Proposed Law

[ApS]

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

Where I've just moved to, about 1 in 10 powerboats pass by at night—illegally—without lights. (I'll find out why, but I think it relates to commercial fishing.)

Mee&Mac: I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right?

Whatever speed limit is voted for, I still couldn't feel vindicated if I'd killed one or both kayakers—but that's just me.

Mee&Mac: You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision?

Lake Winnipesaukee has been featured in movies with Smith Mountain Lake used as Winnipesaukee.

Smith Mountain Lake recorded "a double-fatality" last year, with the same cult responsible. We only have about ten years of widespread, grossly irresponsible, actions on Winnipesaukee; plus, the Big Lake only has a summer season—plus, "Noise and Action" is mostly on weekends. Offshore, the speed hazard to other boaters is minimal. Even then, Soundings magazine writes this month:

"...I could keep going on with the horror stories, but we all the the message. The number of people on the water who are lacking even the most basic boating skills and knowledge is staggering. We have a problem..."
—Tom Neale

Now, how many of the speed cult have any "skill and knowledge" in boat control at speeds over 45? Over 65? Or double that—at 130? (One-hundred-thirty MPH being a speed already seen on Winnipesaukee in recent seasons).


Mee&Mac: And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents".

A prohibition of alcohol aboard boats won't happen; add to that overpowered, overweight boats with something-to-prove-drivers—and there's a problem.

Mee&Mac: Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

OK, which is Lake Winnipesaukee—and which is Long Lake?






Mee&Mac: Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

There are probably average family boaters that don't know when they're in harm's way: the boaters that do know, support 45/25.

BTW, I have a screen-capture of ARG's last poll showing 76% of NH's polled, support the new law. Anyone with objections to publishing it here?

This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

Take Courage! The speed-cult is mailing their protests from Hawaii, across the nation—and from Sweden—to New Hampshire Representatives as we speak.

Oops...Don't take Courage—that's a British beer!

Mee&Mac: I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade?

Here, most readers don't profess this level of personal...um...um...um...paucity of cognition.

The MPs certainly seem to know where to look and, annoyingly, stake out NASWA. (That's just one lakeside locale where alcohol is served to boat captains having overpowered, overweight boats).

BWI-arrests are rare on Winnipesaukee. A speed limit would target the most dangerous BWI-perps, IMHO.

Mee&Mac: I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult.

I'm not sensing "the empathy" for the two night-kayaking visitors. In their neighboring state, there may not be the same lighting requirement as New Hampshire's. (I'd find it very difficult to paddle while holding a lantern over my head in NH—but that's just me.)

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....[/COLOR]

No to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula. Fountain does make an "Executioner"...

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

[Hottrucks]

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where???

and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more??? I don't know of any obstuctions on the east side of the lake that look like that.... how ever looking at it again these pics where not taken with the same lens or Zoom factor the bottom one has a much higher detail to it so it was taken closer up giving the impression that the rocks are out further.....Kinda a smoke and mirrors thing????

[chipj29]

I sent a mass email to State Reps regarding my position on HB847. I received about a dozen emails back. Every single one of them opposes the speed limit. I spoke to my local Rep last night. She (a Dem) is for a speed limit. Of course she does not own a boat.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I also had a great response from reps. Seems the tide is turning again. I think it is since they (read winnfabs) changed the bill (AGAIN) and made it a Winnipesaukee only bill. People in other communities in NH have called their reps and let them know that they are afraid.....there is that word again? That the performance boats will come to their beloved lake. Which isn't far fetched, I know several hot rod pwc owners who were discussing that a speed limit on winni, would give them the impetus to visit other lakes such as Winnisquam, Newfound, and Sunapee. So look out peaceful lakes....Here comes the Horsepower!!! Send thank you cards to Winnfabs!

[Hottrucks]

to think that people would load their boats on a trailer and bring them to another lake.... I think ....Is Foolish.... Most of the boats you want to condemn are tied to a dock and never leave the lake. I don't see people buying a truck and some a trailer to haul them....Most of the other lakes don't have the amenities that boaters are looking for ( I can hear it now) LIKE A DECENT BOAT RAMP or PARKING....probably shouldn't go there since I can't find out where the $5 from all boat Reg's for ramp maintenance is going??...no restaurants, no place to anchor ( rafting laws), so Unless they are going to go there and run there boats back and forth on the lake what else are they going to do???

I'm sorry do you have to find a rest room???

[Dave R]

I'm gonna guess the bottom picture is Long Lake, the tiny size of the photos makes it tough though. There's no big mountains visible from Long Lake and the top photo looks like it has mountains. 'Course, could be a trick and neither photo is Winnipesaukee or Long Lake.

Long Lake is remarkably similar to Alton Bay and Meredith Bay (except it's kinda shallow at 45 feet max depth, if memory serves), if you connected them end to end. Both of those bays are proven to be safely navigated by vessels at least as large as 220 feet and/or capable of speeds in excess of 100 MPH. Both also connect to much broader sections of the lake, some parts of which are nearly as wide open as Sebago Lake, which happens to be directly connected to Long Lake via the Songo River. You can't think of Long Lake as a narrow, 11 mile long, lake alone, it's connected to a lake nearly as big as, and much more wide open than Winnipesaukee.

