Speed Limit Passes House

[SBC]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Each and every State Representative studies the issue carefully and then makes his/her own decision. HB 847 has been a one representative by one representative. non-partisan issue with each individual doing their own due diligence, and asking themselves: What is best for boating safety in New Hampshire?

What happened to government of, by and for the people?

I hope they (the Senate) maintain the common sense exhibited previously and don't let the personal agenda of any new and bright blue members muck up the props of progress.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SBC

What happened to government of, by and for the people?

It is alive and well and living in NH. Perhaps you are not aware but all the independent polls show that the vast majority of NH voters favor boating speed limits.

I will now stand aside so that my esteemed colleges on the other side of the aisle can explain why all those polls are bologna.

[andyporter]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is alive and well and living in NH. Perhaps you are not aware but all the independent polls show that the vast majority of NH voters favor boating speed limits.

I will now stand aside so that my esteemed colleges on the other side of the aisle can explain why all those polls are bologna.

You aready got a no wake zone in front of your place. Right?
By the way I enjoy your webcam! Anymore Ice IN Ice out vids in the future?
That was cool.

[KonaChick]

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

[SIKSUKR]

Here's WMUR's story.

http://www.wmur.com/news/15176535/detail.html

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Dick

The author of the HB 847 amendment, and who also wrote the House Transporation committee (7-6) blurb in the House regular claendar, was Rep. Howard Cunningham. This is what he wrote: "This amendment sets a 45/25 (day/night) speed limit and is designed to sunset on January 1, 2011. This interval will provide an adequate period of time to make pre/post speed limit comparisons."

Okay, we know what the baseline objective data is, i.e., ZERO boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years (that's for all 970 lakes/ponds and thousands of miles of rivers, not just Winni). Now, IF this bill were to pass, what improvement over this could we logically expect to see over the next 2 years?

We haven't had a boat-to-boat fatality that involved a speed over 30 mph in over 5 years. Exactly what "comparison" should we expect to see over a 2 year "interval" in this regard?

If we were to end up with significantly more boat-to-boat collisions during the 2 year "comparison" period, would that mean that imposing the speed restriction did not improve our boating safety record, but rather had the opposite effect?

Maybe if a few of us go out there and carefully crash our boats into each others, we can show the data that proves that a speed limit causes crashes.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

There is no room here for things that make sense. You should know that by now.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

Hey KonaChick...that's a good question...and the answer is that it is up to each individual state's dept of motor vehicles, or whoever decides for your state. Probably, the NH DMV forwards the info and the other states have their own protocol.

As someone on this forum likes to say; "You can't fix stupid!"....whatever.....hey...it's a big lake out there....wave to me...and I'll be happy to be waving back to you!
.......

Hey all, today's www.unionleader.com has a front page, speed limits article, and below the story they are looking for readers to express their opinions. I'd make a comment there except it's always an 'error in transmission' or something....wonder if the Union Leader has put a block on me?

[SIKSUKR]

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.Also, in the article it states only 10 of the 239 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

Here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...=&q=1&lsr=1098

After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.

The bill was also amended with a "sunset clause", which means that it has to be reviewed (and voted on again) in 2011.

[/quote] the article it states only 10 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt.[/quote]
I'm a native and I know plenty of other natives who are for this bil. The problem is that some people's freedom has a negative impact on the freedom of others. You can't just let everyone do whatever they want to - that would be anarchy. Laws are to (suposed to be) made for the good of the many - not for the special interest groups.

If so few boats are traveling over 45 mph (as many here claim), than why are so many here so upset with this bill? According to your own claims, only a very few people will have to slow down. This bill shouldn't have any impact on most of you.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/r...callsearch.asp

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.

Hope this helps...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states...??"

It's a long quote but it took an hour to find—so here it is from this insurance site: Most of the 50 states have reciprocal agreements with respect to traffic violations.

"...though there are 5 states that are not currently members of the agreement they all still seem to share and receive in information from some if not all other states.

"The state of Georgia has other agreements with states to exchange information regarding traffic tickets their licensed drivers acquire out of state. The DDS states that the Department is authorized to suspend your license if its records or other evidence shows that you have accumulated 15 points within 24 months under the point system, including violations committed out of state.

"According to the Massachusetts driver's manual, MA has arranged to share driving record and criminal violation information with other states. So even though Massachusetts is not a part of the DLC, they have their own agreements with other states to exchange violation information.

