Speed Limit test zones dead in the water!

[Seaplane Pilot]

It's clear to me that the Speed Limit crowd is trying to "cleanse" the lake of the so-called "Cigarette Style boats, which is their real reason for pushing the speed limit agenda. These types of boats include, but are not limited to, Cigarette, Fountain, Formula, Baja, etc. I think they could care less if a Jet Ski, Jet Boat, Bow Rider or Cruiser exceeds 45 mph, but they do care if it's a performance boat. Here's my question: Do you feel that the majority of performance boats are owned by:

1) People with waterfront or water access property that just use their boats for day boating?

or

2) People that keep the boat on the lake for the entire season and either sleep on their boats or just use it for day boating?

or

3) People that just bring their boat to the lake for the day and then leave?

In my opinion, the majority will be option 1 or 2 - not 3. Therefore, if the speed limit is eventually passed in some way, shape or form (which I highly doubt) these so-called performance boats are not going to leave the lake any time soon. I think the Speed Limit crowd will be in for a sorry, rude awakening if they think that they'll succeed in cleansing the lake of performance boats, as I believe they are attempting to do under the guise of "safety".

[Islander]

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

[Airwaves]

Islander et al wrote:

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee

So it's true! The ultimate goal of WinFabs and folks like you is to eliminate these boats from a 72 Square Mile lake! You paying attention in Concord? It has nothing to do with speed (which statistics show is not an issue in accidents on Winnipesaukee).

Islander et al also wrote:

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

Municipal water supplies in my neck of the woods also ban swimming Maybe you should be pushing for that as well since humans are a major source of pollution!

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

Funny thing is you do not mention the very large cruisers that are here and new ones are arriving every day. These large cruisers burn as much gas while cruising under the proposed speed limit. They are quite powerful, as it takes alot of power to push a 10,000 to 25,000 lb boat through the water at any speed. They deliver the largest wake of any boat on the lake, which undoubtedly causes more erosion than any go-fast boat ever could ever dream of. Last but not least, I would bet a fair amount of their skippers would rather not go to a pump-out station and deal with the dirty job of pumping them out, so when out in the broads the flip that little hidden switch and send all their waste into the water.
Ever wonder why the people of Squam Lake have passed an ordinance with NHDES to not allow boats with heads on board to operate on that lake?

[Uncle Fun]

Originally Posted by Islander

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee

Well Islander... Your ususal rose colored view glasses are shining once again and you have managed to share your one-sided convoluted opinon of boats in general...

WHO... Let me say it again... WHO decides or WHO knows what boats (if any) are too big, too fast, too powerful, too dangerous, too noisy, etc.??? (by the way the correct usage of the word TOO is spelled with 2 O's) - I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT'S YOU...

Face it... There are countless sizes, style, shapes, colors, lengths, horsepower, etc... of boats and NO ONE specific style is ever going to go away...

Variety is the spice of life and that is why there are so many choices of boats... There is something out there for everyone (except maybe you)...

America in general, and New Hampshire more specifically, is LIVE, FREE, or DIE... Until that changes, I will have whatever kind of boat I WANT TO...

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee
Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

OR 5) Boat owners who believe they are well within their rights to operate their boat (which they bought legally) on a lake where there are no restrictions.

[Seaplane Pilot]

[QUOTE=Islander]I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like WinnipesaukeeQUOTE]

...if what you say here is true. Why is it so hard to just come out and state your real agenda, rather than try to hide behind it? Also, please tell me how a performance boat causes too (too with two o's) much erosion? I'll never believe that one in a million years.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Quote Islander "I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee"

...if what you say here is true. Why is it so hard to just come out and state your real agenda, rather than try to hide behind it? Also, please tell me how a performance boat causes too (too with two o's) much erosion? I'll never believe that one in a million years.

It has been said that high performance boats don't have large wakes. I live just outside a no wake zone. In my experience the largest wake, larger than the Mount Washington's, is caused by a performance boat starting out. The horsepower expended in getting up on plane is enormous, and creates the largest wake on the lake.