I would not recommend operating any boat at planing speed, at night, while drunk on any lake. I don't think a speed limit would fix that kind of behavior. Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways.

[Airwaves]

APS wrote in part

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)....

I'm only joining in this discussion briefly to ask my good friend APS if he is certain about his statement?

The photo you attached appears to have palm trees in the background. So how close is this guy to you?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

APS wrote in part


I'm only joining in this discussion briefly to ask my good friend APS if he is certain about his statement?

The photo you attached appears to have palm trees in the background. So how close is this guy to you?

APS is listed as having a location of Florida and Winnipesaukee, so I would assume that he/she is a seasonal resident here. Or is it just a misc picture that APS posted??? Clearly there was no real knowledge of the brand of boat pictured. The "hook" on the bow of that boat is clearly a telltale sign of Fountain. Being that Formula does not make a style boat like that I find it funny that the time would have been spent checking out the model names of Formula to go with the rest of the post yet no notice was made of the types of boats they build...

[Hottrucks]

Palm trees on Winnie now thas funny!!!!!!!!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

It's been eight days: He's not "firing".

Originally Posted by codeman671

Not to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula.

One of my two errors: the boat appears to be named "A Salt and Battery"—my monitor isn't sharp enough to tell.

But why the in-your-face name? What's next, "Assault With a Deadly Weapon", "Manslaughter", "Malice Towards All"?

Pretty sharp—those who spotted the palm trees. This particular boat was located ¼-mile from me, and 1/10 mile from the open ocean—where excess speeds are tolerated by the widely-scattered boaters out there. Speed limit opponents—especially those who choose to ignore speed limit laws—need to continue displaying such sharpness at 80-MPH.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Fountain does make an "Executioner".

What??? No Fountain "Obliterator"??? There are still some kids out there to run over out there.

Originally Posted by Eric P

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.

Kayaks are normally quiet and are not normally equipped with navigation lights. The kayakers weren't charged for nudity or drinking—nor for the absense of a lantern.

It's not "nothing" when you fail to see objects in your path at speed—at any time. A skipper is responsible for his boat's actions—particularly when there are breathing, sentient beings in his boat or in front of it).

When a ball rolls out into my path between parked cars, I slow down. At what is being called a "slow" speed, Littlefield had ample time to observe the slower boat to his left before crushing it under his overweight, overpowered, 4½ tons. That the excessively-long deck on his 4½-ton boat covered the other boat from view hasn't been discussed.

Originally Posted by jrc

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where??? and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more???

Try Google for combinations of "130-MPH, jolly-roger, winnipesaukee, performance-boats, donziregistry.com", and it should appear. I posted the link here months ago.

As in most things nautical, Dave R is right: Long Lake is the bottom photo. The two were selected for identical size (17K) to illustrate how executioners in one lake can be just as deadly in another. (Duh).

(Dave R is also right about his top speed handling as "nervous" in his own recreational boat.)

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways..."

Alcohol is an increasing problem: Records are falling.

A woman was recently stopped with a BAC nine times the limit.

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit...Good luck trying to enforce it.

Just two weeks ago, a driver (with extremely important connections) "got enforced" caught going 70-in-a-30 New Hampshire speed limit zone. Maybe watch how this case runs its course?

Most citizens are wishing the state "good luck" in the enforcement of this case.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak...

In my new—and admittedly eccentric—neighborhood, a family has cut the good front half off of a wrecked speedboat and is using it to store their garbage cans in! From the roadway, it looks pretty normal!

[Airwaves]

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

Who has admitted that a speed limit is unenforceable?

And please consider that most of us OWN power boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Leislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

I am more frightened by a boat going 20 mph and not paying attention than a boat going 60. For some reason they always seem to be paying keen attention to what is ahead of them.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I am more frightened by a boat going 20 mph and not paying attention than a boat going 60. For some reason they always seem to be paying keen attention to what is ahead of them.

I totally disagree with you. I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort. That's the honest truth, whether you believe me or not. When you're traveling 100 feet per second (70mph), it is not at all hard to break the 150 foot rule, just because you didn't see a small boat in time. When a boat is traveling slower, the operator has more time to react - that's a simple fact.

A lake speed limit is enforceable - I've never even suggested that it wasn't. I've personally witnessed enforcement of a speed limit on Squam.

Is it 100% enforceable? No. But neither are highway speed limits.

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. And I've seen how much having a speed limit can improve this situation. In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone. I just wish that the bill hadn't been amended so that Wini was the only lake affected by it.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers.

Perhaps the bill should be amended to ban paddlers from the Lake.

A win-win for all.

The amended bill would protect you (you seem to be partial to the government protecting you) and allow life, as it has been for many, many decades at the Lake, to continue.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Perhaps the bill should be amended to ban paddlers from the Lake. A win-win for all.