"The RMV driver's manual goes on to say that certain traffic offenses committed by a MA licensed driver in other states will be placed on their MA driving record and treated by the RMV as if the offense had occurred in Massachusetts.

"The Michigan Secretary of State (SOS) site notes that out of state offenses are likely to eventually appear on your Michigan driving record. Thus even though Michigan is not a member of the DLC it appears their DMV will still share and exchange information with other state's courts and Department of Motor Vehicles regarding traffic violations.

"Tennessee dropped out of the DLC in 1997 so it is not currently a member of the agreement but the state still reports tickets back to your home state and other states can still report moving violations to the TN Department of Safety.

"Even though Wisconsin is not a member of the DLC their Department of Transportation will still share and exchange information with other state's courts and Department of Motor Vehicles regarding traffic violations. Wisconsin records out of state traffic convictions on a WI driver's record but does not assess points.

"To find out if your state has reciprocal agreements with any of these States check with your Department of Motor Vehicles. Or if you live in one of these 5 states you can check with the DMV or like agency to find out more about their agreements with other States."

Originally Posted by KonaChick

It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!"..."

Now "it" appears to make sense: the agreement refers to moving violations only.

If you get a violation, I'm guessing you are innocent should you plead neither guilty nor innocent. ("The dog ate my ticket, your Honor." "The license tag number is off, yer Onner" etc.)

By paying the citation, you would be tacitly admitting guilt, so the points would be "reciprocated" to your state of residence. In not paying the citation, you could have a much bigger problem should you get another moving citation in New Hampshire again.

Generally speaking, if you are not found innocent in NH and if you don't pay, your best option is not to return to New Hampshire for about five to eight years; after which, the violation appears to get forgotten about. (Depending on just what you did, or allegedly did.)

Or one can captain one's boat in a sane manner, and pray that problem boaters with problem boats don't take that first drink of alcoholic beverage for the next two seasons.

Further in my Internet readings this morning, I'm finding that states are generally very poor record-keepers and that the legal system is truly messed up in matters of interstate moving violations and "insurance points".

It's the guys with the lawbooks that purportedly have the correct answers—and their hand in your pocketbook.

[SIKSUKR]

Thanks for that link Winnilaker.I will be voicing my disapproval to my respective reps.This process is not over people.Contact your state senator and let them know how you feel about this bill.I was going to say we certainly have a better shot at ending this bill given the smaller majority of Dems in the senate but it appears both branches are 60 to 40 percent Dems ro GOP.Let your opinion be known!

[fatlazyless]

Union Leader, Manchester, NH (AP New Hampshire)

"Gov. John Lynch say's he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee.

The House yesterday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night.

Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."
......
Angela Anderson/ WGIR-AM
Union Leader


......

[SIKSUKR]

Wow,that sounds like a total flip flop from Lynch's previous position.It's nice to see some comman sense from my Governor when he says what the rest of us speed limit opponents have been saying right along.

Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore
There is hope.

[bbarrell]

Well, at least someone in this state has some sense! Thank you Gov. Lynch! I also saw an interview where he said he didn't think he'd pass any unfunded bill in 2008 that may cost additional money to regulate.
IF it gets passed, I'm glad it was amended to be a two yr trial and only Lake Winni. I think they will truly then learn this bill cost them more than any safety rewards they reaped from it and the data will prove it and this issue will be done.

I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess!

I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes. I've just sold my lakefront property and boat. Perhaps for some supporters that's exactly what you wanted....but I'll be spending that money elsewhere now. Even though I'm against speed limits and will continue to join that fight.... I actually never drove my boat over 65mph and consider myself a very safe driver.

[Seeker]

Boating laws are like gun laws. If we would just enforce the ones we now have most problems would be eliminated.
What would make anyone think that someone who staggers onto their boat at 8 or 9 pm with a snootful is going to follow the 25mph night speed limit?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by bbarrell

I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess!

Or the Senate could remove the amendments that the House Transportation Committee added.

[/quote]I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes.[/quote]
It all depends on what you consider to be important.

Group A feels that being able to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake is important.

Group B feels that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.

If members of Group A actually leave, members of Group B will likely just replace them.

So how will this hurt our economy?

Especially when the opponents to the speed limit have been claiming that only a very tiny portion of the boats on Winni travel over 45mph. According to what has been posted on this forum, only 1% will have to slow down to comply with the speed limit. Are you now suggesting that a much greater percentage of boats have in fact been traveling at over 45 mph?

[SIKSUKR]

Here' Gov Lynch's statement on WMUR's website.