I believe the pro speed limit community has explained its agenda many times. It is summarized in #4.

[SIKSUKR]

Just for the record,Seaplane Pilot is very concerned about shoreline erosion.I was just at his place and he just spent a considerable amount of money to fix and raise his perched beach which has been beaten up by large wakes.He just built the first wall a short few years ago.He also started the thread "Wakeup? no Wake down!".And finally he does not own a Performance boat or a boat capable of doing much more than 45 mph.While he is a friend,he does not know I'm posting this.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It has been said that high performance boats don't have large wakes. I live just outside a no wake zone. In my experience the largest wake, larger than the Mount Washington's, is caused by a performance boat starting out. The horsepower expended in getting up on plane is enormous, and creates the largest wake on the lake.

I believe the pro speed limit community has explained its agenda many times. It is summarized in #4.

Bear Islander, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. I have a home near an area (Dockham Shore) where a lot of cruisers come and go from and I'll tell you that these cruiser take-off wakes are exponentially bigger than any wake I have ever seen from a performance boat take off. See the earlier post by SikSukr - he has seen the damage and erosion first hand caused not by performance boats, but by cruisers.

[BroadHopper]

I suggest we contact Jerry Springer and move it to his show!

[bbarrell]

Let's face it, there's no speeding issue on Lake Winni. Look at the accident stats and get out on the lake for a day....speeding just isn't an issue. The 150ft violations? HUGE issue there and I really wish there was more ticketing related to that! Winnfabs thought they had it in the bag last year, then they thought they had it in the bag this year...all to no avail. We'll see about next years boating season but the number of opposers is growing immensely as the true facts are uncovered. I don't think any of the high performance boats are going ANYWHERE because I agree most of them live on or rent slips at the lake. Also, have your checked the economy and real estate market lately? Um, nobody is gonna buy those boats or any property there over the next 1-2 years.

I honestly can't remember the last time I drove my boat over 50mph but I'd like the freedom to do so under the proper conditions. No matter which side wins or loses (and even IF a law is passed).... this fight will never go away and neither will performance boats.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

Let's face it, there's no speeding issue on Lake Winni. Look at the accident stats and get out on the lake for a day....speeding just isn't an issue. The 150ft violations? HUGE issue there and I really wish there was more ticketing related to that! Winnfabs thought they had it in the bag last year, then they thought they had it in the bag this year...all to no avail. We'll see about next years boating season but the number of opposers is growing immensely as the true facts are uncovered. I don't think any of the high performance boats are going ANYWHERE because I agree most of them live on or rent slips at the lake. Also, have your checked the economy and real estate market lately? Um, nobody is gonna buy those boats or any property there over the next 1-2 years.

I honestly can't remember the last time I drove my boat over 50mph but I'd like the freedom to do so under the proper conditions. No matter which side wins or loses (and even IF a law is passed).... this fight will never go away and neither will performance boats.

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.

I guess I missed the fatality on Winnipeasukee this year. The fatality you mention a few years back involved a boat that wasn't speeding.

The one in Maine was with a craft that was a sitting in the dark(most agree) and could easily have happened if the boat was traveling 30mph or even less.

[bbarrell]

was speed that caused any of those accidents....which is was not. I believe the accident reconstruction from the death a few years back put the 'high speed craft' at a whopping 27mph....not to mention he was intoxicated AND hit a boat that had no lights on at night. We are all saddened by that accident but it's not grounds for a speed limit. This is the exact behavior I'm referring to. I actually have the 2006 USCG stats (freshly published)....Here's some info...read em and weep:

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



Unlike many states, the number of boat registration in NH is up slightly. Nationally, registrations have declined 2%.

two-thirds of all fatal boating accidents were drownings and nearly 90% of those were not wearing a PFD!

Alcohol was a contributing factor in 1 out of 5 accidents.

