Lake Daytime Speed Limit

[tummyman]

Here is a new one to chew on....

An alert came out today from NH Lakes regarding legislation on rescinding the current daytime boat speed limit. New bill...HB1424 is set for a hearing next week to eliminate the daytime boat speed limit in its entirety. See below for info:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Valued Members and Friends of the Lake,

We have received notice that the public hearing for HB1424: relative to the speed limit for watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee, will be set for February 22, 2022 at 1pm. The meeting will be in the large Representatives Hall which is safer for social distancing.

House Bill 1424 proposes to overturn the daytime boating speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. It is not too late for you to use your voice in opposition of this bill.

The increase in boating as a popular recreational activity coupled with the increased desirability to live and play in the Lakes Region, suggest that removing the speed limit could have severe consequences to public safety. For over a decade, the law has proven effective in discouraging reckless speeding. We need your help to keep the current speed limit law in place with NO changes because it is still effective.

If you do testify, we encourage you to include your stance on not amending this bill relative for The Broads. The location known as the Broads is the largest span of open water on Lake Winnipesaukee and is known for extremely hazardous conditions on days with inclement weather and high winds.

If the current speed limit law is overturned it would be a monumental and expensive effort to recover. We urge you to oppose this new legislation by taking the following actions:

1.) Contact the House Transportation Committee Members (See Button Below)
Write an email, send a letter or make a call to committee members explaining why the current speed limit is appropriate and why the law should not be changed.
An emphasis on safety concerns with anecdotes of personal/family boating experiences should be included to support your opposition to HB 1424.
Click the button below for contact information
2.) Testify and Sign Up in Opposition of HB 1424 at the Public Hearing
You are welcome to attend the public hearing and give public testimony.
Alternatively, you can CLICK HERE to submit your opposition through the NH House of Representatives Website. The website allows you to indicate your position and upload your remote testimony. If you choose to upload a remote testimony, your testimony will be publicly available here.
Step One: Click Link Above for Remote Testimony
Step Two: Fill Out Information and Select Date of Hearing (2/22/2022)
Step Three: Select Committee (Transportation)
Step Four: Select Bill (HB 1424)
Step Five: Select I am: (Member of the Public)
Step Six: Select who you are representing
Step Seven: Indicate your position
Step Eight: Upload Remote Testimony (optional)
Your voice counts! Please contact the NH House Transportation Committee Members now to help ensure that Lake Winnipesaukee remains a safe and enjoyable recreational experience for all.

Thank you.
Pat Tarpey, President
Lake Winnipesaukee Association

To submit written comments, mail to:
HouseTransportationCommittee@leg.state.nh.us

[webmaster]

Some discussion from last November:

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...d.php?p=364685

[chachee52]

So they want the speed limit everywhere except the Broads? Or including the Broads too?
I was always a fan of let the unlimited speed on the Broads even back when it first got put on the books. And I don't own a boat that can exceed 45 so it has nothing to do with me wanting to go that fast.

[lakewinnie]

AN ACT relative to the speed limit for watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee.


The proposed House Bill reads as follows:

"Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Speed Limits; Lake Winnipesaukee. RSA 270-D:2, X(b) is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of 30 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023."

Hard to imagine this gaining any legislative traction.

[Senter Cove Guy]

...and go as fast as you want on the water in the daytime.

It's time for the boating speed limit to Die!

[Woodsy]

Not that this needs to be rehashed again...

I think the 45MPH limit should be lifted.... Especially in the Broads where visibility is measured in MILES! The SL does nothing to improve safety (no daytime accidents where speed was a factor), and it is rarely if ever enforced.

I would rather see the already short staffed MP spend their time enforcing the myriad of other violations (such as ROW and no wake) that occur on a daily basis!

I specifically didn't mention the 150" rule as IMHO, unless they are danger close (within 50') I really don't worry about it.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

At 50' what is the distance the vessel would travel when throttle was cut and the vessel allowed to drift forward?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by lakewinnie

AN ACT relative to the speed limit for watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee.


The proposed House Bill reads as follows:

"Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Speed Limits; Lake Winnipesaukee. RSA 270-D:2, X(b) is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of 30 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2023."

Hard to imagine this gaining any legislative traction.

It could. This item may see increases in valuations of lakefront properties as individuals with higher incomes might feel that 45mph in all situations is imprudent and costing them what they consider valuable time - sort of like sitting in a traffic jam; the vehicles are moving but slower than they want.

[Descant]

To my knowledge, NH is the only state with a 150' boat to boat 150' rule. It does not gain us anything except a lot of jibber jabber on places like this forum. Certainly not an advanced safety record compared to other states. Mostly unenforced, especially on lakes less than 10,000 acres. Time for it to go.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Descant

To my knowledge, NH is the only state with a 150' boat to boat 150' rule. It does not gain us anything except a lot of jibber jabber on places like this forum. Certainly not an advanced safety record compared to other states. Mostly unenforced, especially on lakes less than 10,000 acres. Time for it to go.

There are over 1 million boats registered in Florida and many more nice boating days than New Hampshire has. There is no speed limit, and no 150 foot rule, and there does not seem to be a safety problem.

Since 2007 I have had a boat in Florida and use it often during the winter. People in other boats regularly pass by 50 feet away, sometimes 25 feet away. You get used to it and it is no big deal. Would I prefer that they stay a little further away? Sure, but it is no big deal if they don't.

We need to get back to "Live Free or Die"

[John Mercier]

Really? So listen to the loud music and suck it up.

[BroadHopper]

Yet weekends during seasons are the craziest most dangerous time to boat in NH. I've boats in Maine, Massachusetts, and VT as well as Florida and lakes along the Colorado River. I actually feel safer boating outside of NH.

So how do 150' and speed limits laws make the lakes safer? It doesn't. What will make the lake safer is enforcing common sense into these people and revoking their rights to operate rather than slapping them with warnings and or small fines.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

At 50' what is the distance the vessel would travel when throttle was cut and the vessel allowed to drift forward?

What does it matter how far a boat drifts after the throttle is chopped? This is not a collision situation or a ROW violation.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

With no speed limit and no safe zone as being proposed on this forum, I would presume that the concern to an open non-motorized craft would be a great deal enhanced.
If a boat approached too quickly and veered away sharply at speed, it could overturn or swamp them.