The amended bill would protect you (you seem to be partial to the government protecting you) and allow life, as it has been for many, many decades at the Lake, to continue.

This is exactly why we need the lake speed limit bill. You and many others fee that your "right" to travel at unlimited speeds in more important than the rights of others to even use the lake.

My grandfather kayaked on wini. Paddlers were here for hundreds of years before powerboats, so if you're suggesting squatter's rights, we would win.


From RSA 270:1 "II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

fficeffice" />>"Among these treasures of our land is water—fast becoming our most valuable, most prized, most critical resource. A blessing where properly used—but it can bring devastation and ruin when left uncontrolled."
Eisenhower, Dwight D. 34th president of the ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">United States.lace>
lace w:st="on">lace>
lace w:st="on">We have laws mainly because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty. We wouldn’t need most of our laws if everyone was truly concerned with (and understood) how their actions affect others. But unfortunately some people don’t really care (or truly understand) how their actions affect others.

A speed limit law does not ban anyone from using the lake. All it will do is require a the fastes powerboaters to slow down, which the proponents of the bill feel will make the lake safer.
lace>>

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is exactly why we need the lake speed limit bill. You and many others fee that your "right" to travel at unlimited speeds in more important than the rights of others to even use the lake.

My grandfather kayaked on wini. Paddlers were here for hundreds of years before powerboats, so if you're suggesting squatter's rights, we would win.

Is this your way of telling the Forum that your grandfather was capable of using common sense to protect himself from danger and hence never felt a need to have a speed limit on the Lake while he enjoyed its serendipitous moments paddling its surface?

So, why is it that you are not able to enjoy the Lake, as did your grandfather, without government intervention to protect you?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Is this your way of telling the Forum that your grandfather was capable of using common sense to protect himself from danger and hence never felt a need to have a speed limit on the Lake while he enjoyed its serendipitous moments paddling its surface?

No. That was just my response to your suggestion that high-speed powerboaters had some sort of squatters rights on the lake, just because they have been here for decades. People have been paddling on Wini for hundreds of years longer than powerboats. The mention of my grandfather was just to make the point that my own family has been living in NH and paddling on NH lakes for generations.

So, why is it that you are not able to enjoy the Lake, as did your grandfather, without government intervention to protect you?

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.

My grandfather was in the NH Legislature, and I'm certain that if he was still alive and still there, that he would vote for HB 847.

Without laws (what you call government intervention), we would have anarchy. Laws exist to ensure fairness (at least this is what they were originally meant to do). I see a lake speed limit as fairness, since it doesn't ban any boaters, but just requires the fastest ones to slow down.

Your idea of fairness is to kick the paddlers off the lake. You seem to believe that those with the most horsepower have some sort of inherent right over other boaters. I don't see that as a right.

Originally Posted by Cal

May I respectfully suggest you simply paddle faster.

Few paddlers can keep up with me, including most guys. The maximum sustained speed for a sea kayak is about 6 mph - and the average recreational kayaker can only paddle at about 3 mph, which is 15 times slower than a 45 mph powerboat.

Originally Posted by jrc

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers. People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

People who are made fun of rarely see it as funny. And, personally I don't see anything funny about putting other boaters in danger, or in forcing smaller/slower boats off the lake.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Your idea of fairness is to kick the paddlers off the lake. You seem to believe that those with the most horsepower have some sort of inherent right over other boaters. I don't see that as a right.

Your idea of fairness is to limit the speed of all boats on the lake to a speed limit that you see fit yet it has been proven that this is not necessary. The proponents of your bill have been trying to ban a certain type of boat from the lake. How fair is this to the people that enjoy these types of boats? More people have died on the lake in the last 5-10 years on their own accord than at the hands of these evil boaters.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Few paddlers can keep up with me, including most guys. The maximum sustained speed for a sea kayak is about 6 mph - and the average recreational kayaker can only paddle at about 3 mph, which is 15 times slower than a 45 mph powerboat.

I trust that you can keep it under 45mph then?

Unfortunately for you, your super-human strength was not accompanied with eagle-like vision and super hearing so that you can notice these motorized nuisances and avoid danger...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

People who are made fun of rarely see it as funny. And, personally I don't see anything funny about putting other boaters in danger, or in forcing smaller/slower boats off the lake.

Who is forcing? I think Cal just asked you to go faster...

Since a customer of mine in Singapore decided to wake me up at 2:30am to spread some cheer I might as well spread mine here. A new thought... Why don't we start a new law that curbs pollution on the lake by prohibiting any boats (be it paddle, sail or motorized) that does not have bathroom facilities? Something tells me that these thousands of paddlers out on the lake have to "go" at some point. Where is it ending up? In the lake. Maybe this is the answer as to why pollution is up and water quality is down.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.
.

My great great grandfather had an awsome horse that he use to ride to town with until those dang horseless carraiges started to run his kind over.As you said yourself "THINGS HAVE CHANGED JUST A BIT SINCE THEN".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone.