Skier mishap was the most common (22) boating accident in NH . . . collisions with fixed objects was next with 9 accidents. There were a grand total of 8 boat-to-boat collisons and according to the NH Marine Patrol, none of those 8 collisions involved a speed over 30 mph.

And interestingly, about 90% of the NH accidents involved boats under 25ft in length.

[Airwaves]

It it not speed these folks are trying to ban, it's boats capable of speed!

Islander wrote

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.

Note the wording HIGH SPEED CRAFT not accidents involved high speed because the accidents didn't involve speed over the limits being proposed!

Also note that the author had to go back several years to find an accident involving a HIGH SPEED CRAFT that involved alcohol, not speed, and had to point to an accident from another state where boater education is not required even to make the above statement!

CONCORD, this is a blatant attempt to outlaw an entire class of boat, and with it an entire class of people, from Lake Winnipesaukee.

As the data that the Marine Patrol was collecting will likely show, speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is NOT A PROBLEM, violation of the 150' rule IS!

To add to the discussion among your colleagues in Concord ask yourself and them, why did the folks who initially called for a speed limit REALLY throw down a roadblock to prevent two pilot speed limits on the lake?
Because they know that the data will show SPEED IS NOT A PROBLEM ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE!

[Uncle Fun]

Originally Posted by Islander

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.

ISLANDER... Again and Again after I read your posts, I realize just how out of touch you are and how you distort your words to suit your cause... HIGH SPEED BOATS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS - just as SPEED IS NOT THE CAUSE of most accidents...

Here is some info that may set your thinking straight... Then again, I must be dreaming... NOTHING will change your liberal and irrational views... Even this info:

Talk about ignoring facts you don't like................

***Speed is not a leading cause of boating accidents on New Hampshire lakes and rivers, and boat accidents have declined sharply, according to Coast Guard records examined by The Telegraph. (nh.com Feb 4, 2006)

Operator inexperience and inattention easily swamp speeding as a cause of accidents in the state, according to a Telegraph review of the Coast Guard’s Recreational Boating Accident Database for 1999-2004. Inexperience and inattention were blamed for 120 accidents; hazardous waters, 55 accidents; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; the weather 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.

Other causes were passenger/skier behavior, 16; sharp turn, 16; obstructed vision, 13; alcohol use, 8; congested waters, 6; improper loading, 6; wake, 5; improper anchoring, 3; improper boat lights, 3; overloading, 3; standing/sitting on bow, 3; rules-of-road infraction, 3; hull failure, 1; and unfamiliar waters, 1.

Boating accidents with injury or serious property damage declined by 68 percent from 1999-2004 in New Hampshire, the records show. The state began mandatory boater education in 2002. Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years. Deaths also declined, from six in 1999 to only two in 2004, the latest year available.

The number of reported accidents fell from 109 in 1999 to 94 in 2000, 74 in 2001, 68 in 2002 when mandatory boater education began, 49 in 2003, and 35 in 2004. That’s a decline of 68 percent over five years.***

SO... AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE... High Speed Performance Boats and even Speed are not the leading causes of accidents... Because a fatality involves a high speed craft does not mean that A) the high speed craft itself caused the accident. 2) Speed caused the accident. 3) There should be a blanket ban on high speed boats because you think they are involved in the most accidents... That is like saying we should outlaw Toyotas because they cause or are involved in the most accidents in this state... I don't know if that is true - I am trying to show a point here... Now I personally don't own a high speed boat, but you have to agree facts are facts... You have your facts and I have mine... The only difference is that I don't distort my facts to suit my agenda...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.

You sound EXACTLY like Island Lover. I missed the fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer, please provide details.

Your pole (sic) is useless, for all we know you polled your family and friends again and one more decided to register to vote.

[Islander]

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

Uncle Fun - Horsepower limits are in effect on dozens of NH lakes already. The MP has no problem enforcing them. I'm sure you can sneak in a few extra hp here and there, but not very much.

HP limits are also common on municipal water supplies. In MA, Quabin has a 10 horsepower limit.

If you think horsepower limits are not coming one of these years, then you are living in a dream.