[phoenix]

Wow you could get across the broads in two minutes faster. I thought this issue was dead

[John Mercier]

It will never be.
I think that people don't realize that the population in the county and even more so the lakes' usage is going to continue to grow... maybe faster than in recent history.
I see a day not to distant than any property with a view of the lake will be built out. That property like that on Winni will fetch over one million just for a view, and lake frontage will be measured in multiple millions.
When people have that much money invested into something, they usually are not going to be highly concerned with those that have to tow their boat to the lake and use a public launch... much less anyone that is in a non-motorized craft.

They would be paying tens of thousands in property taxes to low cost municipalities like Moultonborough to maybe more than the average household income to those in municipalities like Laconia.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

So how do 150' and speed limits laws make the lakes safer? It doesn't.

Speed limits and the 150’ rule probably make the lake “somewhat” safer, because both restrictions provide for increased reaction times that allow for accident avoidance in a few limited situations. Whether or not the increased reaction times provides a statistically significant improvement in safety is debatable

I also boat in FL, where 25 mph speed limits are common in congested areas, such as in tighter areas of the inter-coastal waterway. In more open areas, there are no speed limits. There is no 150’ rule, which would be nearly impossible to implement in the inter-coastal, due to the narrow dredged channels, and the significant quantity of boat traffic. I don’t feel any safer in either boating location.

In my opinion, the speed limits in NH were brought about as a result of boat noise, as opposed to boat speeds. In the 80’s, there was a proliferation of “go fast” boats with loud through hull exhausts. There was (is) a perception of speed associated with the noise, and the noise was disturbing to those who enjoyed the peaceful nature of the lake. Authorities found it hard to enforce noise ordinances, which ultimately (in my opinion) brought about the speed limit legislation. I’ll bet most people who supported speed limits would have been just as happy, if not happier, if boats were quieter, as opposed to slower.

Part of the problem is that people get so passionate about these issues, that they tend to argue for the extremes. If I were king, I’d implement the following rules, in an effort to maximize everybody’s enjoyment of the lake:

1. Ban through hull exhaust on any boat sold within one year post legislation. There is no reason that one boaters preference for loud noise should impact everybody within ear shot of that noise. Existing through hull exhausts could be grandfathered, but only if they are on a boat manufactured pre-legislation, and only if they note the through hull exhaust on their registration form, so as to avoid post legislative conversions.

2. Keep the 150’ rule. It’s too controversial an issue to change, and everybody has enjoyed the lake with the rule in effect for many years. It’s not that big a deal to endeavor to keep your distance from other boats, and it probably aids in maximizing the enjoyment of those boaters who operate at slower speeds, or in smaller vessels.

3. Keep the 45 mph speed limit on most of the lake, but eliminate the speed limit in the Broads. 45 mph is fast enough in most of the bays, where there tends to be more boat congestion. In the Broads, there is plenty of room, and it would allow those with faster boats to traverse the lake faster, and allow a place for them to enjoy some of the exhilaration of traveling at a higher rate of speed.

Aside from the thru hull issue, this doesn’t change much from the status quo. In reality, the 150 foot rule, and the speed limit, are difficult for marine patrol to enforce, due to the challenges of definitively determining a violation. If there was a bit of give and take on both sides, I think there would be less bickering about the rules, and more enjoyment for everybody.

But, I’m not a king, and I don’t get to make the rules. Hopefully those who do make the rules will try to see both sides of these issues, and legislate something that makes sense.

[John Mercier]

Exhaust noise is covered under a different RSA.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Exhaust noise is covered under a different RSA.

Correct. I believe the law was put in place in the 80’s. The problem was (is) that the law allows for above water exhaust if there is a “muffling device”. The muffling device is undefined, so boaters were arguing that the flappers on the pipes were “muffling devices”, even though they did little or nothing to mitigate the sound. They also allowed switchable exhausts, so it was impossible to determine if an offending device was on, or not, when a boat was stopped for a noise violation. Further, it was so difficult to accurately determine a methodology to measure the sound, that marine patrol gave up trying to enforce the law.

If the goal is to make the boat quiet, the exhaust needs to be underwater when the boat is running. The original intent was good. The wording was poor.

I think its better now than it was in the 80’s, but in my opinion, there are far too many obnoxiously load boats out there, that do not meet the spirit or intent of the law.

[8gv]

Many "captains" operate their boats on Winni in an unsafe manner.

There are not enough water cops to deal with all that goes on.

If something bad is going to happen, it happening at a slower speed will likely result in a less bad outcome.

I believe:

There are boaters that do not exceed the current limit.

There are boaters who exceed the limit by 10-20%.

There are boaters that exceed the limit by a much larger margin.

If there is no limit, I expect at least two if not all three of the groups above to go faster.

Consider highway driving.

If the limit is 55 there are a few going that speed but most are going faster with some going much faster.

In a 70 zone it's the same but faster.

Would you want to have NO speed limit on I93?

If that were the case, what would you expect for speeds and speed differentials?

Without naming names, I'll just suggest that some drivers have a daily white knuckle, dog eat dog commute to work.

They are the ones who aggressively assert themselves on your rear bumper as they rush to their calming lake retreat.

"They" operate their boats the same way.

Keep the speed limit.

[Senter Cove Guy]

Originally Posted by 8gv

Many "captains" operate their boats on Winni in an unsafe manner.

There are not enough water cops to deal with all that goes on.

If something bad is going to happen, it happening at a slower speed will likely result in a less bad outcome.

I believe:

There are boaters that do not exceed the current limit.

There are boaters who exceed the limit by 10-20%.

There are boaters that exceed the limit by a much larger margin.

If there is no limit, I expect at least two if not all three of the groups above to go faster.

Consider highway driving.

If the limit is 55 there are a few going that speed but most are going faster with some going much faster.

In a 70 zone it's the same but faster.

Would you want to have NO speed limit on I93?

If that were the case, what would you expect for speeds and speed differentials?

Without naming names, I'll just suggest that some drivers have a daily white knuckle, dog eat dog commute to work.

They are the ones who aggressively assert themselves on your rear bumper as they rush to their calming lake retreat.

"They" operate their boats the same way.

Keep the speed limit.

You are comparing apples and oranges.
Die speedlimit, Die!

[TiltonBB]

In the 80's the Marine Patrol would station a boat in the Weirs Channel near the southern end of the no wake zone. They had a second boat with a decibel meter set up about 1/2 mile south in Paugus Bay. That boat would set out a couple of floats about 30 feet apart.

When the Marine Patrol Officer in the Channel found a boat that he felt might be too loud he directed them to go through the markers at cruising speed while their sound output was measured.

