post!

Woodsy

Sounds as though someone in that post ([url]http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22199&postcount=1) was "fishing". Wonder if there was any other witnesses

[Aquadeziac]

Maybe someone needs to check this out:

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

Note in the first line where it says "its built specifically for speed enforcement on waterways " and " Designed for patrol use from boat ". That means its not a converted on-highway unit. And this is only one of many different brands out there. Now I suppose these manufacturers don't know what they are talking about ?! They don't know what their own product is capable of?! All the boat owners know better than the manufacturers and trained operators?! Lets see what kinda spin can be put on this.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

Maybe someone needs to check this out:

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

Note in the first line where it says "its built specifically for speed enforcement on waterways " and " Designed for patrol use from boat ". That means its not a converted on-highway unit. And this is only one of many different brands out there. Now I suppose these manufacturers don't know what they are talking about ?! They don't know what their own product is capable of?! All the boat owners know better than the manufacturers and trained operators?! Lets see what kinda spin can be put on this.

No spin, just wanted to hi-light the rest of that page.

"Its ability to display speeds in knots or miles per hour make it ideal for slow speed areas including no wake zones and harbors."

So I guess it wouldn't be ideal for high speed efforts?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

No spin, just wanted to hi-light the rest of that page.

"Its ability to display speeds in knots or miles per hour make it ideal for slow speed areas including no wake zones and harbors."

So I guess it wouldn't be ideal for high speed efforts?

Did you forget that this very unit was displayed at the hearings last summer? The testimony given was that it works great for the speeds we are taking about. And there was NO testimony given to the contrary.

The RR&D committee took this unit out on the lake and tried it for themselves with success.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by HotDog

I AGREE!!...
marine patrol CAN NOT prove that a boat was going 70 mph in court.. in order for a radar to work you need to know the exact distance from point A to point B !!

when people get a ticket for "speeding." they will be fighting that in court and will win because marine patrol can't prove unless they no the exact distance. so when the speed limit doesn't pass don't be upset!

Don't you guys use radar guns to measure your speeds during Poker Races?

[jrc]

Director Barrett is not a stupid man. I'm sure he has worked a long time to get to the position he is in. He is not going to let his reported remarks be used against him.

He has no political choice but to vigorously enforce this law, if adopted. So I would expect speed traps at the places where speed are easy to measure and with good chance of success at court. Since there are people who will fight and win against some of these tickets, the MP will fight back with volume.

No bureaucrat wants to be called on the carpet. When his boss says "you didn't want this law" he's going to say "here is the proof I'm doing my job" and he will have a bushel of convictions from 46 mph up.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Don't you guys use radar guns to measure your speeds during Poker Races?

They're "not" races. They're not called Poker Races. They're called Poker Runs, like the 2005 SOTW Poker Run that resulted in a double-fatality at 70MPH. (You can buy the videos online at OSO).

Here's an excerpt of a Donzi Registry Poker Run entrant's use of Lake Winnipesaukee... (user name: "Team Jefe" -- used with permission):

"...This is the point it became a race for me…..I know…I know…it’s not a race, it’s a fun run where we all stay together as a group and enjoy the lake. Well that’s just fine….as long as I am in the FRONT part of the group..."

The radar events are called "Radar Runs", or "Radar Shootouts" and are often conducted in conjunction with Poker Races -- er, Runs.

This Virginia announcement is typical, occurring a month prior to the Tourillon double-fatalities in VA, described earlier:

Rappahannock River Radar Shootout!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When: June 4th Rain Date:June 11th.
Registration: Day of the event 9:00 am to 10:30 am at June Parker Marina Tappahannock, Va. or at the course 9: to 10:30am.
Cost: $ 25.00 per Boat
Where:East of Bouy #42 Between Carter's Warf and Leedstown. Out of the way of normal boat traffic.
**Mandatory Drivers meeting at the start boat prior to start of event**
**Mandatory Operating kill switch. All other USCG regulations. Helmets not mandatory but recomended. Mandatory PFD rated specifically for boat speed. Open exhaust is allowed only traveling to and from the event and on the course.
I understand their are cliffs on either side to help protect the course from winds.

Offical speeds will be recorded by Rappahannock River Boaters Association radar.

Trophies awarded to top performers in each class. Tee shirts and DVD's will be for sale.

So many errors...so little time.

[Aquadeziac]

WOW!! Thats right! These are acurate enough for go-fasters to measure their own boats but not accurate enough to prosecute? Can you say d-o-u-b-l-e s-t-a-n-d-a-r-d ?

[Aquadeziac]

I think even you have to admit, the point they were making is that their unit is as acurate on the low end of the scale(headway speed) as it is on the high end (40+ mph).