May I respectfully suggest you simply paddle faster.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. And I've seen how much having a speed limit can improve this situation. In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone. I just wish that the bill hadn't been amended so that Wini was the only lake affected by it.

Evanstar, you're killing me here. How many times have you been on the Lake, 5, 10, 15, 20 ??????? We've established before that your first time on the lake was a year or two ago. Now you imply how many close encounters you've had with "high speed" boats. Give me a break. I too "paddle" on the lake, for a lot longer than you have. I have NEVER had a close encounter with a speeding boat, or any boat for that matter and I paddle in some busy areas. I find it very hard to believe that you have had so many close encounters. I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

All it will do is require a the fastes powerboaters to slow down, which the proponents of the bill feel will make the lake safer

Exactly, since there is no problem, as shown by statistics and accident data, all the speed limit will do is make you and your buddies "feel" safer. But I seriously doubt that too, because most, if not all of the boats you see from your kayak are already going slower than 45.



No wonder Don has had to replace his server with all the hot air the speed limit proponents cycle through it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Evanstar, you're killing me here. How many times have you been on the Lake, 5, 10, 15, 20 ??????? We've established before that your first time on the lake was a year or two ago. Now you imply how many close encounters you've had with "high speed" boats. Give me a break. I too "paddle" on the lake, for a lot longer than you have. I have NEVER had a close encounter with a speeding boat, or any boat for that matter and I paddle in some busy areas. I find it very hard to believe that you have had so many close encounters. I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

I don’t lie. I never said that every close call that I’ve had with high-speed powerboats was on Winni – many have been on other large NH lakes, which is why I’m upset that the bill has been so watered down that it currently only applies to Wini. But I have had close calls on Winni, and the boats were going way faster than 30MPH, and they came way closer than 150 feet, before they even noticed me. Since you weren’t there, what gives you the right to call me a liar?

Exactly, since there is no problem, as shown by statistics and accident data, all the speed limit will do is make you and your buddies "feel" safer. But I seriously doubt that too, because most, if not all of the boats you see from your kayak are already going slower than 45.

There is a problem. Just because you haven’t had any close calls with powerboats, is not proof that others haven’t. Just because no one has been killed in recent years is not proof that paddlers like me haven’t had close calls. I know plenty of other paddlers who have had very similar close calls as I have – most of whom now refuse to even paddle on Winni, because of the bad experiences they have had. I know one NH Senator who will be voting for the speed limit bill. She told me that her husband had a very close call with a powerboat when he was kayaking. At last year’s Transportation Committee hearing, a number of paddlers told of having close calls with high-speed boats on NH lakes. I suppose that we must all be lying.

And I’ve seen plenty of boats on Winni that were going faster than 45 MPH. If all the powerboats on the lake are traveling at under 45 mph, why is there so much opposition to this bill?

No wonder Don has had to replace his server with all the hot air the speed limit proponents cycle through it.

Right. I post in support of the bill and 7 members immediately attack me. Most of the hot air is obviously coming from the other side. You guys have this bullying attitude, where you feel that having more HP gives you the right to put other boaters in danger. But in an intellectual debate you can’t even compete with one college girl, without ganging up on her.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Unfortunately for you, your super-human strength was not accompanied with eagle-like vision and super hearing so that you can notice these motorized nuisances and avoid danger...

I’m not super-human . . . I’m just in very good shape. I do notice high-speed power boats – but how am I supposed to avoid danger when they are traveling so much faster than me. At my maximum speed of 6 mph it takes me nearly 2 seconds just to travel the length of my 16 foot kayak. In that same 2 seconds a 70 mph powerboat covers 205 feet of lake.

Something tells me that these thousands of paddlers out on the lake have to "go" at some point. Where is it ending up? In the lake. Maybe this is the answer as to why pollution is up and water quality is down.

First of all, I don’t pee in lakes (or even in the ocean). I doubt that I could even do so without tipping my kayak over. Kayaking requires effort, so getting dehydrated is usually more of a problem than having than having to pee. And it really is not all that difficult to return to shore and pee in the woods, should the need actually arise.

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? Without looking it up, what are the 4 largest lakes in the state and what is their size comparison to Winnipesaukee? Let me get you started. The next closest lake to Winnipesaukee in size is your beloved Squam. If your close calls took place there then your speed limit is not working. Squam is considerably shallower and rockier than Winni and also only 15% of the size. Big difference. How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam? On Ossipee? Umbagog? Newfound? the Connecticuits? Winnisquam? Massabesic? Having been on many of these lakes myself I have not seen a speed issue other than an occasional rogue bass boat going for a beer run. After Squam the next closest lake in size is 10% of the size on Winni. Please tell us where your close calls have occurred so we can hand you a shovel to dig a deeper hole.

How about your car or are you a peddler and a paddler? How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Hey, I didn’t bring up the environment issues – you did! I never said that we should ban all powerboats.

I just found it humorous that that you needed to stoop so low as to try to make an environmental issue out of my supposed need to pee in the lake, in an attempt to poke fun at me.