I had a friend who tried to quiet his boat down to the point that after adding baffles he hung truck mud flap off of the swim platform down to the water. The boat was still too loud and he had to take it off of the lake.

To their credit, the Marine Patrol allowed him several "free passes" after he did all the work on it to see if it was quiet enough.

[chachee52]

If I remember correctly, when the speed limit was put into affect, the chief of MP at that time did say that he was against the speed limit. Mostly because he said that less than 1% of boating accidents in NH had to do with speed. there were other reasons.
I too am, and was back in the day, on the side of leave the Broads no speed limit and keep the bays with a limit.
And there are are roads in the North West where my friend was stationed that had speed that said "at your own risk". And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.
Also when I was younger, there were way more MP boats on the water and they did pull people over for the 150' rule. I witnessed it many times.
Everyone isn't going to be happy with any rule that anyone suggests. This is one reason I don't live in a Condo. I might agree with a rule but don't tell me that I can't do it

[tis]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

In the 80's the Marine Patrol would station a boat in the Weirs Channel near the southern end of the no wake zone. They had a second boat with a decibel meter set up about 1/2 mile south in Paugus Bay. That boat would set out a couple of floats about 30 feet apart.

When the Marine Patrol Officer in the Channel found a boat that he felt might be too loud he directed them to go through the markers at cruising speed while their sound output was measured.

I had a friend who tried to quiet his boat down to the point that after adding baffles he hung truck mud flap off of the swim platform down to the water. The boat was still too loud and he had to take it off of the lake.

To their credit, the Marine Patrol allowed him several "free passes" after he did all the work on it to see if it was quiet enough.

We were "invited" to take our boat to Timber Island to be tested on a Sunday morning. Once we were stopped the boat could not be on the lake until we passed the test. In the meantime we had work done on it to try to make it quieter so we could pass the test. We flunked. After a few tries and about 6 or 7 thousand dollars we finally passed -but just barely. At that time I don't think the marinas really knew what to do to quiet them. I loved that boat, it was one of my favorite ever boats. And also at that time "Captain's Call" ( the ability to switch between loud and quiet) was illegal. Now I am pretty sure it is legal.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by chachee52

And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.

NH Office of Highway Safety .... https://twitter.com/nh_ohs/status/1480936528868261888

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

NH Office of Highway Safety .... https://twitter.com/nh_ohs/status/1480936528868261888

Never said that it didn't. Just sharing my opinion that on 93 people drive whatever they want anyway. Hence I put the laughing emoji on it. SenterCoveGuy said " what if 93 had no speed limit". Got passed the other day while I was going 75 keeping up with traffic like I was going about 20 mph.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by chachee52

If I remember correctly, when the speed limit was put into affect, the chief of MP at that time did say that he was against the speed limit. Mostly because he said that less than 1% of boating accidents in NH had to do with speed. there were other reasons.
I too am, and was back in the day, on the side of leave the Broads no speed limit and keep the bays with a limit.
And there are are roads in the North West where my friend was stationed that had speed that said "at your own risk". And I'm sorry, but 93 is pretty much no speed limit at times.
Also when I was younger, there were way more MP boats on the water and they did pull people over for the 150' rule. I witnessed it many times.
Everyone isn't going to be happy with any rule that anyone suggests. This is one reason I don't live in a Condo. I might agree with a rule but don't tell me that I can't do it

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

That was "one of the other reasons". Didn't want to add another aspect to the law in this discussion. Was trying to keep it to the speed. But yes, radar gun are almost useless on the water. Also the initial "testing" time frame was significantly decreased before they passed the bill.

[John Mercier]

That was his main reason. It is the same reason that the Major (Tim Acerno) of F&G gave against snowmobile/OHRV speed limits on frozen lakes/ponds.

They have brakes and don't create a wake, unlike boats, and still have the same setbacks from other objects.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by chachee52

That was "one of the other reasons". Didn't want to add another aspect to the law in this discussion. Was trying to keep it to the speed. But yes, radar gun are almost useless on the water. Also the initial "testing" time frame was significantly decreased before they passed the bill.

There were speed limits on our roads before there was radar. Just because enforcement may be more difficult on the water is no reason to throw out the speed limit in its entirety. Most people obey the law. Ditto just because some people pass you when driving 75 MPH on 93 is no reason to allow unlimited speeds on our highways.

As far as the Broads and unlimited speeds...this was shot down 11 years ago in Concord as well. It's the hub of the lake where people travel to get to island homes or from one port to another. Fishermen, sailors (including kids learning to sail with the LWSA), family boaters are all going in different directions.

Given the # of businesses and high profile organizations opposing HB 1424 this bill will be laughed right out of the State House. HB 1424 is nutz.

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There were speed limits on our roads before there was radar. Just because enforcement may be more difficult on the water is no reason to throw out the speed limit in its entirety. Most people obey the law. Ditto just because some people pass you when driving 75 MPH on 93 is no reason to allow unlimited speeds on our highways.

As far as the Broads and unlimited speeds...this was shot down 11 years ago in Concord as well. It's the hub of the lake where people travel to get to island homes or from one port to another. Fishermen, sailors (including kids learning to sail with the LWSA), family boaters are all going in different directions.

Given the # of businesses and high profile organizations opposing HB 1424 this bill will be laughed right out of the State House. HB 1424 is nutz.

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

Flush the speed limit down the toilet where it belongs.

[John Mercier]

Which would mean that even if they changed it... more than likely they would need to change it back.

The lakes... especially Winnipesaukee... is going to draw a lot more people and homes to it over the next decade. I can't even imagine how F&G is going to handle the public demand for launch sites.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Flush the speed limit down the toilet where it belongs.

Such a sophisticated comment.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Winilyme

Such a sophisticated comment.

We’ll excuse me, you elitist snob. How about “Repeal the speed limit law, and dispose of it in the repealed law file.” Does that live up to your sophisticated standards?

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

We’ll excuse me, you elitist snob. How about “Repeal the speed limit law, and dispose of it in the repealed law file”. Does that live up to your sophisticated standards?

With punctuation flaws like that, I should hope not. I mean, we're in America—put the period INSIDE the quotation marks, you heathen!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[8gv]

Now that we have settled the lake speed limit issue can we please move on to more pressing items?

It drives me nuts when a singular subject is conjugated as if it were plural!

Also, let's not conjugate with the noun found in a prepositional phrase.