Lynch Says Boat Speeds Not Worst Problem On Lake
Governor Not Sure If He Would Sign Lake Speed Limit Bill

POSTED: 11:01 am EST January 31, 2008


MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee

The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night.

Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk.

[bilproject]

Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

[hazelnut]

That is a pretty or should I say VERY basic comment to a potentially real problem.

Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct?

How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere.

I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same:
Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.

[fatlazyless]

Hey Hazelnut, what the state loses in its' gas tax money, it would easily exceed with increased business profits tax from big big sales of granola....it's the granola factor....if every kayaker who paddles on the north side of the lake stops at Heath's and gets some granola, the state's treasury will be very healthy & fat free!

Besides, the gasoline used by motorboats can be redeemed from the state with their non-motor vehicle, gas tax refund program, which every gasoline seller on the lake promotes.
.........

Just checked the www.unionleader.com and their speed limits article has a big long list of 25 reader comments. Is that a record?

People should be so passionate about education funding, or nursing home care by the counties, or health insurance, or something.

Performance motorboating: it's not a hobby, ........................it's a religion..............The Need for Speed!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct?

How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere.

I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same:
Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.

No, you’re not correct at all. Group B includes any boaters who feel “that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.” That is how I described them in my post and that is exactly what I meant. Yes, it includes many sailors and paddlers, but it is not exclusive to just these individuals. The anti speed limit group tries to make it out that only non-motorized boat owners want a lake speed limit. That is just not true. There are also many powerboat owners who are for a speed limit.

My two groups were based entirely on the two sides that I saw at the Transportation Committee hearing last March. This wasn’t much of a generalization at all, because 90% of the people who testified in opposition to the bill fit Group A, and 90% of the people who testified in favor of the bill fit Group B.

What I do have a huge issue with is the way some people with “large bank accounts” seem to think they can get whatever they want – because of their financial status. Personally I don’t care how much money anyone has – that doesn’t mean that they are any better then anyone else, or that they deserve some kind of special privileges. I was very proud that over 2/3’s of my Representatives did what was right, instead of caving in to the demands of those with large bank accounts.

Apparently you have never attended the New England Paddling Exposition, at UNH each April. Because if you had, you would have noticed that we are not exactly an impoverished group. And, as a colligate sailor, I can state for a fact that there are some very wealthy people who own sailboats. Both sailors and paddlers probably spend more on gear (like foul weather clothing) than powerboat owners. And we are involved in very physical activity, so we do need to eat – and most of us don’t just live on granola bars (or vacation only in tents).

One more thing: How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law.

So, either the report is accurate, in which case very few boaters will be affected. Or it is very inaccurate (as I tried to point out) – which means that a much larger percentage of powerboats on Winni travel at speeds above 45mph.

Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I do have a huge issue with is the way some people with “large bank accounts” seem to think they can get whatever they want – because of their financial status. Personally I don’t care how much money anyone has – that doesn’t mean that they are any better then anyone else, or that they deserve some kind of special privileges. I was very proud that over 2/3’s of my Representatives did what was right, instead of caving in to the demands of those with large bank accounts.
Apparently you have never attended the New England Paddling Exposition, at UNH each April. Because if you had, you would have noticed that we are not exactly an impoverished group. And, as a colligate sailor, I can state for a fact that there are some very wealthy people who own sailboats. Both sailors and paddlers probably spend more on gear (like foul weather clothing) than powerboat owners.
Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Do you even read the stuff you write?You say your glad that your reps did not cave in to the demands of wealthy people and then go on to say how wealthy the other side is.And to top it off your have the nerve to say we can't have it both ways.The attacks you complain about here are brought on by your own twisted posts.

[fatlazyless]

What w/ the Gov. inking up that veto stamp, you guys are walking down easy-street. Saw him at the Concord Wal-Mart with a new red ink stamper pad, and he had that determined look......like SPEED LIMITS VETO...here it comes! Hey....he said he was totally disgusted with all these Nanny Democratic whiners. Saw him hop on his Harley and roar off....not to worry...no speed limits will ever come to the Big Lake as long as Big Bad John is the Gov.!.

[Bear Islander]

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

It can be difficult to tell with politicians....good ones learn to be politically correct....and play to their audience......Governor Benson drove a bronze metallic Hummer.....Governor Lynch was in the papers yesterday as saying that speed is not the biggest problem on the lake....?

Did Gov Lynch have much to say about it at the Bear post office dock?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

Bear Islander, on January 15th of this year you offered me this advice in response to the reps not always admitting that they might vote in favor of the bill.