My intentions here are only to support a lake speed limit because I honestly believe that one of the best ways to make the lake safer is to slow down the fastest boats. I have the right to support this bill – just as you have the right to oppose it. But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

Well, maybe you should take the time to read my past posts, rather than accuse me of writing something that I never wrote. I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum.

I have paddled over 500 miles on NH's lakes in the past two summers - many of these miles was on Winni. My best friend and I had our first close call with a high-speed powerboat the very first time that we kayaked on the lake. Since that episode I’ve had a difficult time convincing her to kayak on Winni.

I've always been comletely honest here - I’ve never once insinuated anything. In my very first post I openly stated that I had never kayaked on Winni before – which is why I originally joined this forum – to learn more about kayaking on the lake. I’ve never once implied that Winni is a terrifying place – if it was, I would not kayak on it. I merely stated that I feel is very dangerous to allow powerboats to continue to travel at unlimited speed on a lake that is also used by small human-powered boats.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? . . . How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam?

I’ve had close calls on several of these lakes – I don’t feel that I need to document every encounter here – I live only 3 miles from Moore Reservoir, which is one of the lakes where I’ve had numerous close calls (since I paddle there the most). A boat doesn’t have to be a 38’ fountain to be dangerous to a kayak – and many bass boats (as well as other types of powerboats - and even jet skiis) can and do go faster than 45 mph. My best friend and I were nearly run over by a high speed powerboat on the Connecticut River two summers ago.

How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

Hey, I never posted that I’m in favor of raising the speed limit – in fact I posted that I didn’t believe that bill would get very far, for environmental reasons.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

..............But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.................



............... I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum..............

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

The personal attack song is getting old too. The world doesn't revolve around you, no one is "personally" attacking you. You know this is a passionate subject, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I won't stand idly by and let you post all these stories of mayhem and danger when I can pretty much guarantee that over the past 10 years I have spent more time on the lake than you and I know that your portrayal is wrong.

Your chance of having all these "close encounters" with boats going over 45 mph is pretty much nil since most boats travel the lake at less than 45 mph. That means these "close encounters" you have had are with boats going less than the proposed speed limit ergo the speed limit will not help you.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted

I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

- Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating,

I know that your portrayal is wrong

is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And stating, "I know that your portrayal is wrong" is also calling me a liar.

Get used to it.

"They" said the same thing to me when I started the thread "Close Call Today".

When I finally located that thread-starter just now, I found one "Go-Fast" has a problem obeying New Hampshire's boating navigation laws.

Guess who that might be?

HINT:

"...this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit..."

Oh, I can't STAND the irony!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted - Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating, is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying.

Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

From the actual results, eleven (11) boats out of 3800+ were clocked at a speed above 50 mph, eleven. This is over 135 hours of checking. Now they don't specify if those eleven came by in one group or if they occurred randomly throughout the case. I will assume that they occurred randomly throughout the test, because that's the best case for your stories. So if they occurred randomly we could spread out the occurances and say that once for every 10 hours of testing, a boat went by at greater than 50 mph. Not very good for your stories. I want to be fair here, so in the report it states that 36 boats were clocked at greater than 45 mph, less than 1% of the total, but still better for your stories (many "close calls" on the lake). Again we'll assume they randomly occur throughout the test (better for your stories) so over 135 hours, you might see 1 boat over 45mph in about 3 hours.

So now lets talk about a close call. A close call, as you describe them to bolster your pro SL view, would have to be a boat, travelling greater than 45 mph, coming closer than 150 ft to your kayak, just like you say in one of your posts.

So I've laid out the case, for your "close call", in the hours that you are out there, if 100 boats go by you (unlikely), the one that is going over 45 mph comes within 150 feet of your kayak (which is extremely unlikely). Now to claim this has happened many times, well I'm calling BS.

I think you were legitimately scared per one of your posts, ON THE CONNETICUT RIVER, years ago. This has messed up your perception of power boats to the point that you think they are all travelling above 45mph and within 150 feet of you. It just can't be true.

Enacting a law, on faulty perceptions, totally ignoring a study that determines there isn't a problem is nuts. I'm telling you now, a 45 mph speed limit isn't going to help you.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying. Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

I think your analysis is a stretch at best. First, you are criticizing them for spending 135 hours of radar testing in the 11 weeks that the test was run? That is quite a bit, especially with no extra funding or manpower allotted to help. If you are not happy with this then how are you going to fee l if it passes and the manpower or funding is not allotted to enforce it? The people pushing for this clearly have stated in another topic that they don't care about funding it and think it will take care of itself. The joke is on you.

The solid fact remains that out of 3852 boats less than 1% were speeding. That is hard to argue. I can spit out hypothesis all afternoon (although I bet MeenMac is already working on it )as to different calculations and formulas that apply but the main fact still remains. Speed was not an issue.

The study was done during the busy end of the summer, and clearly was concentrated on busier days of the week and daylight hours. If you have spent as much time on the lake as many of us do this may be easier to comprehend. Show up on a Monday afternoon and what do you get? An empty lake. Rainy days? No traffic at all. You did not add any factor in for bad weather days into your calculations. Chances are the concentration of studies was done during busier times in order to achieve catching 3852 boats on radar.