It is not the subject.

Sheesh!

Thank you!

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by 8gv

Now that we have settled the lake speed limit issue can we please move on to more pressing items?

It drives me nuts when a singular subject is conjugated as if it were plural!

Also, let's not conjugate with the noun found in a prepositional phrase.

It is not the subject.

Sheesh!

Thank you!

Sum, es, est, sumis, estis, sunt.

Sorry, I saw the word conjugate and my Latin teacher entered my body.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

There were speed limits on our roads before there was radar. Just because enforcement may be more difficult on the water is no reason to throw out the speed limit in its entirety. Most people obey the law. Ditto just because some people pass you when driving 75 MPH on 93 is no reason to allow unlimited speeds on our highways.

As far as the Broads and unlimited speeds...this was shot down 11 years ago in Concord as well. It's the hub of the lake where people travel to get to island homes or from one port to another. Fishermen, sailors (including kids learning to sail with the LWSA), family boaters are all going in different directions.

Given the # of businesses and high profile organizations opposing HB 1424 this bill will be laughed right out of the State House. HB 1424 is nutz.

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

And there was no speed limit on the lake for years as well, and I don't have the stats but there are also more cars on the road as well and the speed limit on most highways have increased as well.

I've said it so many times. one rule about anything is never going to please everyone. But again if > 1% of boat accidents had to do with speed when the law went into affect, but I would imagine that car accidents due to speed is higher.

Either way, speed limit or not, my boat doesn't do 45 so it doesn't effect me, but it will with the 600 hp pontoon boat that was at the boat show this week!!!

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Tim (Captain of MP) was opposed because the system is not accurate unless being approached or following a vessel at a specific angle. That is much different than the highway or trails where a LEO or CO can position themselves more easily to the angle of oncoming traffic.

Marine Patrol Director David Barrett, Captain Dunleavy's boss, opposed the speed limit law in 2005.

The head of the state agency that would have to enforce the limits is opposed. Marine Patrol Director David Barrett said the law would be unenforceable. He also said supporters are pushing the law to get rid of high-performance speed boats.

"This is feel-good legislation," Barrett said. "The proponents are being disingenuous. This is exclusionary and being used to get rid of a kind of boat they don't like."

Although David Barrett has passed away (2011) he was right in 2005, and remains right today.

[sunset on the dock]

Hmmm...in 2011 80% of NH house voted in favor of the speed limit with an even higher percentage from reps representing towns that border the lake. Now with more boats registered in NH and a 500% increase in boating licenses I wonder how the vote will go this time?!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

"This is feel-good legislation," Barrett said.[/B] "The proponents are being disingenuous. This is exclusionary and being used to get rid of a kind of boat they don't like."

Although David Barrett has passed away (2011) he was right in 2005, and remains right today.

Well, he can't really be right about both of these points at once, but does offer some insight. If it's "feel-good legislation" that means it does nothing. If it's "getting rid of a kind of boat they don't like", I agree--it has gotten rid of a large number of very load boats--as posted above.

Like so many issues on the lake--it is a small number of insensitive jerks that create the demand for more rules. When your boat can be heard a mile away, or your wake is creating a washing machine effect in a cove because you're circling 20X, you're creating the support for more legislation

[John Mercier]

I don't think it was loud boats. Exhaust regulation would have done that.
Common property requires them to protect the interests of even the lightest user.
At 150 feet, wouldn't a faster boat create more of a disrupting wake to non-motorized users/etc?

Noise even from a static source would be more of the first regulation.
But I think speed and distance is more about the wake and reaction time.

[Jdarby]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Need another reason to keep the speed limits on the lake and Broads: per Lake Winni Assoc. email sent out to its 1000 members last week: "The number of people obtaining their boat license has increased from 6500 in 2019 to over 30,000 in 2020. This represents almost a 500% increase in new and inexperienced boaters on our lakes."
And NH boat registrations have increased 14.7 % since 2013.

This is exactly my concern with removing the limit. The lack of experience was obvious on the water last summer. Sure, every summer you have the clueless boat renters but it seemed far worse this last season. I just think the timing for this is bad with that variable in play.



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by Jdarby

This is exactly my concern with removing the limit. The lack of experience was obvious on the water last summer. Sure, every summer you have the clueless boat renters but it seemed far worse this last season. I just think the timing for this is bad with that variable in play.



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I was opposed to the speed limit back when the law passed. I never thought it was about safety - it was my understanding that the real culprit in most fatal accidents had been alcohol.

Today, I'm more on-the-fence. I did see a lot more idiots on the lake these past few summers compared to 12-14 years ago. Although, at the same time, I don't recall the recent new wave of boaters going at excessive speeds. My recent experience is that many of these idiots do not know the rules of the road.

[John Mercier]

Because the one item they think they remember is the speed limit.
Imagine them at a faster pace.

[Patofnaud]

Too many laws.

Just have one law, a "do not be stupid " law, and repeal the dozens of other laws that all come down to stopping folks from being stupid.

You cut someone off, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You swamp someone, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You fly through an NWZ, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You ride on the swim platform, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You take your dark green/black kayak/canoe way offshore on a Saturday afternoon, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
Etc,,,

And actually, a planning hull when going faster makes LESS wake/erosion than one plowing along. Speed = better. Just don't do it when it would be a stupid thing to do.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Too many laws.

Just have one law, a "do not be stupid " law, and repeal the dozens of other laws that all come down to stopping folks from being stupid.

You cut someone off, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You swamp someone, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You fly through an NWZ, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You ride on the swim platform, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You take your dark green/black kayak/canoe way offshore on a Saturday afternoon, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
Etc,,,

And actually, a planning hull when going faster makes LESS wake/erosion than one plowing along. Speed = better. Just don't do it when it would be a stupid thing to do.

Without looking it up, isn't that USCG rule 6? Only they use the word "reasonable".

[Patofnaud]

You are correct sir. Been a long time since I dipped a prop in the salty stuff.

Rule 6 - Safe Speed
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.

Nice and simple. A lot simpler than RSA's abc123, xyz234, 5.89 and 2.4 but only during certain times if maintaining proper steerage unless the sun is in your eyes 30 mins before sunset. (/sarcasm)

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

Too many laws.

Just have one law, a "do not be stupid " law, and repeal the dozens of other laws that all come down to stopping folks from being stupid.