[overlook]

Islander, lover and or bear lover: What death this year in NH are you referring to? Give us details. Define performance boat. 25 or 27 the result several years ago would still be the same. I am not aware that authorities would really ticket someone for 2mph over. That could be an error for differences of equipment.

The Union leader Blog showed that most boaters do not agree with you. There should be a poll from educated boaters that have taken the course. The results would be considerably different. Would you like to have plumbers make decisions on your vascular system? That what your so called poll feels like.

POLL: As an educated boater in NH, Considering that more registrations are on the increase and accidents are on the decline, Education is now mandatory, and NH has a safe passage law. Do you agree that a blanket speed limit of 25 night and 45 day on all NH lakes and waterways would be beneficial to ALL users. YES or NO

[WeirsBeachBoater]

1 Vote For No.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

Uncle Fun - Horsepower limits are in effect on dozens of NH lakes already. The MP has no problem enforcing them. I'm sure you can sneak in a few extra hp here and there, but not very much.

HP limits are also common on municipal water supplies. In MA, Quabin has a 10 horsepower limit.

If you think horsepower limits are not coming one of these years, then you are living in a dream.

You just keep changing tactics from one inaccuracy to another. I want you to tell me about the high speed fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer that you (ala APS, although he is much better at it) alluded to because I missed it and apparently so did all your SL friends.

Here is a real "fact" for you:

Originally Posted by ITD

From the Concord Monitor Article

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic," he said. (Marine Patrol Director David Barrett)

From the Citizen Article http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN

"One thing he (Barrett) is confident in is that many unexperienced boaters who are viewing vessels from shore, are likely believing boats are going faster than they are."

This whole issue is a sham, we are going to end up with a law that isn't necessary. Stop this madness legislators.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Islander

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

If you think 2 mph would make that much difference , you 're the one in a dream world. I think alcohol and/or inattention due to alcohol had more to do with it but heaven forbid we mention that. So lets ban alcohol just like back in the days of prohibition. I mean entirely , not just on the water or highway. I mean close the bars and liquor stores and rid your trash cans of brown bottles.

[Airwaves]

There you go again Islander!

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The first mention of this ficticious fatal accident was referrenced by YOU, post #52
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...light=islander

Several folks asked you then to give details, you did not. Now you are again referrencing this high speed fatal accident.

Islander in post #52
Another speed related boating death on the lake again this summer is all the facts I need.

I did a Lexis-Nexis search of publications, TV, broadcast and wire services for this fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2007. Know what I turned up?
Of course you do, NOTHING!

Then I localized it and did a search of 2007 in the Union-Leader and Foster's, want to know what I found? You already know Islander don't you?
NOTHING.

So when and where did this fatal accident involving speed on Lake Winnipesaukee happen? Looks like you're the only one who knows about it because we all know that you would never ever twist facts or make them up to aid your cause of getting High Speed Capable Boats off Lake Winnipesaukee, right?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

By the way, lets see what happens if you get your horsepower limit. Most marinas sell large boats, both cruisers and GFBL's. Hamper their business by taking that away and they go out of business. Maybe many of the big boats do leave. What funds the towns then? Industry down, major businesses hurting, the taxpayers have to make it up. Hopefully that will have a negative effect on your tax bill and drive you and your Posse of Protectors and your agendas off the lake.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

Thanks Mac, this family has suffered a huge loss. I'm sure a speed limit and getting GFBL boats off the lake would have prevented this tragedy, not!!!!!!

There is a reason why there is a law against children driving PWCs. How do you (Islander) know this was a "high speed" craft? How do you know it was going at a high speed? One more example of twisting the facts or in this case inserting your own incorrect facts to serve your agenda.

Originally Posted by Islander

......From now on can I post that Dan was doing 68 mph? .......

Why not, we're used to your misportrayals, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Seems like a perfectly logical progression to me.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

Originally Posted by Islander

There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee.