[Ski Man]

I've been waiting for this to come up today, hoping not to have to post and face all the personal attacks that seem to go with that, but I'm getting impatient and figuring no one has seen it yet. Following is an article in today's Citizen. Now let's hear about how Lake Georges Speed Limits aren't working;

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...073/-1/CITIZEN

[Island Lover]

An excellent article! Thanks for posting it.

It disproves most of the arguments made by the opposition. Its nice to get the real story from somebody that has been there.




Now the opposition will post that what Lt. Schneider REALLY means is that the speed limit is a bad idea!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

"It's just another tool in the tool box," said Schneider.

Isn't this exactly what you'd expect to hear from a law enforcement official? Why does he see this law as a tool to use as he see fit, rather than a burden? Why can't we get someone like this to oversee safety on our lake instead of having a person in his position who always seems to take the side against safety? Out there, the MP fronted the effort to make their lake safer, instead of being its biggest obstacle. While our director of "safety" is joining the local association of GFBL boaters and helping them to fight against the citizens who pay his salary, the MP out there is actually representing his citizens and doing what is best for them, the region, and its economy, not to mention what is safest.
This really highlights the huge probelm that we have with the leadership in Glendale and the struggles that we are going to continue to face until there are major changes made, starting right at the top.

[Seaplane Pilot]

OK then. Let's follow the lead of Lake George officials, rather than follow the position of our own NH Marine Patrol - yes, the same NH Marine Patrol that is currently responsible for law enforcement on NH inland and coastal waters. Yes, the same Marine Patrol who have stated that a speed limit is unenforceable and not needed, in their opinion. Why should we believe them, NY must know better? Give me a break, will you.

Maybe Rep. Poulliard can sponsor a bill that bans all motorboats in the state. All you island folk can sail or kayak to your island houses. If the real issue is safety, why not? Imagine the safety record then. Wait...he's too busy sponsoring statues to let 17 year old skull-bashing murderers avoid the death penalty. There's a groundswell of support to defeat HB-162, yet the supporters of the speedlimit honestly believe that this is going to pass. Not a chance.

[Ski Man]

The silence here from the opposition about the "facts" put forth in this article is pretty deafening. Is SP's rather Simian reply the official response? Are you all agreeing that the position of your man in Glendale, who has absolutely no experience enforcing a boating speed limit, who has buddied up with the very "hens" that he is supposed to be guarding, and who has lost all credibility with statements like "200 miles an hour is just fine on our lakes", rather than that of a real safety-conscious law enforcement official who has a proven track record of success enforcing an identical law for years, and local public officials there who brag about the benefits that their identical law has brought to their region, their ecomony, their tourism, their quality of life, and their overall boating experience? That sounds like a winning approach to me.
It just seems so selfish to continue to try to deny to us the same benefits that the citizens out there are enjoying just so you can drive your boats really fast.

Woodsy, Doesn't this meet the requirements you set for changing your opinion? Are you a man of your word?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

From: Lt. Joseph Schneider
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Info request
The speed limit on LG is only one regulation of a comprehensive set of regulations passed in 1988 on Lake George when the NYS Legislature recognized the need for additional protection of the unique resource that is Lake George. LGPC regulations were promulgated regarding public safety, resource protection, docks and moorings, and special navigation issues such as overcrowding, vessel noise, PWC operation, and more; as such it is impossible to say what the effect of just the speed limit has been.
Lt. J.H. Schneider
Director of Law Enforcement
Lake George Park Commission
PO Box 749
Lake George, NY 12834


NOTE: the last sentence!!!! Seems to me that Lt Schneider can't decide his position on what the speed limit has done for Lake George. May its one way, and now in the citizen in Jan its the other??? What gives?

[ApS]

Although GFBLs remain their own worst enemy, this article points the bony finger of blame at Director Barrett. His early mis-statements have put his job in peril.

[Island Lover]

Seaplane Pilot

The Marine Patrol has not taken a position on HB162. You are talking about David Barrett the current Director. He may be director for a long time to come, because if HB162 passes he isn't going to get a cushy job in the boating industry.

As I'm sure you know, he has changed his mind and now "supports" HB162. Proving only that he is a political hack.

I spoke to a former MP officer that is now a State Representative, he supports HB162.

[Fat Jack]

"Young said Lake George officials join with local law enforcement to check boats as they come out of coves and bays that have bars."

Now I understand why the Naswa is so concerned about the possibility of Lake Winnipesaukee becoming more like Lake George. They could lose all of their business.

[Ski Man]

Here's a quote from a fellow on the other local site that has been a pretty vocal opponent to HB162 there, up until he read to Lake George story today;

"Great article in today's Citizen on Lake George and effect speed limit had there. Kind of puts the issue to rest for me."

Perhaps he just realized how he has been lied to over the past year.

At least some people have the integrity to admit when they have been wrong.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Here's a quote from a fellow on the other local site that has been a pretty vocal opponent to HB162 there, up until he read to Lake George story today;

"Great article in today's Citizen on Lake George and effect speed limit had there. Kind of puts the issue to rest for me."

