Speed Limit test zones dead in the water!

[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?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by 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?

Tigershark, I see many of these on the lake, the Seadoo two seaters with the smaller engine made a few years ago. I'm sure there are others.

Originally Posted by Islander

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

Once again you project your actions onto others.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Tigershark, I see many of these on the lake, the Seadoo two seaters with the smaller engine made a few years ago. I'm sure there are others.

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Yamaha XL 700 Will barely make 40
Seadoo GTI again a stretch to do 40

Also, Islander how about the data MP DID collect from undisclosed speed zones!!! Oh ya, you wouldn't want to mention that, because it doesn't support your crusade!!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

Another great falsification, wanna rethink that one?. Tigershark/Arctic Cat never made a machine that would break even a true 60mph. The fastest pwc to date on the market (in true mph not false speedo mph, or "dreamo" as many pwc enthusiasts call it) is approximately 70mph. There are two machines that are capable of this, the new 250hp Kawasaki 3 seater and the 2 seater 215hp Sea Doo RXP. I am a PWC lover and have owned and ridden dozens of machines. My fastest one was a highly modified GP1200R, with $6k+ in mods it was only good for 73.7mph on radar. If you think that your probably stock Tigershark was a 70mph machine you are sadly mistaken, or just inflating speeds to suit your own agenda.

I can give you the name of an ex Tigershark dealer (they have not been produced in years) and you can verify for yourself. As for the speed stats of the Kawasaki and the Sea Doo I would be more than happy to dig up a test report if you need it. My FX-HO Yamaha is a 60mph machine all day long, under perfect conditions and no fuel you can see 62-63mph. The speedo may read 70+ but it is not accurate, nor is the speedo on any pwc. Riva Yamaha in FL is a Yamaha and Sea Doo dealer and one of the top pwc performance companies on the planet. Their performance upgrade section lists the actual top speed of most of the top machines onm the market and what their mods do to add to it.

By the way, our two yamaha 700 3 seaters will not break 45mph, probably 42 max.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

Please read my sentence closely. I did not say the Tigershark was a Seadoo. I was giving you two examples. I think I am beginning to understand why you can't be reasoned with.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by ITD

Please read my sentence closely. I did not say the Tigershark was a Seadoo. I was giving you two examples. I think I am beginning to understand why you can't be reasoned with.

If he/she thinks a Tigershark ever did 70 mph, then he/she has no concept of being able to judge speed.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

Tigershark NEVER made a PWC that did 70. If you saw 70 on a dreamometer that doesn't make it true. Even today there is not a production PWC that will do over 70. Closest right now is the Kawasaki Ultra 250 and the SeaDoo RXPs and RXTs and the Yamahe GPRs, they all come in 68 -70 MPH. Tigershark hasn't made anything in years and the fastest PWC on the water when they quit were in the 60 MPH range. I have done endless GPS tests on man y different PWC so I have first hand experience in this area.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Islander

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.

Cite your source please.

Of course they publicized the test locations, they were planning on ticketing in those areas. If you are going to make a new law and enforce it, it is rather key that you tell people about it first.

"Yes sir, we're going to have to give you a ticket for speeding. Oh, you didn't know there was a limit now? Of course not, we didn't tell you because we thought you might slow down otherwise."

[Airwaves]

May I suggest to those of us who believe that there are currently laws on the books in NH that address the issues Islander et al are pushing focus our comments, via this forum, to Legislators in Concord?

Instead of responding to the outragous falsehoods and lies that Islander(s) et al are making, just point out to lawmakers that they are false and show them, through facts, statisics etc., why they are false.

Challenge legislators and the Governor to follow the data! No speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in years! NH requires a safe boating certificate! Data collected by the Marine Patrol! Things are working, the lake is safe, leave it alone!

In my opinion, Islander Et Al, has a problem, perhaps it is that he/she needs to be the center of attention?

Let's call on LEGISLATORS to really look at this bill and the data that the NH Marine Patrol has collected and KILL IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Cite your source please.

Of course they publicized the test locations, they were planning on ticketing in those areas. If you are going to make a new law and enforce it, it is rather key that you tell people about it first.