No confusion on my side...Islander clearly stated that the fatality this summer involved a high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. Last time I checked there was nothing tying the unfortunate accident with the PWC and the 15yo boy to speed. Many PWC hardly break a true (not speedo) 50mph under perfect conditions.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

While we are at it, who really is to say that he was doing 27mph and not 25mph? The speed was based on the damage done to both boats and not by any real reading. Depending on the angle of the drives when the impact occured this would affect how far the offending boat traveled up and over the stern of the boat that was hit. There is no way to tell where the drives were at and exactly how far up the nose was. It's all a guess.

Other than your thoughts that the boat in question does not belong on the lake Dan was not truly speeding or operating even operating faster than conditions warranted. Alcohol and innattention caused the accident (and maybe lack of lights?). Your petty speed limit revenge bill will not bring your friend back. Let it go, this is not the way to avenge him.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

While we are at it, who really is to say that he was doing 27mph and not 25mph? The speed was based on the damage done to both boats and not by any real reading. Depending on the angle of the drives when the impact occured this would affect how far the offending boat traveled up and over the stern of the boat that was hit. There is no way to tell where the drives were at and exactly how far up the nose was. It's all a guess.

Other than your thoughts that the boat in question does not belong on the lake Dan was not truly speeding or operating even operating faster than conditions warranted. Alcohol and innattention caused the accident (and maybe lack of lights?). Your petty speed limit revenge bill will not bring your friend back. Let it go, this is not the way to avenge him.

"Who is to say he was doing 27" that would be the Marine Patrol. And they said 28 not 27. 28 is more than 25 which makes it faster than the proposed limit.

If you can assume that 28 is really a lower number then I am free to assume a higher number. From now on can I post that Dan was doing 68 mph? People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine.

I suppose you want to assume the PWC in the fatal accident has standing still. However the accident certainly involved a high speed craft. Incredible how people have forgotten that accident. The legislature will not forget, nor will they forget the Maine accident.

I have no desire for revenge. In fact as far as Dan goes, there but for the grace of god go many of us. However I do not believe these boats are appropriate for Winnipesaukee.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine... Incredible how people have forgotten that accident...

I am surprised at your constant confusion over this issue. Did you not take the time to read the appeal that you cited for us numerous posts ago? Let me refresh your memory:

Belknap
No. 2003-627
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
v.
Daniel J. Littlefield
Argued: October 13, 2004

Opinion Issued: June 16, 2005

...The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257.


...WE AGREE WITH THE STATE...

Once again, and confirmed by the appeals court, Littlefield was convicted of the felony death of another by failing to maintain a proper lookut do in large part by the jury lawfully (and constitutionally) considering the ample evidence supplied by the State that he was intoxicated!

Originally Posted by Islander

...It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like...

Methinks one should perhaps take the time to deeply consider one's own opinion!

[SIKSUKR]

As the saying goes,"better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt".

[Islander]

Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?

All the rationalization in the world will never make 28 less than 25.


The poll I quoted is from the American Research Group.


ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

However I never claimed a speed limit would prevent fatal accidents. Speed limits on our roads do not prevent fatal accidents. The idea is to set standards and hope they lower the chances a little.

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?

All the rationalization in the world will never make 28 less than 25.


The poll I quoted is from the American Research Group.


ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

However I never claimed a speed limit would prevent fatal accidents. Speed limits on our roads do not prevent fatal accidents. The idea is to set standards and hope they lower the chances a little.

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

You are so off-base on PWC it is amazing. Nice sweeping statement. Nothing like a little scare tactic to start the day.
Not all PWCs are capable of exceeding the proposed speed limit. There are several models which can barely do 40 mph. Sure they can get up to speed quickly, but that isn't part of the arguement.
A speed limit will NOT keep PWCs off of any body of water. Well maybe except Squam. Mine will barely do 50 mph, and I won't be going anywhere else. I just may run circles around Bear Is. at top speed. Go ahead and report me...I am going the speed limit.