You cut someone off, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You swamp someone, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You fly through an NWZ, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You ride on the swim platform, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
You take your dark green/black kayak/canoe way offshore on a Saturday afternoon, you're stupid, here's your ticket.
Etc,,,

And actually, a planning hull when going faster makes LESS wake/erosion than one plowing along. Speed = better. Just don't do it when it would be a stupid thing to do.

Daytime Speed Limit is 45 mph. You are saying that boats don't plane at that speed?

[Patofnaud]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Daytime Speed Limit is 45 mph. You are saying that boats don't plane at that speed?

No, where did you see that? I said faster = less wake.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

At 150 feet, wouldn't a faster boat create more of a disrupting wake to non-motorized users/etc?

Actually, the opposite is true. For example, bass boats make a small wake when on
plane. Big cruisers plowing along at slow speeds and wake boats generate very big wakes

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I don't think it was loud boats. Exhaust regulation would have done that.
Common property requires them to protect the interests of even the lightest user.
At 150 feet, wouldn't a faster boat create more of a disrupting wake to non-motorized users/etc?

When it comes to planing hulls, boat wakes are function of water displacement & mass... the faster a boat goes the less mass is in the water, the less mass in the water, the less energy the wake has to cause damage.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

No, where did you see that? I said faster = less wake.

I presume that whether a boat is traveling at 45 mph or at 75 mph it would be roughly on plane and create about the same wake although with a different wave speed... the displacement being roughly the same.

The distance the wave travels, and the speed that it travels, is what allows the second craft to take action to navigate the disruption in the surface.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

When it comes to planing hulls, boat wakes are function of water displacement & mass... the faster a boat goes the less mass is in the water, the less mass in the water, the less energy the wake has to cause damage.

Woodsy

After a certain speed... the same amount of displacement will occur regardless. It would never get to the point that no mass was in the water.

[John Mercier]

In the end, I think they will legislate whatever needs to be changed to increase the property values surrounding the lake. It shifts more of the tax burden toward lake properties... and that is supported by the greatest number of constituents.

The recent build-out of certain parcels, along with the faster increase in valuation of certain areas, has help to keep taxation in other parts more suppressed.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

After a certain speed... the same amount of displacement will occur regardless. It would never get to the point that no mass was in the water.

You do not understand how planing hulls work... while there will be always be "some" mass in the water, at speed it is a fractional amount of the total boat weight/displacement.

Boats with planing hulls are designed to rise up and glide on top of the water when enough power is supplied. These boats may operate like displacement hulls when at rest or at slow speeds but climb toward the surface of the water as they move faster.

Boats with planing hulls can skim along at high speed, riding almost on top of the water rather than pushing it aside. The faster a planing hull goes in the water.. the less water is displaced by the mass of the boat. The less boat in the water, the less energy the boat wake has.

Think of a flat stone skipping across the top of the water...

Woodsy

[Dick]

What a shame that the sound system used in Representatives Hall was so poor that most of us could not hear/understand the speakers.
Further, did it seem to you that the House Transportation representatives were disengaged . . .didn't want to be there.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You do not understand how planing hulls work... while there will be always be "some" mass in the water, at speed it is a fractional amount of the total boat weight/displacement.

Boats with planing hulls are designed to rise up and glide on top of the water when enough power is supplied. These boats may operate like displacement hulls when at rest or at slow speeds but climb toward the surface of the water as they move faster.

Boats with planing hulls can skim along at high speed, riding almost on top of the water rather than pushing it aside. The faster a planing hull goes in the water.. the less water is displaced by the mass of the boat. The less boat in the water, the less energy the boat wake has.

Think of a flat stone skipping across the top of the water...

Woodsy

I do understand the inverse function of displacement and speed. That is why I question wave speed. A higher wave speed... even if the wave has a lower amplitude... results in a greater conservation of kinetic energy over a specified distance. That is what the scientific studies showed.
The faster boat is displacing less water mass at a higher rate of speed.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Dick

Actually, the opposite is true. For example, bass boats make a small wake when on
plane. Big cruisers plowing along at slow speeds and wake boats generate very big wakes

Again that is amplitude of the wave...

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

I do understand the inverse function of displacement and speed. That is why I question wave speed. A higher wave speed... even if the wave has a lower amplitude... results in a greater conservation of kinetic energy over a specified distance. That is what the scientific studies showed.
The faster boat is displacing less water mass at a higher rate of speed.

You are correct in that the faster boat (on plane) is displacing far less water at a higher rate of speed than it would at a slower speed. It is also transferring far less energy to the water.

The planing hull design is where the relationships change. Planing hulls are designed to give little resistance to the water and take advantage of hydrodynamic lifting.

The hydrodynamic lift of the hull design is what changes the wave form of the wake. When on plane there is very little displacement (relative to size & mass) very little drag (mostly the drives) and thus very little energy transferred to the water in the form of a wake. The energy is instead expended as speed.

The wake of boat on plane has very little energy transferred from the hull, so the amplitude is low, wave energy is low, and wake dissipates very quickly.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

But it is increasing wave speed.
That is what all the studies that they do is telling them.

They aren't slowing the rate of speed near shore just because they feel like it.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

But it is increasing wave speed.
That is what all the studies that they do is telling them.

They aren't slowing the rate of speed near shore just because they feel like it.

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

[The Real BigGuy]

Thanks Woodsy. You did a great job of explaining the wake phenomenon


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

You are still not submitting a study to the Legislature with all your credentials to support your findings. The Lake Association is.
Should a court fight ensue at a later date... most lawyers would rather have the credentialed studies on their side.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You are still not submitting a study to the Legislature with all your credentials to support your findings. The Lake Association is.
Should a court fight ensue at a later date... most lawyers would rather have the credentialed studies on their side.

Blah Blah Blah... our discussion was about wave energy. There are plenty of credible studies that support my findings. I certainly could have posted my links but as you seemed so focused on wave speed the point would have been moot.

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Not the ones being presented to the Legislature.
The Legislature is a very large body representing very diverse interests... and many times doing what it can to avoid lawsuits.

So somewhere along the line it determined that a boat should not come near the shore or another object in the water if travelling at more than headway speed.

The other object in the water may be for safety and reaction time - who knows? - but the shore has to be erosion... and that must mean the transmission of kinetic force in some manner.

You would need to present studies to overcome that... especially for legislators that are not focused on Lake Winnipesaukee - unless the bill specifies Lake Winnipesaukee.

For Lake Winnipesaukee, and maybe some other lakes, it should be rather easy... they want the property around the lake - within sight of the lake - to build dramatically in value... as it lowers the relative taxation to the properties not near the lake.