Perhaps he just realized how he has been lied to over the past year.

At least some people have the integrity to admit when they have been wrong.

Here's another "Simian reply" :How can you possibly state that this is an issue of right and wrong? Are you the judge of right and wrong? That's about as "Simian" as one can get.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Here's a quote from a fellow on the other local site that has been a pretty vocal opponent to HB162 there, up until he read to Lake George story today;

"Great article in today's Citizen on Lake George and effect speed limit had there. Kind of puts the issue to rest for me."

Perhaps he just realized how he has been lied to over the past year.

At least some people have the integrity to admit when they have been wrong.

SM - you aren't playing nice. Anyway, here's another "Simian reply" :How can you possibly state that this is an issue of right and wrong? Are you the judge of right and wrong? That's about as "Simian" as one can get.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

Seems to me that Lt Schneider can't decide his position on what the speed limit has done for Lake George.

Weirsbeachboater,
Please provide the entire exchange.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Although GFBLs remain their own worst enemy, this article points the bony finger of blame at Director Barrett. His early mis-statements have put his job in peril.

We can only hope. There is a growing number of citizens who are recognizing that things will not change for the better on our lakes until we have a man at Barrett's desk that looks at things the way other marine safety officials, such as Lt. Schnieder, do. The go-fast boaters, go-fast dealerships, and beach bars have had control of Glendale for too long. It's clearly time for a change that puts a safety advocate in place. Imagine what Winnipesaukee would be like if we had a man like Schnieder in charge?
Commissioner Flynn, are you listening?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

SM - you aren't playing nice. Anyway, here's another "Simian reply" :How can you possibly state that this is an issue of right and wrong? Are you the judge of right and wrong? That's about as "Simian" as one can get.

We are all judges of right and wrong.....

Its called morality.

[Woodsy]

Thousands of boats using Lake George... they write 5 or 6 speeding tickets per year, and you call that effective?

If HB-162 passes as proposed by the R,R &D majority opinion, Winnfabs will be screaming FOUL at the top of thier lungs if our MP only issued 5-6 tickets per year!


Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Thousands of boats using Lake George... they write 5 or 6 speeding tickets per year, and you call that effective?

If HB-162 passes as proposed by the R,R &D majority opinion, Winnfabs will be screaming FOUL at the top of thier lungs if our MP only issued 5-6 tickets per year!


Woodsy

Woodsy

The head of the Lake George marine patrol has explained the situation. Seems like good judgment to me. Compliance with the speed limit is what is important, not the number of citations.

Lt. Schneider thinks things are under control on Lake George. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Lt. Joseph Schneider

"There is no problem going into court," said Lt. Joseph Schneider, the head of law enforcement and marine patrol for the Lake George Park Commission.....

The supervisor said his department rarely has to issue speeding tickets to boaters as the law has become an effective deterrent.

"We haven't had any trials. We write up the boats that are obviously speeding," said Schneider.

The marine patrol chief noted that his department has been handing out an average of six tickets per year as they usually get their message across with stops and warnings.

"It's not a situation where we are butting head with these people on a regular basis," said Schneider.

[Woodsy]

I have witnessed numerous cases of non-compliance at Lake George. I have posted about them alot. Lake George does not agressively enforce the speed limit. 5-6 tickets a year? Thats a joke, and there is no denying it.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I have witnessed numerous cases of non-compliance at Lake George. I have posted about them alot. Lake George does not agressively enforce the speed limit. 5-6 tickets a year? Thats a joke, and there is no denying it.

Woodsy

Your unsupported word is not "evidence".

Can you show any evidence that things are out of control on Lake George?

And if speeding IS out of control, doesn't that mean they need better enforcement? You don't repeal a speed limit because a few boats are speeding! What is your point?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

We are all judges of right and wrong.....

Its called morality.

IL - not so sure this can be considered "morality". More like opinion.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Your unsupported word is not "evidence".

Can you show any evidence that things are out of control on Lake George?

And if speeding IS out of control, doesn't that mean they need better enforcement? You don't repeal a speed limit because a few boats are speeding! What is your point?

Man oh man, the guy who can produce NO evidence to support his case other than hearsay and conjecture demands evidence of everyone else.

Consistency is all I ask, that and real proof, not editorial and smoke from someone who obviously supports speed limits.

OK, I'll use your logic, you don't implement a speed limit "because a few boats" can go fast.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover,

No offense, but only issuing 5-6 tickets per year speaks volumes as to how aggressive they are at Lake George in regards to speed limit enforcement. Lt. Schneider even goes on to say that noise is a higher priority than excessive speed.

What more do you require as proof? I don't think thinga are "out of control" in Lake George, any more that Lake Winnipesaukee.