Yes, of course there are PWCs that go over 45 mph. But they won't be going away anytime soon.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Islander

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

Of course it will lower the chances - but how much? Do we have a 50% of all fatalities problem or more like 1%?

But why stop there? Why not go all the way?

Are you saying:

1. eliminating all boats from the lake will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
2. prohibiting kayaks from going out at night, even with lights, will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
3. requiring all passengers to be able to drive a boat will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (remember the sister who couldn't drive a boat when the driver went in the water to retrieve a map?)
4. prohibiting kids under 6 from swimming will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (how many kids have died?)
5. requiring all Mt. Washington boat passengers to stay at least 3 feet from the rail will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (did they ever find that guy?)

Who wants to go on the record supporting those statements?

You see the point? There are many things that could lower the chances of a fatal accident. But we are not seeing 45+ speed as a signficant contributing factor (ie, more than n% of fatalities). Alcohol on the other hand is - and is addressed by law. Below a certain point, the risks and results are acceptable - above a certain point, they are not.

Some people (not all) like speed. The country was founded on a bill of rights that includes the persuit of happiness. Those who try to restrict that persuit through law need to be challenged by those who respect law.

When I hit 60, I plan to purchase a jetski that will do 60 mph and persue me some happiness. Until then, I will fight to keep the right to be within the law as I safely persue.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?...

Once again you are incorrect, and I will ask you to please take a few moments and read the Supreme Court case that you cited.

From the same NH Supreme Court decision:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening...

Sorry Islander....not "weak evidence" but "significant evidence; the difference being, well, significant!

But hey, thanks for continually sending me these softballs, Lord knows I can use the batting practice!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Once again you are incorrect, and I will ask you to please take a few moments and read the Supreme Court case that you cited.

From the same NH Supreme Court decision:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening...

Sorry Islander....not "weak evidence" but "significant evidence; the difference being, well, significant!

But hey, thanks for continually sending me these softballs, Lord knows I can use the batting practice!

Skip - As people will do when on the losing side of an argument, you are attempting to jump on any possible misstatement of mine. You have made two large posts based on one sentence. All I said was that the prosecution only proved 2 glasses of wine. But it just doesn't matter.

Lets assume he was blasted if you like.

The facts are: 28 is more than 25, he was acquitted of BWI, the speed limit bill will pass.


I do not know how fast the PWC was going. But unless it was not moving it had a speed. And a PWC is a high speed craft.

I'm glad some of you understand that speed limits will lower the chances of a fatal accident.

Lakegeezer's ideas would I think save lives. If he thinks it prudent he can push for legislation on those ideas. I would predict none of them will pass. However I, like 78% of NH registered voters believe speed limits are a good idea, and I have no doubt they will pass.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

The facts are: 28 is more than 25, he was acquitted of BWI, the speed limit bill will pass.

Of course he was acquitted of BWI, how do you test someone a few days after the incident? He made himself scarce and did not come into contact with the Police for a day or two. No surprise there.

[BroadHopper]

Since Winnipesaukee is legally a drinking water supply, I think we should ban ALL BOATS. Motorized and nonmotorized. No pollutants and it will quit all this bickering about speed limits, no wake zones, no rafting zones, horsepower limits, length of boats limits etc.
Think of the money we save by eliminating all boats and the Marine patrol. No problems with some islanders as they think they can walk on water....................

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Islander

{snip}
I do not know how fast the PWC was going. But unless it was not moving it had a speed. And a PWC is a high speed craft.
{snip}

I have to ask what you consider to be a high speed. Also was the PWC the teenager riding one of these or a lesser watercraft ? Since you don't know how fast he was going I really have to question what drives you to apply the term "speed related fatality" to this incident ? Moreover last I had read the craft didn't look damaged and so the possibility of collision with another vessel seems remote at this time. In what way would this incident support the need for a speed limit which, if I recall what I've been told, is to protect "us" from the "speeders". Are "we" now pushing for another law to protect "us" from "ourselves" ?