"Yes sir, we're going to have to give you a ticket for speeding. Oh, you didn't know there was a limit now? Of course not, we didn't tell you because we thought you might slow down otherwise."

Here is one thread on the subject. You better get there quick, based on past experience those posts are going to start disappearing soon.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=157911

I like the quote below from that thread. It explains the entire thing was a sham.

"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."

I doubt Barrett ever had any intension of handing out any tickets. The entire thing was a delay tactic, or as the offshore people themselves think, a way to move it out of site. Then he has the incredible nerve to actually say he was trying to do what WinnFABS wanted. Give me a break!

We may all disagree with the need for a speed limit. But if you think the MP have not been playing their own game, then you have your head in the sand.

[Airwaves]

Concord, here’s the thing. Director Barrett did NOT say or imply this statement! It is a slanderous statement put forward by questionable sources on the Winnipesakee dot com forum trying to imply Director Barrett had no intention of collecting data and that you, members of the state legislature are in complicity.

Where did the following quote come from?

"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."

Someone on the internet identifying him/herself as OCDACTIVE!

Concord, now the opponents of a speed limit have taken to slandering a respected state official (Director Barrett) with "quote" from anonymous sources that could very well be themselves on an internet forum.

There is no data to support their position. There is an abundance of data to support the position that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.

It's time to show leadership and end this nonsense, there are laws in place to handle all the issues raised by the "speed limit, powerboats gotta go" crowd.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

Here is one thread on the subject. You better get there quick, based on past experience those posts are going to start disappearing soon.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=157911

I like the quote below from that thread. It explains the entire thing was a sham.

"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."

I doubt Barrett ever had any intension of handing out any tickets. The entire thing was a delay tactic, or as the offshore people themselves think, a way to move it out of site. Then he has the incredible nerve to actually say he was trying to do what WinnFABS wanted. Give me a break!

We may all disagree with the need for a speed limit. But if you think the MP have not been playing their own game, then you have your head in the sand.

There were a lot of things stated in that thread, many of them inaccurate. Why is this the only one you obviously took as fact?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

There were a lot of things stated in that thread, many of them inaccurate. Why is this the only one you obviously took as fact?

It could be BS but it does have the ring of truth.

It does illustrate the attitude of the high performance boat crowd. Not exactly the image one gets on this forum is it!

However I posted the link to back up my claim that the high speed crowd have devised a plan to skew the MP test area data. It does a pretty good job proving my theory doesn't it?

That thread is all the evidence anyone needs to prove than any data collected on test area speeds is useless.

Yet the MP is still out there every day wasting money collecting "data". Since the test zones are dead why don't they move this data collection effort to an area high speed boats are not avoiding. It's all a sham!

[Chris Craft]

The accident in Maine is under investigation. There is some speculation that the smaller boat may have run into the speed boat. The MP said that alcohol was not a factor for the PEOPLE IN THE SPEED BOAT. They have not said anything about the people in the other boat. Let them finish the investigation before you point the fingures at the speed boat.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

"...Let them finish the investigation before you point the fingers at the speed boat..."

A really good idea!

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

"...There is some speculation that the smaller boat may have run into the speed boat..."

Ummm...ummm...

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

It could be BS but it does have the ring of truth.

It does illustrate the attitude of the high performance boat crowd. Not exactly the image one gets on this forum is it!

However I posted the link to back up my claim that the high speed crowd have devised a plan to skew the MP test area data. It does a pretty good job proving my theory doesn't it?

That thread is all the evidence anyone needs to prove than any data collected on test area speeds is useless.

Yet the MP is still out there every day wasting money collecting "data". Since the test zones are dead why don't they move this data collection effort to an area high speed boats are not avoiding. It's all a sham!

It was my understanding (Laconia Citizen article) that there were(are???) six test zones where speed data has been (is being???) collected. Where the locations of all six disclosed? I only know of the two proposed speed limit areas and only assume that they were two of the six test areas.