It will be funny to see how many cry foul if our MP's only issued 5-6 speeding tickets per year... Winnfabs would be asking for Director Barrett's head on a platter!

Who is going to pay for the MP officers to take the two week radar training course?

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by ITD

Man oh man, the guy who can produce NO evidence to support his case other than hearsay and conjecture demands evidence of everyone else.

Consistency is all I ask, that and real proof, not editorial and smoke from someone who obviously supports speed limits.

OK, I'll use your logic, you don't implement a speed limit "because a few boats" can go fast.

ITD

This is getting silly!

We have provided plenty of evidence. Your pretending we have not is pure nonsense.

Is the recent fatal accident hearsay? Or is it conjecture?

How many more need to die before you are convinced?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

This is getting silly!

We have provided plenty of evidence. Your pretending we have not is pure nonsense.

Is the recent fatal accident hearsay? Or is it conjecture?

How many more need to die before you are convinced?

Umm, how many people died in Lake George last year? You want Winnipesaukee to be just like Lake George? I think the safety record there would be the last thing I'd refer in an argument about the ideal model for safe lakes. The marine patrollers there are apparently so concerned with speed, noise, BWI, and PWCs operating at >5 MPH <500 feet from shore (what a silly law!) that they can't be bothered to ensure PFDs are put on people in wheelchairs.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I stand by my post... Lake George does not have a 150' safe passage law. They have a 100' safe passage law, that as you so nicely pointed out only applies to shorelines, docks, rafts, stationary boats etc. Their safe passage law has nothing to do with two moving boats, who can legally pass as close as they want, as long as they are traveling under 45MPH. So you are right, because you were moored, you were technically a stationary boat. Had you been in the process of rowing your boat to your mooring, the other boater could have come as close to you as he wanted, certainly far more that you would have been comfortable with, legally.

Here is the link to your original story/post.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...99&postcount=1

I didn't think legal moorings could be that far out into the lake....

My mooring is 60' off my 50' dock.

Depending at what depth Lakeport has maintained, a boat moored there could easily extend 150' from shore. Prevailing breezes keep it closer.

The incident was in October, at an unusually high water period, in sunny, calm weather, with scant boating activity. (Pardon...my alleged incident).

As to the safe passage, I'd take Lake George's speed limit any day. Winnipesaukee, which allows limitless speed, has a 150-safe-passage law that is ineptly enforced and everywhere violated.

Originally Posted by Wordsy

APS...

Have you actually boated on Lake George?

My grandfather, who was a medical doctor and an outdoorman, sold his Lake Sebago camp to enjoy Winnipesaukee's shores.

My father first attended, then was employed by, Camp Wyanoke.

I attended Camp Wyanoke, which gave me a great appreciation for the "Smile of the Great Spirit" that surrounded us.

For me, there's only Lake Winnipesaukee.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Umm, how many people died in Lake George last year? You want Winnipesaukee to be just like Lake George? I think the safety record there would be the last thing I'd refer in an argument about the ideal model for safe lakes. The marine patrollers there are apparently so concerned with speed, noise, BWI, and PWCs operating at >5 MPH <500 feet from shore (what a silly law!) that they can't be bothered to ensure PFDs are put on people in wheelchairs.

It is a measure of how desperate the oppositions arguments are getting, that they have to sink so low as to blame a freak, tragic accident on the speed limit.

20 senior citizens, mostly in wheel chairs, died. Probably because of overloading and design problems. Now the opposition claims these people died because the marine patrol were to busy enforcing the speed limit. How low can you get? And how absurd the argument?

Does New York have a law requiring people in wheel chairs to wear PFDs? And if there is such a law (which I doubt) its the responsibility of the tour boat captain to see they are on.

These ridiculous, low blow arguments are not helping your cause!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

It is a measure of how desperate the oppositions arguments are getting, that they have to sink so low as to blame a freak, tragic accident on the speed limit.

And who was it that kept telling us how their neighbor was killed by a Performance boat when they know very well it could have just as easily been a cruiser that couldn't even do 45 mph:rolleye1?:

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

And who was it that kept telling us how their neighbor was killed by a Performance boat when they know very well it could have just as easily been a cruiser that couldn't even do 45 mph:rolleye1?:

What we keep telling you is that the performance boat was traveling at a speed greater than the proposed limit. The type of boat is of far less importance.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What we keep telling you is that the performance boat was traveling at a speed greater than the proposed limit. The type of boat is of far less importance.

And at the risk of being called tiresome and a quibbler, what makes 25 so safe and 28 not ? If I find a single accident (? need it be fatal ?) at a speed under 25, can I then claim that 25 is too high and the speed limit should be lower ? How can coming up behind a boat at a closing speed under (or just over) the proposed limit be unsafe while a head on situation, where the closing speed would be legal at 50, be safe ? Can you at least understand why I and others find this such a difficult concept to grasp ? Why we think that Littlefield is not speed related ?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What we keep telling you is that the performance boat was traveling at a speed greater than the proposed limit. The type of boat is of far less importance.