You said
"You need to take some of those responses from reps with a grain of salt. After all they are politicians and adept in saying what you want to hear. Or at least in not saying what you don't want to hear.

Myself, I have not received a negative response. "

I agreed with you and offer the same advice back to you relative to your discussions with the Governor.

Who knows, this Republican might just vote for such a smart Democrat who is willing to make an independent decision he thinks is best for the majority. Then again...

[rblackie86]

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. Safety should always come first, and when the lake is crowded and you see Mr. Genius flying into wolfeboro bay at 60mph+, I can't say that appears to be entirely safe for everyone else. It doesn't matter how experienced and comfortable you feel handleing your boat at those speeds. This seems more to be a judgement issue that a legitimate problem. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake.
I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake? I dont see the point in having a boat on the lake over 38-40 feet. Especially the big boats that can do 30-40mph+. 20 years ago the average size of most boats on the lake was around 20-22 feet. Granted I realize that boats cost big bucks, and there are many large boat owners who spent hundreds of thousand of dollars for them.

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by rblackie86

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake. I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state want is more money!

If the State had more $$$ AND used it for better inforcement and lake maintainance we wouldn't be here in the first place??? I'm still looking to find where the $5 of my reg. for boat launch maintenance is going???

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by rblackie86

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents.... It is absurd to have to register canoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake?

You make excellent points! I think what the supporters don't understand is that people couldn't care less about driving 70,80,90 mph...it's the fact that our freedoms are being stripped away AND they are taking money to spend on this program (which will yield no safety results) away from other more important programs like education, environment, the huge spending deficit NH is in right now, etc....these useless laws on the books make it so much worse.

How about doing something that will either raise money or actually make the lake safer? We are focusing on the wrong stuff here and that's the main reason I don't support it. EVERYONE is affected regardless of whether you drive a speed boat or not.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by rblackie86

It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money!

When you register your motor boat each year, among other fees you also pay $5 for public water access building/improving/maintaining and $1 into the Fish & Game Search & Rescue fund. I own a canoe also and I pay absolutely nothing to help out. Our NH Fish & Game Dept. maintains 138 public water access sites -- boat ramp and parking area. All these are open for car-top paddlers to use . . . and we do use them. Of these 138 sites, 50 are car-top only . . . and yet paddlers pay nothing. The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Do you even read the stuff you write?You say your glad that your reps did not cave in to the demands of wealthy people and then go on to say how wealthy the other side is.And to top it off your have the nerve to say we can't have it both ways.The attacks you complain about here are brought on by your own twisted posts.

Yes, I read what I write. There is nothing "twisted" about my posts. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to find fault with me, you would be able to understand what I'm writing better.

Look, most paddlers and sailors are not wealthy people - I never said that they were. But we are not impoverished either, so we do spend money and "SOME" people who sail are very wealthy. The key word here is "some" - as opposed to "most" or "all". Just like "some" sailboats also have a motor - so "some" of us use gas in our boats. Plus most of us own cars that require gas.

My point was, if a large group of high-speed boat owners actually do leave the lake, the economy of the lakes region is not going to be affected all that much - because other boaters will just take their place. Businesses in the area might have to adapt a bit, by focusing more on paddlers and sailors - which is why I mentioned "foul weather gear".

You guys love diverting a serious post by finding fault with anyone who doesn't agree with you - while ignoring the real questions and points.

I've posted this several times now, and it has been completely ignored, so I'll try one more time:

"How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law."

[hazelnut]

Keep telling yourself that Evenstar. I'm sure it won't affect the economy "all that much." So you agree that it will affect the economy a little bit? So lets enact a law that cures a problem that does not exist and risk putting some small businesses in the red and possibly out of business.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yes, I read what I write. There is nothing "twisted" about my posts. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to find fault with me, you would be able to understand what I'm writing better.

Look, most paddlers and sailors are not wealthy people - I never said that they were. But we are not impoverished either, so we do spend money and "SOME" people who sail are very wealthy. The key word here is "some" - as opposed to "most" or "all". Just like "some" sailboats also have a motor - so "some" of us use gas in our boats. Plus most of us own cars that require gas.

My point was, if a large group of high-speed boat owners actually do leave the lake, the economy of the lakes region is not going to be affected all that much - because other boaters will just take their place. Businesses in the area might have to adapt a bit, by focusing more on paddlers and sailors - which is why I mentioned "foul weather gear".