As for Littlefield's speed I again remind people that if he was doing 28 mph and the Hartmans doing just 4 mph, the closing speed would have been under the proposed nightime limit. That anyone believes that, had the SL been in place that night, the results would have been any different ... well I guess I'll have to remind myself more often of what Einstein had to say about the vastness of human intelligence.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

If in fact there was an overwhelming majority of accidents to date that were caused by speeds seriously greater than the proposed limits I might agree with you but since CG reports do not agree with you neither will I.

Sure, I will not argue that at slower speeds you have more reaction. A 2-4mph over a 25mph sped limit is not ridiculous and it is still hard to prove exactly what speed within a few mph he was traveling. I have not heard of a claim to speed in the accident in Maine but do not doubt that they were flying although on a dark night with a boat in your path that was not lit they are not entirely at fault. A speed limit may likely have had no effect, if a person is going to speed they are going to speed. A speed limit will not stop them. I speed frequently in my car or suv, chances are you and the bulk of the people on the forum do as well.

Why don't you start a new crusade, maybe smart chips installed in cars or boats that will read the speed limit of a certain area and govern the vehicle automatically? Seems like it could be a new quest for you.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

You are way too easy. Not all PWCs are "high speed craft" (capable of going over 45 mph). In fact riding a PWC over 25 or 30 for any long period of time (longer than a couple of minutes) can be quite uncomfortable. That is why almost all the PWCs I see when on the lake are easily passed at 30 MPH in my boat. (Of course, you sitting on your island, with your preconceived misconceptions would probably swear I was going 90 if you saw me pass a PWC.)

Originally Posted by Islander

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

If anything, a speed limit will INCREASE the chances of a fatal accident on the lake by diverting MP from patrolling for 150' violations and other unsafe practices. Instead they will be sitting in one spot, probably in front of your house, sitting in speed traps.

Speed traps, BTW, that were tested this summer and showed there is NO speeding problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.


This 28 versus 25 BS is an estimate by an expert, it is not fact, we've argued this before and you are still wrong.

[Airwaves]

Something for Islander et al to work on after she has rid Winnipesaukee of those DANGEROUS boats.

This quote is from an Op-Ed piece in a California newspaper:

However, the latest statistics reveal recreational boating has never been safer, according to Scott Croft of BoatUS. The facts show boating is safer than riding a bicycle or motorcycle, and more people perish in bathtubs and swimming pools.

Link to the article:
http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2...t-harbor13.txt

So, there’s your next challenge Islander!!! Get those bicycles off the road and close down those pools! I wonder it a hot tub is considered a pool or bathtub?

[overlook]

Islander

Your logic states that kayaks and all paddle boats should be banned, because there involved in more deaths than performance boats.

This speed limit bill will not decrease the likely hood of a death related accident.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY.

[Islander]

It's not surprising that the MP can't find a speed problem in the test areas.

If you visit the offshore boating site you will find members, some that post in this forum, planning to either avoid the test sites or stay under the proposed limits when they are in the test sites.

If the truth doesn't work...... screw up the data.


If the MP wated to collect some valid data they could try unmarked boats in undisclosed areas. Publicizing the test area is... ..... .... ...... sorry I was laughing to hard to type.



ITD - Can you tell me the make and model of those PWC's that have a top speed under 45 mph?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

As the saying goes,"better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt".

"If at first you don't succeed. Quit! No sense in being a damn fool about it!" W.C. Fields

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

I guess I missed the fatality on Winnipesaukee this year. Please fill me in on the details

Originally Posted by ITD

You just keep changing tactics from one inaccuracy to another. I want you to tell me about the high speed fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer that you (ala APS, although he is much better at it) alluded to because I missed it.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

Islander, it seems as though your the only one who is aware of a fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer. Several people have asked for the details including myself and you just ignore these requests and continue with your agenda and misinformation campaign.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Islander

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

You are oblivious to tandem thoughts and justify your reasoning for your own self center. You know nothing about me and yet you choose to catorgorize me in general. You are so far from the truth, it sickens me.