Seems to me you ALWAYS had to emphasize the fact that it WAS a performance boat , not just a boat. Because that is what YOU want to get rid of. The vast majority of power boats can probably do an estimated 28 mph. A 14' aluminum rowboat with 25hp outboard will do 28 mph
And let us not forget it was an estimated speed not a clocked or radared speed.
And why didn't the MP stop him before he took off into the darkness and the security if a boat house. Oh yeah , they weren't there. Which means they couldn't have done much about him speeding anyway.
Most every hit and run I've ever heard of involved alcohol which strangely enough is very hard , if not impossible to prove the next day when these poor little lambs turn them selves in , lawyer in tow
Speed was not the determining factor and for an estimated extra 3 mph wouldn't have made much difference but you have certainly worked it for all it's worth and that's just as low in my IMHO.
I had a coworker , who was jogging , killed by a H&R driver and the story could have been the Hartman/Littlefield story. Lots of witnesses but NO blood/alcohol test from that night. "Oh , I thought I hit a street sign" , was the guys story.
Don't get me wrong here , I have no problem with night time speed limits. There's been many times I wouldn't even do beyond headway speed , but speed limits are NOT the answer.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

It is a measure of how desperate the oppositions arguments are getting, that they have to sink so low as to blame a freak, tragic accident on the speed limit.

20 senior citizens, mostly in wheel chairs, died. Probably because of overloading and design problems. Now the opposition claims these people died because the marine patrol were to busy enforcing the speed limit. How low can you get? And how absurd the argument?

Does New York have a law requiring people in wheel chairs to wear PFDs? And if there is such a law (which I doubt) its the responsibility of the tour boat captain to see they are on.

These ridiculous, low blow arguments are not helping your cause!

I don't really have a cause, and nothing at stake. I was just pointing out the absurdity of the whole situation. You keep blaming the death of your neighbor on the lack of a speed limit which is just as absurd as my argument. The deaths and the speed limit are both completely unrelated to eachother. That said, considering what happened, don't you think it's really silly to point to Lake George as a testament to boating safety? It was quite likely the deadliest lake to be on last year.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

And at the risk of being called tiresome and a quibbler, what makes 25 so safe and 28 not ? If I find a single accident (? need it be fatal ?) at a speed under 25, can I then claim that 25 is too high and the speed limit should be lower ? How can coming up behind a boat at a closing speed under (or just over) the proposed limit be unsafe while a head on situation, where the closing speed would be legal at 50, be safe ? Can you at least understand why I and others find this such a difficult concept to grasp ? Why we think that Littlefield is not speed related ?

Who says 25 mph was safe that night? Certainly not me!

You are forgetting that under HB162 the night speed limit will NOT be 25 mph. The speed limit will essentially be reasonable and prudent but never more than 25 mph.

As I remember it was a warm moonless night with lots of boat traffic. Perhaps reasonable and prudent under those conditions was 10 or 20 mph. Perhaps reasonable and prudent was 14 mph and the boat was doing twice the speed limit.

In a similar, future, fatal accident with the boat going 20 mph, the question for the jury will be if 20 mph was reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions.


X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

It seems to me you just quoted the main reason for the people that don't support 162.The law is already on the books.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

It seems to me you just quoted the main reason for the people that don't support 162.The law is already on the books.

No, its not already on the books!

What I was quoting from is HB162, I'm glad you like it.

"Reasonable and prudent" will be law when HB162 passes. At this time there is no speed limit of any kind on the books.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

It seems to me you just quoted the main reason for the people that don't support 162.The law is already on the books.

I think the confusion is that snipet Bear Lover showed is a portion of the Majority amendment, which poses that restriction as well as the speed limits of 45 day/25 night. There is no reasonable and prudent on the books now.

Full amendment:

Amendment to HB 162
Proposed by the Majority of the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - R
Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:
AN ACT relative to general rules for vessels operating on water.
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

*1 New Paragraphs; General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. Amend RSA 270-D:2 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraphs:
X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.
(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:
(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and
(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time.
(c) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
(d) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to boat racing permitted under RSA 270:27.