Do you think they zapped every boat that went by? Probably not. Multiple boats going by at the same time cannot all be clocked effectively. My house is right around the corner from Area A so I was able to witness first hand how much they were there and the traffic involved. It is a very busy zone, one of the busiest on the lake which is why it was chosen. So isn't Area B.
I am sure they clocked me a few times.

There are so many different factors that could be thrown in to this that I am not even touching on. They did their job, give them a break. The results were inconclusive of any speed issue. Feel free to analyze away though!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.



I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer? 3800+ boats is a pretty significant sample and should give a pretty clear indication of what is happening on the lake. You lost me on your discussion of Man hours. If there were two people on the boat for 135 hours, then that would result in 270 Man hours of labor. Not really relevant unless you want to discuss what the study cost.

All your spin, and shaky analysis still doesn't negate the fact that only 1 out of 100 boats was going over 45 mph. Certainly not the "wild west" talked about by speed limit proponents.

I'm going to give you a piece of advice that might save your life someday. Quit worrying about boats going over 45 mph, they're not the problem. Keep your eye out for captain bonehead, tooling along at 25 mph in his pontoon boat sipping a martini watching the scenery. While you're straining to see that one speedboat zipping by at 50 mph, captain bonehead might just run you over, he's a much bigger threat and a speed limit won't deter him.

But then this isn't really about safety is it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer?

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.
3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.
4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

[Cal]

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close. The only thing I would ever consider having been a close call was NOT from a speeding boat but your typical 18' to 20' rented bowrider with captain bonehead at the wheel. And most of these can barely to 45 so speeding is certainly not their problem

[GWC...]

Cal, you might find this comment to an online Union Leader article of interest:

Originally Posted by Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

The following voice message was left by the speed limit bill sponsor Mr. Pilliod, tell me there is no agenda here and this is a safety issue and not about banning a certain style of boat.

This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "
- Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

Cal, you might also find the comment from Arwen Mitton of Littleton very interesting, too.

[Lakegeezer]

So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats. Now, what about the bass boats, which can go just as fast, but are much lighter and generally come with courteous pilots. Maybe the rules should be rewritten that no boat over two tons can go over 45. The bass contests are won by getting from one favorite bass hole to another before the competition. The boats are expensive, and computer designed to be stable at high speeds. One could (and some do) argue that nobody needs to go that fast, but that is opinion, not a reason for a law.

Jet skis are another craft that will be impacted by trying to get the 'big guys'. Some of them go 60 with ease, and it is the pursuit of happiness to do so. This type of craft causes more anger than fear, and lowering their speeds will do nothing to reduce anger. There are more fools driving them, but they are very maneuverable. There have been deaths on jet-skis, but speeds over 45 don't seem to be the cause.

So since Mr. Pilliod says "It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels", then the law should not be so broad based against the freedom to persue happiness for those without the big boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call - 50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close.

Not that it's any of your business, but haven't been 20 for many, many years - so please stop trying to discredit me because of how old you think I am. Again, personal attacks have no place in a debate, and happen to be against the rules of this forum. (And, yes, making fun of someone is a personal attack.)

Some of you on this forum have referred to kayaks (and sea kayaks) as toys (or worse) - and you seem to think that a "real" boat has to have a high horse-power motor - and that only "real" boats should be allowed out on the main lake. Some of you feel that all kayakers are inexperinced boaters, and that we all get in major trouble whenever the lake gets a little rough. I've merely tried to present the other side here, as an experienced sea kayaker (there happens to be a LOT of us that paddle on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

e on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jrc]

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought.

You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats..."

FYI, your quoted "Ramsey Tidwell" did a cut-and-paste of Woodsy's winni.com post from three years ago!

Tidwell, (an alias of old) is presently spamming out-of-state boating websites to overthrow deliberations by New Hampshire's Legislature.

http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboar...ics/T61402.htm
http://www.ridepwc.com/blog/single/n...e_coming_soon/

http://www.bulletinboards.com/v1.cfm...eb357&expand=y

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake...TI7IFJRDF0H251

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243110

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243113

(One of the above links proposes a new law on Long Lake against 500-HP boats.)

Originally Posted by jrc

"...OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's..."

FYI, commercial production and retail sales began 100 years ago with Klepper (often seen on Winnipesaukee), and 75 years ago with Folbot. One of my Folbot brochures shows an early Folbot kayak cartopped on a 30's car having wooden spokes!

I keep two vintage Folbots on Winnipesaukee, but don't use them for a reason that could change by this summer.

Originally Posted by NHBUOY

...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...