If you can show the safety and erosion risks are lower, then the higher speeds may lead to the property around the lake double or tripling in value - maybe a bit over done... but higher than now. That would lower the amount of property tax that needs to come from the other properties within a municipality, school district, and even the county.

[Blyblvrd]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Not the ones being presented to the Legislature.
The Legislature is a very large body representing very diverse interests... and many times doing what it can to avoid lawsuits.

So somewhere along the line it determined that a boat should not come near the shore or another object in the water if travelling at more than headway speed.

The other object in the water may be for safety and reaction time - who knows? - but the shore has to be erosion... and that must mean the transmission of kinetic force in some manner.

You would need to present studies to overcome that... especially for legislators that are not focused on Lake Winnipesaukee - unless the bill specifies Lake Winnipesaukee.

For Lake Winnipesaukee, and maybe some other lakes, it should be rather easy... they want the property around the lake - within sight of the lake - to build dramatically in value... as it lowers the relative taxation to the properties not near the lake.

If you can show the safety and erosion risks are lower, then the higher speeds may lead to the property around the lake double or tripling in value - maybe a bit over done... but higher than now. That would lower the amount of property tax that needs to come from the other properties within a municipality, school district, and even the county.

Lol.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[John Mercier]

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.
If there is no additional erosion or safety issues by increasing, or doing away with, a limit that is very hard to enforce... it would mean that more boaters may want to be on our local waters.
Those boaters would want direct access rather than the use of a public access that may have limited parking and longer waits.

We could see a build out that might take decades due to material prices transpire quickly. That build out removes pressure on local budgets and keeps our property rate from rising.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

"There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value" Would that be so people in waterfront homeowners can carry the heavy end of the tax burden?

"Shift costs back to us"? So you see the issue as waterfront owners VS non waterfront owners?

First: There are many waterfront property owners who are year round New Hampshire residents. Making an Us VS them self serving argument looks petty.

But more important: New Hampshire has set itself up through it's tax structure to benefit substantially from non resident taxes and the tax revenue supported by the tourist industry. Many,many non residents contribute substantially to the tax base that the state uses, while taking very little in government supported services.

It is counter productive to bite the hand that feeds you.

[John Mercier]

They are properties.
It doesn't matter to anyone whether the property is occupied by the owner, or how long.

The higher that a sector of property goes within a district, the more that the cost of the budget as a percentage is shifted to that property.

Lakefront and Lake view are currently hot commodities... keeping that going is good for the tax rate when you have budgetary pressures on labor - which makes up much, if not most, of the local budgets.

If someone is willing to pay more for a property because they feel that they can do more of what pleases them... then the value of the property is likely to rise faster than the base... and it will shift the budgetary costs in that direction.

It insures that the housing sector stays strong... and the housing sector, not tourism, is the strongest part of what we have going in the Lakes Region. If we stop building or renovating... we lose jobs, lots of jobs. That improvement of the property makes the property worth more.

This isn't new. It just that currently we have an up cycle that we want to keep going. Some will sell... but that will mean that others are willing to buy.
And after they buy, they tend to renovate which keeps the construction industry busy.

So it isn't an US vs Them. They want the property, and want to build/renovate and we want them to come and purchase the properties and build/renovate. If a higher speed on the lake makes that happen... I don't see that as a bad thing.

We've been told for years that the opposite would happen.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

They are properties.
If a higher speed on the lake makes that happen... I don't see that as a bad thing.

We've been told for years that the opposite would happen.

I find it highly, highly doubtful that a higher lake speed (or lower one than what is currently in place for that matter) will have any bearing on the price of waterfront properties.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.

There has to be a balance. A 2015 Moultonboro watershed study included a build-out report. Water quality metrics were measured for today, for a pre-development era and for build-out based on current regulations. It showed that, at the time there was 26% of land within the study area that could be built on. Build-out would occur between 2039 and 2058, depending on growth rates. A phosphorus level above 8 accelerates aging of the lake. We are already there in the Moultonboro Bay Inlet study area and would add to the aging acceleration if build-out happened. See graphic. Basin 1 is Greens Basin inner basin, Basin 2 is the basin including Evergreen Island and Basin 3 is from Lees Mills to roughly Buzzels Cove. TP is total phosphorus concentration.

Even in today's building craze, too many wavers are granted and many rules to control water runoff are ignored. Restraint is needed because the pressure to build satisfies an immediate need but the impact lags by decades. By the time cyanobacteria blooms keep us out of the water every August, it will be too late for easy corrections.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I find it highly, highly doubtful that a higher lake speed (or lower one than what is currently in place for that matter) will have any bearing on the price of waterfront properties.

You don't think some boat owners would choose one over the other?
I would think that someone with a high speed boat, or looking to purchase a high speed boat, would want to own or rent property on a lake that supported that desire.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

There has to be a balance. A 2015 Moultonboro watershed study included a build-out report. Water quality metrics were measured for today, for a pre-development era and for build-out based on current regulations. It showed that, at the time there was 26% of land within the study area that could be built on. Build-out would occur between 2039 and 2058, depending on growth rates. A phosphorus level above 8 accelerates aging of the lake. We are already there in the Moultonboro Bay Inlet study area and would add to the aging acceleration if build-out happened. See graphic. Basin 1 is Greens Basin inner basin, Basin 2 is the basin including Evergreen Island and Basin 3 is from Lees Mills to roughly Buzzels Cove. TP is total phosphorus concentration.

Even in today's building craze, too many wavers are granted and many rules to control water runoff are ignored. Restraint is needed because the pressure to build satisfies an immediate need but the impact lags by decades. By the time cyanobacteria blooms keep us out of the water every August, it will be too late for easy corrections.

We started to sell Bonide because it was the first to offer chemical fertilizer that used boron instead (still has phosphorus in the starter)
Moultonboro has a low tax rate... and the family and friends that we have there will say it is because of all the waterfront properties. The high valuation relative to the budget keeps the tax rate low. But in Belknap county, I think Alton has the lowest. The other municipalities are going to go after the tax base were they can.

So even if new structure is not built, but more money is expended into the currently existing structures, it is good for the housing industry and the tax base. It may be short term thinking... but if the same house that sold last year for a million sells this year for more that budgetary inflation, it will affect the tax base overall.

Waterfront and view seem to be in high enough demand that they are more likely to see price appreciation faster than the others. The home owners paying more for those existing properties tend to upgrade.