XI. Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
*2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Who says 25 mph was safe that night? Certainly not me!
You are forgetting that under HB162 the night speed limit will NOT be 25 mph. The speed limit will essentially be reasonable and prudent but never more than 25 mph.
As I remember it was a warm moonless night with lots of boat traffic. Perhaps reasonable and prudent under those conditions was 10 or 20 mph. Perhaps reasonable and prudent was 14 mph and the boat was doing twice the speed limit.
In a similar, future, fatal accident with the boat going 20 mph, the question for the jury will be if 20 mph was reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Well this is a new take on that incident. When we left Meredith that night I don't recall there being that many boats out and about but to be fair we left some 40+ minutes ahead of Littlefield and not from the immediate area of the collision. Visibility was not limited that I remember. I think there's an opportunity here to discuss a bit more about what "reasonable and prudent" is. I know SD started an inquiry similar to this but perhaps we can try it again, if in a limited form. What, in your opinion, made 20 the highest prudent speed ? And can I properly believe that it's your opinion that had Littlefield been doing that 20 (or less) that the collision would likely not have occurred ?

ps - I do think juries in a "Littlefield" type trial (negligent homicide) presently can consider whether speed in any given fatality was a factor and was unreasonable or imprudent. I don't believe they don't need a speed limit law to make that judgement but perhaps a legal scholar can tell me for sure. But let's say I'm wrong and juries will use not just "R & P" but, as a matter of law, presume that any speed in excess of the max permissible is not "R & P". This, to me, makes it all the more important that the speed limits be set according to some basis in fact. That speed in excess of the max posted is indeed unsafe and not set because it's some limit somebody thought was "thrilling enough". Which of course leads us back to what really is reasonable and prudent and why.

[Bear Lover]

When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.

Also a slower boat speed would have given BOTH drivers a little more time to see the other boat.

Thirdly, the cruiser was going at a slower speed. Possibly the driver picked this speed because he thought it to be reasonable and prudent for the conditions that night.

We will never know if a speed limit would have changed anything. What we can say is that the accident involved a speed greater than the proposed 25 mph "fixed" limit. And that the reasonable and prudent limit may have been even lower than 25.

We have been asked by the opposition to provide facts and evidence. Clearly the "fact" of this accident is "evidence" in a HB162 discussion.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

No, its not already on the books!

What I was quoting from is HB162, I'm glad you like it.

"Reasonable and prudent" will be law when HB162 passes. At this time there is no speed limit of any kind on the books.

I stand corrected.And yes I do like it as you so politely put it.If HB162 consisted of just this I would be all for it.At this time there is no need for a speed limit of any kind on the books!

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

And yes I do like it as you so politely put it.If HB162 consisted of just this I would be all for it.

The minority amendment does comprise of just using reasonable and prudent.

Amendment to HB 162
Proposed by the Minority of the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - R
Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:
AN ACT relative to safe operation of vessels on New Hampshire waters.
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

*1 Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats; Driving Record. Amend RSA 270:29-a to read as follows:
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
*2 New Paragraph; General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water; Speed. Amend RSA 270-D:2 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraph:
X. No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.
*3 Boating and Water Safety; Penalties; Driving Record. Amend RSA 270-D:9 to read as follows:
270-D:9 Penalties. Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter or any rule adopted under RSA 270-D:8 shall be guilty of a violation. Any conviction under RSA 270-D:2 shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
*4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.

I'm sorry; but this is a stretch. Let's say you're right and they weren't on the same course. And let's say that there was a speed limit that he decided to obey while BWI and was going 20 mph--R&P under the conditions you decribed above. They would not have intersected and Mr Hartman would be alive today. OK, it's a streatch, but let's say all this were true. With that same logic, can I wonder if he would have run over a different boat and perhaps killed on entire family? I hope we can all agree that this seems a bit far fetched. Both sides of this "what-if" senario.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

I'm sorry; but this is a stretch. Let's say you're right and they weren't on the same course. And let's say that there was a speed limit that he decided to obey while BWI and was going 20 mph--R&P under the conditions you decribed above. They would not have intersected and Mr Hartman would be alive today. OK, it's a streatch, but let's say all this were true. With that same logic, can I wonder if he would have run over a different boat and perhaps killed on entire family? I hope we can all agree that this seems a bit far fetched. Both sides of this "what-if" senario.

Its not a stretch to say that if the boat was going 20 instead of 28, and they were not on the same course, then the accident would not have happened. Its simple mathematics.

I will grant you there are an infinite number of what-if scenarios. And that changing any of a thousand different factors just a little would have changed the outcome.

However my purpose is bringing this up is to show that this accident belongs in a HB162 dialog.

The opposition has repeatedly, and vehemently claimed there are no accidents on Winnipesaukee that could have been prevented by a 45/25 speed limit. But I believe I have shown that we have a FATAL accident that occurred on Winni that might have been prevented by a speed limit. This is especially true when the "reasonable and prudent" test of HB162 is brought into the question.