This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

[NHBUOY]

Could the kayak vs powerboat "close calls" be a vision thing?...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...Same with the jet skis that don't have the tell-tale straight up spray...Why don't they pass a law that will make them more visible?...In some other states (California for example) They require a tall orange flag on ski boats when skiing as well as at the dunes when offroading...Put these on the kayaks and they will be seen...and avoided...I have a VERY fast boat and am an ex-offshore racer...I have been on the lake for 50 years and ALWAYS had a fast boat...(45-50 mph Centurys, 100 mph Hondo/Sanger drag boats, 70-80 mph jet boats, 22'- 32' 75-120 mph offshore V-bottoms & cat boats etc...) I have NEVER had a ticket but have been stopped for "safety checks" numerous times...I have SCARED myself MANY times but always lived to tell the tale and never involving anyone but myself...My point being, it is the "other" boneheads out there that SCARE me so I try to avoid those that look like they don't know what they are doing...(and there are too many out there that fit this description: DRUNKS-DUMMIES-DOPES+DISTRACTED "boaters")...If I want to go FAST I head out to the BROADS, choose my line and go...Even on weekends the BROADS can usually support a couple speed runs with out encroaching ANYONE...SAFELY!!!...Speed limit during the day...NO WAY...Speed limit at night..."might" be RIGHT...Enforce and obey the laws as they are written and let's move on...Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get it just fine, thank-you.
Here’s the thing: whenever a boat is traveling above no wake speed, if it runs into another boat, it has to be in violation of the 150 foot rule. After all, it’s sort of impossible for one boat to collide with another one, when it is still 150 feet away.

If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would seen where I have posted (several times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that when boats are traveling at high speeds, some operators apparently don’t see smaller boats until they are closer than 150 feet.

It is also true that the faster a boat is traveling, the less time the operator has to avoid an object in its path, or to stay outside of the 150 foot limit.

For these reasons, I feel that a speed limit will result in a reduction in the number of 150 foot violations.

Originally Posted by jrc

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

Then why don’t they just say that, rather than constantly trying to discredit everything that I post? I’ve stated before that I have language issues (the result of a severe head injury when I was very young). I am very literal, but I still think it’s pretty clear that I have been accused on lying a number of times in this one thread.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

First of all, I don’t know that no one’s ever been ticketed on Squam for speeding – I’d like to see the proof of that. Secondly I’ve seen boats stopped for speeding – isn’t stopping someone who is speeding enforcement? (And I was close enough to hear what the person was being stopped for.)

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought. You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

I happen to be extremely visual, since the right side of my brain is overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in special awareness. Because of this I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images. Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea of what 45 mph looks like.

I don’t believe that I ever said that I’ve had “many” close calls or that I’ve been in “great fear” – what I posted was that I have had close calls, and that speeding boats have come way too close for comfort. In defining “close call”, when I stated that a boat was less than a second from hitting me, I realized that I should have added “if they continued their course” (but I can’t edit my posts). I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

My grandfather was a carpenter and he purchased his kayak as a kit – from Sears and Roebuck Company. Based on my uncle’s age at the time, this was sometime in the late 1930’s. So, I’m not “bending the truth” – I based the date on what my uncle stated.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws.

I’ve already explained how high-speed contributes to violation of the 150 foot rule, which is in my opinion, a pretty good reason to enact a speed limit.

I’ve haven’t take that course, but I have read the rules numerous times, and I do own the latest copy. I kayak and sail so my studies are a bit broader and more specialized. I took kayak lessons, from a certified sea kayak instructor when I bought my first kayak. I’ve also attended advanced paddling workshops, and I also took a coastal navigation workshop. Now I’m learning the rules of competitive sailing (the book is over an inch thick, to give you an idea of the number of rules involved here). I’m also employed by my university to instruct and supervise other students on the use of kayaks, and have had Red Cross CPR and first-aid training.

I do care about enforcement, but I also believe that most boaters will obey a speed limit on Winni, if the bill passes - so I believe that the estimated costs for enforcement are way higher than what the actual costs will end up being.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Then why don’t they just say that, rather than constantly trying to discredit everything that I post? I’ve stated before that I have language issues (the result of a severe head injury when I was very young). I am very literal, but I still think it’s pretty clear that I have been accused on lying a number of times in this one thread.

I happen to be extremely visual, since the right side of my brain is overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in special awareness. Because of this I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

I’ve already explained how high-speed contributes to violation of the 150 foot rule, which is in my opinion, a pretty good reason to enact a speed limit.

I’ve haven’t take that course, but I have read the rules numerous times, and I do own the latest copy. I kayak and sail so my studies are a bit broader and more specialized. I took kayak lessons, from a certified sea kayak instructor when I bought my first kayak. I’ve also attended advanced paddling workshops, and I also took a coastal navigation workshop. Now I’m learning the rules of competitive sailing (the book is over an inch thick, to give you an idea of the number of rules involved here). I’m also employed by my university to instruct and supervise other students on the use of kayaks, and have had Red Cross CPR and first-aid training.

Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.

Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.

I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.

The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

VERY well said codeman.

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.
Without laws (what you call government intervention), we would have anarchy. Laws exist to ensure fairness (at least this is what they were originally meant to do). .

things have changed but instead of blaming the inconsiderate people and the fact there's more people on the lake you put it all on GFBL boats

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Legislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

Like a MPH speed limit on the roads????