The pro is usually more of an energy efficient unit (windows/doors/insulation/HVAC upgrade)... the con is that higher priced existing units leads to gentrification.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

You don't think some boat owners would choose one over the other?
I would think that someone with a high speed boat, or looking to purchase a high speed boat, would want to own or rent property on a lake that supported that desire.

No I don't, just as the implementation of the speed limit has not had a positive or negative impact on waterfront property.

[John Mercier]

Well, someone seems to be bringing it to the attention of Rep. Bordes.

[lakewinnie]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't really funny.
There are many, such as myself, that want to see the lake properties increase in value and be built out... there are others that want to see that build out restrained.
If there is no additional erosion or safety issues by increasing, or doing away with, a limit that is very hard to enforce... it would mean that more boaters may want to be on our local waters.
Those boaters would want direct access rather than the use of a public access that may have limited parking and longer waits.

We could see a build out that might take decades due to material prices transpire quickly. That build out removes pressure on local budgets and keeps our property rate from rising.

But we have always been told that added erosion and loss of safety would result in collapsing property values... something that would shift costs back to us.

That's funny - I thought I read somewhere (maybe it was in an old thread) that the Lake was for the enjoyment and use of all NH residents, not just waterfront landowners. Now getting back to boats and speed limits...

[John Mercier]

Equal enjoyment.

But all property owners have protection from abutting owners doing or allowing for something that would damage their property.

For the 1.3 million plus residents of NH, many of us are not going to see that lakes or mountains as more than the monetary value to represent to us.

For me, the lake is just what draws the building. I never travel near Lake Winnipesaukee except when going to a property in relation to building.
The value to me is different than the other ''owners'' that may use the lake for other means.

For me, it is like being a shareholder in Facebook, I don't use it... but I like the way the profits move the share price.

[sunset on the dock]

One of the Republican Reps on the Transportation Committee has let it be known that he has received 800 emails against the bill to eliminate daytime speed limits on Winni and only 10 in favor. He says that the bill is essentially dead.

[znh]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

All functions of a wake created by a boat are the result of an energy transfer. This energy transfer is directly related to boat displacement. The amount of energy in a wave depends on its height and wavelength as well as the distance over which it breaks. Given equal wavelengths, a wave with greater amplitude will release more energy when it falls back to sea level than a wave of lesser amplitude. The speed of the waves has little to do with this.

A boat on plane displaces very little water and thus transmits very little energy to the water. The low energy waves dissipate quickly. Assuming the boat on plane maintains 150' off the shoreline (per the law) by the time the wake reaches the shore there is little energy left.

This wave energy discussion is the crux of all the proposed wakeboat rules.

Woodsy

That sounds good. Too bad most of the large cruisers that create giant wakes are never anywhere near on plane...hence the issue with their giant wakes.

Speed limits and wakes seems like two completely separate issues. I know I'm a little late to the thread here but why are the two being discussed under the same umbrella?

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Equal enjoyment.

But all property owners have protection from abutting owners doing or allowing for something that would damage their property.

For the 1.3 million plus residents of NH, many of us are not going to see that lakes or mountains as more than the monetary value to represent to us.

For me, the lake is just what draws the building. I never travel near Lake Winnipesaukee except when going to a property in relation to building.
The value to me is different than the other ''owners'' that may use the lake for other means.

For me, it is like being a shareholder in Facebook, I don't use it... but I like the way the profits move the share price.

For many of us, this is not like "being a shareholder in Facebook"!

Perhaps you could step back a bit, and let those whose lives are changed on these topics, make the comments.

Perhaps not comment on 100% of the threads on this forum?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by znh

That sounds good. Too bad most of the large cruisers that create giant wakes are never anywhere near on plane...hence the issue with their giant wakes.

Speed limits and wakes seems like two completely separate issues. I know I'm a little late to the thread here but why are the two being discussed under the same umbrella?

Many, if not most, of the large cruisers do not have "planing hulls", they have displacement hulls. They will not get up on plane in the way our bowriders and runabouts do.

Dave

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

For many of us, this is not like "being a shareholder in Facebook"!

Perhaps you could step back a bit, and let those whose lives are changed on these topics, make the comments.

Perhaps not comment on 100% of the threads on this forum?

Hmmm. FLL, our busiest poster over time, posts about 433 times per year. We all have our individual opinions about the factual accuracy of his posts. John Mercier posts about 100 time per month/1200 per year. I suggest each member judge the factual accuracy of his posts accordingly. BTW, FLL is not trying to sell anything.

[sunset on the dock]

By Kevin Landrigan, New Hampshire Union Leader

Mar 1, 2022 Updated 57 min ago

A House panel voted by a 5-1 margin to recommend killing legislation that would eliminate the daytime, 45 mph speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.

CONCORD — A move to get rid of the daytime speed limit on New Hampshire’s biggest lake failed a House committee test Tuesday, after citizens flooded legislators with hundreds of emails in opposition.

Many owners and sellers of large recreational boats favor dumping the 13-year-old limit of 45 mph on Lake Winnipesaukee that kicks in a half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset.

The nighttime speed limit on the lake is 30 mph.

Rep. Aidan Ankarberg, R-Rochester, said 600 people signed up remotely in support of the bill, with 200 opposed.

Five House Republicans from five of the state’s 10 counties agreed to sponsor the measure (HB 1424).

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee and the House deputy speaker didn’t want to kill it.

But state Rep. Dennis Thompson, R-Stewartstown, said more than 800 emails he received against the bill convinced him to drop his support as a co-sponsor.

Thompson joined the 15-3 majority on the House Transportation Committee who voted to recommend the full House kill the bill later this spring.

“Early on I thought it wasn’t a bad idea,” Thompson said.

The Winnipesaukee Sailing Association started one petition in favor of the speed limit, which had more than 300 supporters.

“The typical family motorboat can’t go 45 mph anyway. This bill is aimed primarily at huge, high-speed ‘muscle boats’ that can go 80 mph and plenty more,” the petition said. “Fortunately, the existing law has kept a lot of those monsters off the lake.”

Marine patrol had no position

Rep. Ted Gorski, R-Bedford, said he was certain many boaters could stay safe without a speed limit, but he worried about those who weren’t careful.

“I appreciate the responsible boat owners who might be able to navigate this,” Gorski said. “What I am more concerned about are the irresponsible boat owners.”

The state Division of Marine Patrol that polices traffic on the state’s lakes and ponds took no position on the bill.