[B R]

I understand that it could have been avoided if any number of different things happened that night, and your scenario is certainly one of them. But I believe that IF the alleged drinking did occur and that BWI law was already being ignored, what makes you think he would have obeyed a speed limit--R&P or any other defined speed limit? By his own admission he had 3 to 5 drinks at Braun Bay BEFORE going to the restaurant and possibly having more drinks--this was never proved. But IF it was the case that he consumed even more alcohol after his day out drinking on the lake; don't you think alcohol had more to do with the accident than the lack of a speed limit? If a speed limit were in effect, why do you think he would have allegedly ignored a BWI law already on the books and obeyed a speed limit law? I suspect things would have turned out the same with or without HB162.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

I understand that it could have been avoided if any number of different things happened that night, and your scenario is certainly one of them. But I believe that IF the alleged drinking did occur and that BWI law was already being ignored, what makes you think he would have obeyed a speed limit--R&P or any other defined speed limit? By his own admission he had 3 to 5 drinks at Braun Bay BEFORE going to the restaurant and possibly having more drinks--this was never proved. But IF it was the case that he consumed even more alcohol after his day out drinking on the lake; don't you think alcohol had more to do with the accident than the lack of a speed limit? If a speed limit were in effect, why do you think he would have allegedly ignored a BWI law already on the books and obeyed a speed limit law? I suspect things would have turned out the same with or without HB162.

You may "suspect things would have turned out the same" but you do not know.

And your admission that my scenario is plausible means that this accident should be considered in evaluating the need for HB162.

[B R]

I believe just about anything is plausible; but that does not make it reality. I do not believe he would have followed proposed HB162 laws since he allegedly had total disregard for the current BWI laws.

Please answer the question; let's assume he was BWI; why do you think he would have obeyed HB162 and not the current BWI laws on the books.

I think that's a fair question since you keep brining up the case.

[Woodsy]

Oh my head!

The Littlefield/Hartman tragedy has absolutely nothing to do with speed limits!

Things might have been different if Rusty & Alex's Common Man restaurant had shut Danny off... but they didn't (overserved?)

Things might have been different if Danny had not decided to drive the boat while under the influence of alcohol... but he didn't (designated driver?)

Things might have been different if Danny had not decided to drink at all...

Things might have been different if Danny was keeping a proper lookout...

Have you guys noticed a pattern here? It wasn't the boat, or the conditions, it was the DRIVER! A person who consistently made bad choices that when added up tragically ended the life of Mr. Hartman. He has been tried and convicted of negligent homicide, by failing to keep a proper lookout.

By using the logic of some people, lets make the speed limit on our roads lower because drunks drive on them...

Woodsy

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The Littlefield/Hartman tragedy has absolutely nothing to do with speed limits!

FACT: We'll just never be able to know whether the accident would have been avoided or whether Mr. Hartman would have survived if Mr. Littlefield had been driving within HB162's limits.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Things might have been different if Danny had not decided to drive the boat while under the influence of alcohol...

FACT: A jury of Mr. Littlefield's peers acquited him of boating under the influence.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

A person who consistently made bad choices that when added up tragically ended the life of Mr. Hartman.

FACT: There are hundreds of boaters on our lakes who continuously make bad choices everytime they drive their boats...but the most dangerous of those choices, driving at high speeds on a crowded lake, is presently perfectly legal.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

FACT: but the most dangerous of those choices, driving at high speeds on a crowded lake, is presently perfectly legal.

FACT: That's an opinion. One could easily argue that starting a boat with a bilge full of gasoline vapor or driving a boat into another boat are far more dangerous than driving fast and not hitting anyone.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

FACT: A jury of Mr. Littlefield's peers acquited him of boating under the influence.

True he was aquitted, rather tough to prove without an open admission or a BAC test...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

FACT: There are hundreds of boaters on our lakes who continuously make bad choices everytime they drive their boats...but the most dangerous of those choices, driving at high speeds on a crowded lake, is presently perfectly legal.

Yep, and so far the speed as caused how many deaths on Winnipesaukee??? I think it is clear which is the dangerous choice when comparing boating when smashed vs speeding sober. Facts have proven that.

[B R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

True he was aquitted, rather tough to prove without an open admission or a BAC test...

or a restaurant not keeping tabs on their drinking patrons. how do they get away with that anyway?

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by B R

or a restaurant not keeping tabs on their drinking patrons. how do they get away with that anyway?

I guess our laws against over-serving drinks are not fully enforceable or fully obeyed. So maybe we should not bother to have them?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Yep, and so far the speed as caused how many deaths on Winnipesaukee??? I think it is clear which is the dangerous choice when comparing boating when smashed vs speeding sober. Facts have proven that.

In recent years there has been one fatality were speed was involved. I'm hoping HB162 will help there be none in the future.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.

Also a slower boat speed would have given BOTH drivers a little more time to see the other boat.

Thirdly, the cruiser was going at a slower speed. Possibly the driver picked this speed because he thought it to be reasonable and prudent for the conditions that night.

We will never know if a speed limit would have changed anything. What we can say is that the accident involved a speed greater than the proposed 25 mph "fixed" limit. And that the reasonable and prudent limit may have been even lower than 25.