You guys love diverting a serious post by finding fault with anyone who doesn't agree with you - while ignoring the real questions and points.

I've posted this several times now, and it has been completely ignored, so I'll try one more time:

"How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law."

No you want to twist this to prove your point, when the reality is WHY DO WE NEED A LAW telling us to drive 45 when we ALREADY DO IT! As a whole it was proven that SPEED IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! People already travel at the random "Safe Speed" of 45MPH. So why do we need a law telling us to do what we already do??? Why do this if there is ANY potential impact on the economy? It is already in a fragile state. Why enact a law that will historically speaking not save any more lives or prevent any injuries? It does not make sense. For the record my boat does 49MPH this will not affect me or the way I boat. I just do not see the point in enacting laws based on NO DATA. Where is your data? Why do we need this law? Please answer that question.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Keep telling yourself that Evenstar. I'm sure it won't affect the economy "all that much." So you agree that it will affect the economy a little bit? So lets enact a law that cures a problem that does not exist and risk putting some small businesses in the red and possibly out of business.

Economy is based on supply and demand. A speed limit is not going to decrease the demand to boat on Winnipesaukee – at most it might change the demographics of the users a bit. If paddling and sailing do become more popular, don’t you think that most small business that deal with the boating crowd will be smart enough to adapt to the changes in demand for different products?

I just do not see the point in enacting laws based on NO DATA. Where is your data? Why do we need this law? Please answer that question.

I have repeatedly posted why I feel that we need a speed limit. How many times do I have to repeat my posts??? And I have already provided data here that was based on last summer’s MP report, showing how the report does not show the true number of boats that were traveling at over 45mph on the lake. Last year I also posted data showing that there was over 10 times the number of boating accidents in NH lakes per square mile of inland water than that of our neighboring state in 2005. I also posted that, according to the USCG accident statistics, the “excessive speed” went from the number 4 cause to the number 3 cause in 2005 (and it was still #3 in 2006). And that the number 1 most common accident was “collision with [another] vessel”.

The problem is that you and others do not see the problem, because apparently you have not had any close calls with high speed power boats. I and other have had close calls – so we see high speed as a problem. When we try to explain this we are accused of being easily frightened and afraid of the “big lake”, told that paddlers have no business being out more than 150 feet from shore, are accused of exaggerating, or of lying. Personally, I feel that close calls happen quite often – and that many of these close calls were the result of high speeds. No agency records close calls, so we have no way of knowing how often they occur.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, you’re not correct at all. Group B includes any boaters who feel “that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.” That is how I described them in my post and that is exactly what I meant. Yes, it includes many sailors and paddlers, but it is not exclusive to just these individuals. The anti speed limit group tries to make it out that only non-motorized boat owners want a lake speed limit. That is just not true. There are also many powerboat owners who are for a speed limit.

While I think your argument is silly; lets say, hypothetically speaking, these "group B" motor boaters suddenly arrive at Winnipesaukee now that they feel it's safe. Now we have a bunch of people who admittedly could not handle the lake before, roaming around feelin' all safe and secure, without a care in world. Oh yeah, that'll be a real treat for paddlers and law-abiding motor boaters. Be carefull what you wish for...

If your goal really is to attract "group B" motor boaters (I don't believe it is, BTW) and you are successful, you are in for a huge shock. "Group B" motor boaters ARE the problem. Anyone that can't be bothered to understand what's really happening on the lake is too clueless to boat safely. People who are scared of the lake SHOULD stay away, it's an unforgiving place and the nature of it has nothing to do with the style or brand of boats on it. I boat in many other places and Winnipesaukee has the most well-behaved, law abiding, and courteous motor boaters I have ever dealt with. Replace them with "group B"s and things will go downhill.

I hate to be this way, but as a trailer boater with thick skin and plenty of other boating options should things get unbearable on Winnipesaukee, I'm almost eager for that to happen, out of spite. Speed limit supporters have no idea just how good they have it now. Spend a 4th of July on Bow Lake, Big Island Pond, the CT. River, the ICW, or Pawtuckaway Lake sometime .

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

While I think your argument is silly; lets say, hypothetically speaking, these "group B" motor boaters suddenly arrive at Winnipesaukee now that they feel it's safe. Now we have a bunch of people who admittedly could not handle the lake before, roaming around feelin' all safe and secure, without a care in world. . . . If your goal really is to attract "group B" motor boaters (I don't believe it is, BTW) and you are successful, you are in for a huge shock. "Group B" motor boaters ARE the problem. Anyone that can't be bothered to understand what's really happening on the lake is too clueless to boat safely. People who are scared of the lake SHOULD stay away, it's an unforgiving place and the nature of it has nothing to do with the style or brand of boats on it.