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I totally disagree with you. I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort. A bigger issue with jet skis I would imagine That's the honest truth, whether you believe me or not. When you're traveling 100 feet per second (70mph) And according to NH MP how many are going 70 mph and where..probably someplace you shouldn't be with a row boat,

A lake speed limit is enforceable - I've never even suggested that it wasn't. I've personally witnessed enforcement of a speed limit on Squam.

Is it 100% enforceable? No. But neither are highway speed limits.

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. .

OK speed limit isn't enforceable they have no fixed platform for them to use Radar accurately according to the manufacturer....I would think that you should be more Prohibition since almost ALL accidents are alcohol related

By the way what other BIG lake in NH have you had issues with...I have been on quite a few lakes and only winnie has the GFBL boat you seem to have issue with.....could it be they where GFFB ( go fast family boats)

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).
...

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed. One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jrc

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out
Where I grew up I lived half a block from a river where power boats were outlawed. Only sail and paddle craft were allowed. Worst part was it would have been fantastic for waterskiing. None of us ever tried to limit or take their river away because we have a right to powerboat on it. Shame it's still not 1960

OK enough , I'm off my soap box

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to my posts. To you there’s no difference between a recreational kayak and a sea kayak – yet they are very different from each other in many ways.

I can easily paddle 20 miles in my 16 foot sea kayak in an afternoon – in a recreational kayak, you would be hard pressed to do 10 miles. And I’ve been out in 4 foot waves, without ever tipping over. That's because a sea kayak is designed to handle large waves.

Here’s a news flash for you: A sea kayak is made to be paddled on large bodies of water – it is not intended for small, shallow ponds. What do you think the “sea” part actually stands for? (And I do also paddled in large bays on the ocean.) For the past three years, I have paddle for hundreds of miles on large bodies of water each summer – without ever getting in trouble, or ever needing to be rescued.fficeffice" />>>
> >
I’m also a member of a varsity collegiate sailing team (currently 8^th in the nation) - and guess where we practice? On Mt Hope and ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Narragansett Baylace> - which are very large bodies of salt water. And these are little tiny 14 foot sailboats – and we go out in all sorts of nasty weather. And none of us are what I would call “self destructive” – we are just hard working trained athletes and registered members of the intercollegiate sailing association.

A paddler has the same right to use the entire lake as a powerboater. There's actually only about 2 square miles on Wini where you are ever more than a mile from some shore. It takes me only about 10 or 12 minutes to travel a mile, so it is not all that hard to get to safety if a storm moves in.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed.

Let's start with these:

1) The speed that doesn't cut kayaks in half, or
2) The speed that doesn't launch a Donzi dealer into a 32-foot cabin cruiser to kill a married couple, or
3) The speed that doesn't send a Dominator 130-feet up a hillside after killing two boaters.

An after-dark 25-MPH is generally regarded as reasonable, even by the few detractors of Winnipesaukee speed limits. Under several adverse conditions/alcohol, one could still be charged additionally with Failure to Keep a Proper Watch, as Littlefield was: unless they're totally wasted, drinking speedboaters become thrill-killers.

Originally Posted by jrc

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

At a then-legal 45-MPH speed, Littlefield could have gotten away with leaving a debris field in his wake, keeping his killer 4½-ton boat out of sight, and leaving scant evidence of criminal activity. In leaving no witnesses, there'd be no prosecution and, subsequently, no House Bill 162 or 847. At "only" 28-MPH, two witnesses remained to trigger the hit-and-run investigation. With New Hampshire's new $2000 theshold for reporting collision damage—and slower speeds—the case wouldn't have made headlines. (Or the one new law that the Legislature has already made.)

I, for one, am delighted for the witnesses.

Originally Posted by jrc

Evil power boaters are against paddlers.

How about "Lake Lice"? And the paddlers they "can't see"?

Are there maybe two dozen Winnipesaukee testosterone-driven sociopaths who have driven Winnipesaukee's HB-847 to this point? It's not the family boaters who are to blame for a few dozen ocean-racers' transgressions on Lake Winnipesaukee: one Long Lake resident regarded the nearby double-fatality by observing, "This isn't Miami".

Originally Posted by jrc

One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

Agreed: even on the trailer, ocean-racer propellers can kill. Many have razor-sharp "Cleavers".

To avoid "cleaving" the neighborhood kids, special caution should be observed by ocean-racers. Covers, boxes, and gloves are manufactured for razor-sharp propellers with the same Kevlar that is used in bullet-proof vests.

Here's a photograph provided by a retailer of those protective devices:

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

[COLOR="Blue"]On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

To quote President Reagan "There you go again"

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

Further, now you are saying that the boat captain must be responsible enough to adjust his speed to the conditions. He must do this to maintain a proper watch. Since this is clearly true, why do we need a new law? Can't we just arrest and/or fine the people who operate dangerously and don't keep a proper watch?

BTW what is the safe speed for a powerboat of any size or shape to operate, such that they can avoid unlit craft? Can you give me a number or are you going to tell me it depends on the conditions? Do you sense a theme here?

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.