We have been asked by the opposition to provide facts and evidence. Clearly the "fact" of this accident is "evidence" in a HB162 discussion.

Sure, if we change the speed or the timing then the collision won't occur. But that's not the idea behind this thought exercise. To play the what if scenario to see if speed was the issue we need to alter the timing (which is purely coincidental in any case) to allow a possible collision for the new speed. Then we ask if the collision is likely to still occur or not. Of course we can never be 100% sure of anything but we can perhaps extract some tentative conclusions from the exercise.

I see it this way. Littlefield had ample time to see the Hartman boat. It's not like they were in fog or rain or that visibility was obscured. I state this as fact as I was out that night. Now we replay the incident at 2 different speeds. In what we think is the original case we have a differential speed of lets say 25 mph. At 500 ft distance between the 2 boats, Littlefield has 13.6 secs to see and react accordingly. At 400 ft it's 10.9 secs, at 300 ft it's 8.2 secs and at 200 ft it's 5.5 secs. Of course the times go up as we slow Littlefield down but when was the last time you were out at night and didn't see a properly lighted boat until you only 200 ft away ? Do you think you need more than 5.5 secs to react ? Sure if we give Littlefield more time, he might, maybe have seen the Hartmans but then again maybe not. My thinking is that if you're going to make the assertion that Littlefield is a case for speed limits you need to make the case that the above reasoning is wrong. That the average joe,and not Capt B, needs more time or wouldn't see the Hartman's boat until a closer distance. So at what distance do you think a reasonable person would see the Hartman boat ? How much time does this person need to react. I think 5 secs is more than sufficient time to perceive and react in this case and more importantly 500 ft is more the norm min distance to see another vessel at night. Otherwise the only way I see that someone can make a case for Littlefield to be a "speed" accident is to say that we should set speed limits to allow the most incompetent, most negligent (due to whatever underlying cause) person to set the bar that we must all now duck under.

Again to anyone reading ... what are the factors the make R&P, well, reasonable and prudent ? And maybe we can start specifically with night boating re: boat-boat collision advoidance since "we" can probably find some common ground in this limited scenario. May I ask that only after we've exhausted this scenario that "we" meander into other scenarios (ie - daytime) ?

WRT coincidence : I'm reminded of a story where a man goes to cross the street. He looks down and sees that his shoe is untied. He bends over and re-ties it and then goes to step into the street only to see a car pass in front of him. He then thinks, "Boy, tying my shoe saved my life". Well he might be right for this instance but do we think that stopping for the amount of time to tie a shoe before we cross the road will save us or should we just look before we cross the street ?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I guess our laws against over-serving drinks are not fully enforceable or fully obeyed. So maybe we should not bother to have them?

On the other hand would you propose that we should limit a person's drinks to 6oz of beer per sitting at the bar or restaurant ?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

In recent years there has been one fatality were speed was involved. I'm hoping HB162 will help there be none in the future.

Which one? Please provide details. Please tell me this is not Hartman again...

[Hermit]

Several posts suggest there are many reasons for potential boating accidents, so why concentrate on excessive speed as a remedy? Using that reasoning, there would be no law on the books for anything!

The truth is that excessive speed accentuates many other infractions and makes them much more dangerous. A safe passage violation is much more of a problem for a boat going 60 MPH than 25 MPH. A drunk operator at 20 MPH is a menace, at 60 MPH he is an unguided missle.

Reasonable speeds are simply commonsense ... something that seems to be in short supply among some opponents of HB 162.

[pm203]

Since when would a drunk operator obey the speed limit? A speed limit would not stop or slow someone down who is foolish enough to drink and drive.

[Bear Lover]

There is a good chance this drunk will move his boat to another body of water. Or buy a slower boat at his next purchase.

HB162 will absolutely pass, there will be a speed limit law. The only question is which amendment will it pass with.

[Sandy Beach]

Originally Posted by Taz

Many of the speed limit supporters have used Lake George as an example of how speed limits can work. Here is how good its working.

If we compare Lake George Speed Limit with expectations on Winnie we should remember that there is NO 150 foot safe passage rules on lake George. If Winnie has the same Lake George Speed limit should we also remove the 150 foot rule so we can be more like Lake George in this safety issue?

Reading the information about Lake George from both sides it seems that it is all a matter of opinion. Only 5 or 6 speeding tickets a year does not seem like much enforcement or are boaters really keeping their speeds at 45 or less?

We are still phasing in the boater education plan in NH. Why not let that go to completion and then see if we need to change the rules.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

There is a good chance this drunk will move his boat to another body of water. Or buy a slower boat at his next purchase.

HB162 will absolutely pass, there will be a speed limit law. The only question is which amendment will it pass with.

Thats a pretty imaginative and weak assumption on the part of the drunk. ...And, we will see what passes. If it does pass, good luck on the enforcement.