I think that website attracts a very different crowd than this website, it's not my scene. I seriously doubt that any "high performance boaters" try to hide the fact that they enjoy high performance boats here. People don't buy those to blend in...

That said, this issue should never be about attitudes. I don't own a high performance boat, probably never will, and I am certain that there are plenty of high performance boaters out there that I would never be friends with. Many I've met strike me as jerks (plenty of good ones too). However, I strongly oppose laws aimed squarely at getting rid of people I don't like or don't share opinions with. To do otherwise would make me a bigot, or at least a snob.

If there were evidence of a need, I'd be completely for a speed limit, I boat with my kids, and I have strong protective instincts. I am 100% certain, based on years of boating on Winnipesaukee, that for the time being, a speed limit will not affect me at all, positively or negatively. All the accident data available clearly can only back up my certainty. I also occasionaly boat in places with speed limits, and can assure you Winnipesaukee boating is vastly less stressful and surely feels safer. Spend a day boating on the CT. River down in MA sometime if you wish to see how well 45 MPH speed limits work. It's an eye opener.

[ITD]

New editorial in Today's Citizen:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...045/-1/CITIZEN

From the editorial:

"We have said in a previous editorial that we seriously question the need for a boating speed limit law. Stronger enforcement of boating regulations already on the books — like the safe-passage and headway-speed rules — would go a long way toward making a day out on the water more pleasurable for everyone out on the water, regardless of whether they are in a speedboat or a canoe. Also, the need for boaters to exercise courtesy cannot be overstated."

These people speak sense.

[bbarrell]

I just want to second the above poster who provided details on how to contact your local rep. They are getting hundreds of phone calls per week from supporters of this bill. Trust me, I've attended the hearings.
Please, I implore you, contact your rep to let them know how you want them to vote. They are working for YOU! There is strength in numbers and if they only hear from supporters, this bill may pass.

A quick phone call or letter is all it takes. I see many on the board who seem to not agree with the bill, speak your mind to the people that will listen!
The most important folks to contact right now are the ones listed as part of the 'transporation committee'...they are determining the fate of this bill shortly.
Thank You

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

I just want to second the above poster who provided details on how to contact your local rep. They are getting hundreds of phone calls per week from supporters of this bill. Trust me, I've attended the hearings.
Please, I implore you, contact your rep to let them know how you want them to vote. They are working for YOU! There is strength in numbers and if they only hear from supporters, this bill may pass.

A quick phone call or letter is all it takes. I see many on the board who seem to not agree with the bill, speak your mind to the people that will listen!
The most important folks to contact right now are the ones listed as part of the 'transporation committee'...they are determining the fate of this bill shortly.
Thank You

I have made several telephone calls to various members of the transportation. Left a couple messages, and spoke directly to a couple. They very much so appreciate hearing from people on this and several other transportation issues that happen to have come up.

I'm glad I did it, and so were they, thanks for the suggestion.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

The most important folks to contact right now are the ones listed as part of the 'transporation committee'...they are determining the fate of this bill shortly. Thank You

Where are their names listed? Perhaps the power of the Winni forum can overcome the power of funded a political action committee. Again.

[Islander]

When you go up against the boating industry, and administrators that are looking for future boating industry jobs, you need professional help.

Don't forget to also contact your State Senator. That is where speed limits lost by just two votes last time. The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/b...xtcommcode=H27

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/sena...s/senate15.asp

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Islander

When you go up against the boating industry, and administrators that are looking for future boating industry jobs, you need professional help.

Don't forget to also contact your State Senator. That is where speed limits lost by just two votes last time. The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island.

It is refreshing to hear that you admit you need professional help. We finally are in agreement on one point.

Hopefully, the new State Senator has much more common sense and is more open minded than his "Island neighbor".

R2B

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island

BTW, the Senate roster doesn't show anyone claiming Bear Island as their residency, also I think they represent a District, not an Island

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by 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?

1993 SeaDoo GTS. top speed a whopping 37MPH. For sale by the way for $1500.....

1996,97,97 SeaDoo GTI top speed about 45MPH....

1997 SeaDoo GS 45MPH tops....

[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