Rep. Michael Bordes, R-Laconia, prime author of the measure, said he was open to compromise.

Supporters convinced him to extend the bill beyond his original idea, to only eliminate the speed limit on “The Broads,” the island-free, very wide expanse north of Governor’s Island in the center of the lake, where owners of large boats often go to travel at maximum speeds.

Bordes also said he could live with leaving the speed limit in place on the weekends, when boat traffic is most congested.

But Rep. Karel Crawford, R-Center Harbor, said she can’t support any change.

“It’s a safety issue as far as I am concerned. I felt like eliminating the speed limit in Lake Winnipesaukee, whether it is in The Broads or not, would be a hazard to our citizens using the lake,” Crawford said.

Committee Chairman Tom Walsh, R-Hooksett, said he’s been safely boating on the lake for decades and thinks changing the speed limit would not make it less safe.

“You can go slower if it’s busy,” Walsh said. “If we have an issue with unqualified boaters, maybe we should be looking at that.”

Most of the state’s largest lakes have no speed limits, though 40 mph is the fastest a boater can go during the day on Spofford Lake near the Vermont border and Squam Lake, the bucolic waterway that was the location for the Academy Award-winning film, “On Golden Pond.”

A number of much smaller ponds and rivers have even lower posted limits.

Former Gov. John Lynch signed a 2010 law that made the Lake Winnipesaukee speed limits permanent.

The Legislature in 2009 set speed limits for two years to test the idea, but a year later lawmakers acted to enshrine them

[fatlazyless]

On a rainy and foggy Tuesday early morning, June 17, 2008 at about 2-am, a 37' Formula with three women onboard struck a rocky ledge on the shoreline of Diamond Island resulting in one death.

After the Friday, July 4, 2008 Independence Day holiday weekend, like on July 7 or 8 or 9 or so, Gov John Lynch signed the initial Lake Winnipesaukee 45-day/30-night speed limit into law. If I remember correct, it was in effect for one year and then got extended, or something.

[tis]

It seems to me, as it seemed to me last time that it's the legislators that don't live around the like that don't want to change it. Why should they care? I didn't see an official count so maybe I am wrong.

Also the Diamond Island crash involved alcohol as do most of these serious crashes.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by tis

It seems to me, as it seemed to me last time that it's the legislators that don't live around the like that don't want to change it. Why should they care? I didn't see an official count so maybe I am wrong.

Also the Diamond Island crash involved alcohol as do most of these serious crashes.

Actually in 2011 greater than 80% of reps from towns bordering the lake voted in favor of the speed limit. And Karel Crawford is from Moultonboro

And as far as alcohol is concerned one's chances of avoiding a near miss from an impaired driver going 45 MPH are a lot better than if they are going 70 MPH.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On a rainy and foggy Tuesday early morning, June 17, 2008 at about 2-am, a 32' Fountain with three women onboard struck a rocky ledge on the shoreline of Diamond Island resulting in one death.

After the Friday, July 4, 2008 Independence Day holiday weekend, like on July 7 or 8 or 9 or so, Gov John Lynch signed the initial Lake Winnipesaukee 45-day/30-night speed limit into law. If I remember correct, it was in effect for one year and then got extended, or something.

It was a 37' Formula sport cruiser, not a 32' Fountain.

If you are trying to tie the speed limit to this accident, I would focus more on the alcohol, weather conditions and failure to maintain a proper lookout.

[thinkxingu]

I kinda like where we're at because, let's be honest, the only people not speeding on the lake are the ones who don't take that level of speedboat there because of the limit.

It's like the highway system now. Sure, there's a 55/65 MPH speed limit that keeps supercars and bikes to a minimum but nobody actually stays under 65.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Actually in 2011 greater than 80% of reps from towns bordering the lake voted in favor of the speed limit. And Karel Crawford is from Moultonboro

And as far as alcohol is concerned one's chances of avoiding a near miss from an impaired driver going 45 MPH are a lot better than if they are going 70 MPH.

The issue at hand is day time speed limits. This incident referred to above happened at night where the limit wouldn’t change.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[tis]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Actually in 2011 greater than 80% of reps from towns bordering the lake voted in favor of the speed limit. And Karel Crawford is from Moultonboro

And as far as alcohol is concerned one's chances of avoiding a near miss from an impaired driver going 45 MPH are a lot better than if they are going 70 MPH.

Interesting. Would you have a list?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by tis

Interesting. Would you have a list?

You can go to the archived list at the NH House of Representatives and go back to 2011.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by tis

Interesting. Would you have a list?

Roll call votes in the House are available on line as a link from the bill's docket.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Descant

Roll call votes in the House are available on line as a link from the bill's docket.

I thought maybe he had found it already so had the list.

[John Mercier]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...sors=&lsr=2782

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by codeman671

It was a 37' Formula sport cruiser, not a 32' Fountain.

If you are trying to tie the speed limit to this accident, I would focus more on the alcohol, weather conditions and failure to maintain a proper lookout.

As I recall, wasn't the driver also the president of SBONH, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire which opposed a Lake Winnipesaukee speed limit. .... ..... and it got mega-tons and tons of attention in the NH media and NH news.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...sors=&lsr=2782

I think you want the 2011 vote.

[John Mercier]

The 2011 vote was opposition to increasing Lake Winnipesaukee daytime speed limit to 55.

It was voted down... and this would be the House Roll Call.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...nsors=&lsr=623

[chachee52]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As I recall, wasn't the driver also the president of SBONH, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire which opposed a Lake Winnipesaukee speed limit. .... ..... and it got mega-tons and tons of attention in the NH media and NH news.

Its my understanding she was something like that, maybe VP of SBONH or something, and it came across that Lynch passed the bill kind of out of spite in a lot of peoples minds. This accident didn't break any of the laws that passed right after.
MP didn't want to bill at the time because it was still being studied, and because of the weather that year there was only a few days they were actually able to use the radar guns up to that point of time.
Its a shame. Loved watching and listening to the "monster muscle" boats (as someone stated, not my words) run up and down the broads.

[John Mercier]

The Governor only gets to sign, let become law without their signature, or veto bill.

Lynch saw a 268 to 79 vote. Smart governors tread lightly when you see that kind of ratio.

Afterward when they tried to raise the speed limit... the vote was still 276 to 75... so the House conviction to the speed limit had gotten stronger.

If my dates are correct, that was the legislative term with the Republican super-majority.