Why to you think my argument is is "silly"?

My “goal” is and has been just to support a lake speed limit bill because I honestly believe that allowing unlimited speeds on lakes is a very dangerous practice. It has never been my goal to exclude any type of boat from using our lakes, nor has it ever been my goal to attract any type of boat.

There are two groups that have formed because of HB847:
Group A: those in opposition – main argument is that they should being able to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake – and that a speed limit would violate their rights. This group is not exclusive to just high-speed boat owners.

Group B: those in support – most of whom believe that unlimited speeds are dangerous – the high speeds of some boats currently make the lake feel unsafe. This group is not exclusive to just paddlers and sailors.

Just because someone feels that high speeds that some boats travel have made the lake too dangerous, does not mean that they are inexperienced, can not “handle the lake”, or that they are “scared of the lake”. I’m very experienced, I can “handle the lake” just fine, and I’m not “scared of the lake” – but I’ve seen how dangerous it can be to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds.

I don’t believe that the passage of HB847 into law will result in a mass exodus of power boaters. But even if that does happen, I think that an equal number of boaters will replace them pretty fast.

Do I feel that all power boaters are a threat to me? No; of course not. But some are a threat due to their inexperience, their lack of attention, and/or to their drinking. Having boats traviling at high speeds on a lake that is shared by much slower, much smaller boats is dangerous. Adding high speed to inexperience, lack of attention, and BWI creates an extremely dangerous environment.

A speed limit will not solve all the problems, but I do honestly believe that it will make the lake safer. Last spring, when I asked two marine patrol officers at NHTI what they thought about HB847, they eventually both admitted that they wanted it to pass, and that they saw a speed limit as "an effective tool”.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law.

So, either the report is accurate, in which case very few boaters will be affected. Or it is very inaccurate (as I tried to point out) – which means that a much larger percentage of powerboats on Winni travel at speeds above 45mph.

Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

If 99% of the population were bald and a law was proposed that hair length couldn't exceed 1" then it's ok because only a small percentage of people would be affected?

This may seem like a ridiculous example but the proposed law is just as ridiculous.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by bilproject

Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

[bilproject]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

My post was to show the effect on out of state driving records vs NH. I do not own a boat that can exceed the limit. Well maybe a jet ski at full throttle.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

The real problem are people who think there is a problem.

[Silver Duck]

You know, I'd really like to believe that the speed limit would make it safer for Evenstar, but, sadly, I really don't believe that the basic problem is visibility and reaction time.

If the problem actually was visibility, I don't think that I'd have so many boats zipping past me 30 - 40 feet away when I'm "doofing along" at hull speed (about 8 mph); between the height above water of my radar arch (8 1/2 ft.) and my hull color (burgundy), my boat is pretty easy to see!

IMHO, the main problem during the day is still Captain Bonehead who, by his very nature, is an inconsiderate bufoon, a committed scofflaw, and too danged stupid to pay proper attention to what he's doing or where he's going!

At night, the problem is a bit different. Here, visibility does play a major role in close calls and/or collisions; plus, it's very, very easy to mistake the all-around white light at the stern of a boat for somebody's porch light when you're coming up behind it. On most nights, 25 mph is way too fast for my tastes!

Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law.

Silver Duck

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law.

Silver Duck

I totally agree

[hazelnut]

Fatlazyless, good, NO GREAT POINT!!!!! Actually GREAT POST!!! True DAT Granola sales would go through the roof. I love your sense of humor.

Good job keeping a sense of humor throughout this whole debate. People tend to internalize this whole thing so badly.

My original post was designed to shed light on the fact that it aint so easy to dismiss the GFBL boat crowd, of which I am NOT a member of. I am a 45MPH bowrider club president. Hownever, I don't want to see the GFBL crowd pushed aside. Those folks pay their fair share of the freight to exist on the "Big Lake."

[fatlazyless]

Possible six weeks between now and the Senate vote.

In 2006, HB 162 passed the House on 2/2/06, and died in the Senate on 3/16/06.

With just 24 Senators, could be the Senate will move it up for an early vote so's they can escape all the emails, and send it to the Governor. Understand the Governor wants to pound it with his veto stamp, just like he did with the seat belt law. Whoomp....veto-time....sayonara speed limits.....hello reelection...