Speed Limit Passes House

[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 Dick

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 . . .

Not all are open to car-top paddlers. The State Owned parking lot just below Squam Lake Science Center is limited to trailer only parking. So, if you use the state boat launch on the Squam River, and you don't have a trailer, good luck in finding a place to park your car on a weekend.

A "conservation sticker" bill was defeated as ITL in the NH Senate just last spring.

I was against the bill since many paddlers have more than one kayak/canoe due to having boats for different conditions. Yet they can only use one at a time. And, if you want to hike in the White Mountains you already need to buy a $20 conservation sticker to park at the trailheads (which I have). Since many paddlers also hike, some would be paying conservation fees twice.

Why not just combine the two? Allow only vehicles with a NH Conservation sticker to park at public boat launches. This would increase the F&G revenue, would be more fair, and would be much easier to enforce (which was another problem with last year's bill.)

[rblackie86]

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.[/QUOTE]

Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by rblackie86

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.

Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.

Some paddlers did not feel safe; hence, a speed limit is in the works.

It will require additional revenues.

If you want to dance, be willing to pay the fiddler...

[fatlazyless]

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?
........
Hey, the list of reader comments at the Union Leader speed limits article has grown to 34....well thought out explanations.....some people from this forum...too bad the Marine Patrol can't slap a two-cent tax on every word.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?

Gee , with those colors why don't you just paint a big target on your back too
Then complain about the 40 mph boats that come too close.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camouflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?
.........

Good news. Today we bought a stealth boat that is completely silent and can't be seen. This way you won't see us coming when we can't see you crossing. Fortunately it only goes 45 mph so you should be fine.

[tis]

OK, can someone help me out here? I am having a disagreement with (Acres) on another forum about an existing law regarding speed. I thought that there was already a law that said something to the effect that you have to go a speed that is "reasonable and prudent "or "safe" for conditions etc. Therefore I thought that coverd it and we don't need a new law. We just need to enforce the existing law. Acres says that is only a law in Maine, so now I am really curious. Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by tis

. . .I thought that there was already a law that said something to the effect that you have to go a speed that is "reasonable and prudent "or "safe" for conditions etc. Therefore I thought that coverd it and we don't need a new law. We just need to enforce the existing law. Acres says that is only a law in Maine, so now I am really curious. Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

Here's the link to General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water
"reasonable and prudent" does not appear. Nor is there anything about traveling at speeds "safe of conditions".
Here's the link to the amended version of HB847, which does include "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions", but this only applies to Lake Winnipesaukee.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by tis

... Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

We have at least two:

From CHAPTER Saf-C 400 WATERCRAFT SAFETY RULES
Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
....
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

And we have this law:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[Bear Islander]

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch. tis was asking for a rule that involved imprudent speed, there is no such rule.

If anyone was charged with breaking those rules based on speed alone they would be screaming there was is no speed limit. In court it would be argued (successfully) that if the intent of the law was to regulate speed then the word speed would have been included etc..

It would also be argued that the legislature considered a speed limit (more than once) and chose not to enact one, thereby making legislative intent on speed crystal clear.

If you guys were not trying to fight a speed limit you would never, never, never say those rules were about speed.

[tis]

I would certainly consider an unsafe speed as operating in a "careless and negligent" manner. I think that wording takes care of anything.
Thank you jrc.

[fatlazyless]

It's simple,.....just like the NH roads & highways all have speed limits....so should the waterways....it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. 45mph day-25mph night!

And don't forget, going 45 in a boat is hardly a slow speed, it is indeed a very fast speed! !

[wifi]

Oh yes, the buzz word "safety". When ever towns want new police or fire stations they start chanting "safety". After all, who can deny their fellow man "safety"?

I prefer facts and figures over emotional cover all statements. Not taking either side here.. yet

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It's simple,.....just like the NH roads & highways all have speed limits....so should the waterways....it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. 45mph day-25mph night!

And don't forget, going 45 in a boat is hardly a slow speed, it is indeed a very fast speed! !

It's apples and oranges FLL....imagine the 150' rule on highways??

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch....

I'm not saying that those laws constitute an arbitrary speed limit. I'm saying that they legislate against any situtation where excess speed causes dangerous or unsafe conditions.

An arbitrary speed limit regulates to a speed without regard to anything else. These laws regulate behavior that is unsafe, careless or negligent.

We have all seen situations where traveling over 45 MPH is safe. We have all seen situations where traveling at 44 MPH is unsafe. There are places and times where 10 MPH is unsafe and careless and negligent.

If you think that these laws are unenforcable against speed alone, you are right. But an MP can clearly use these laws against anyone, if their speed causes an unsafe situation.

[Airwaves]

I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

about as successful as the 150' rule...

Reminds me of the Titantic and the iceberg incident...

Guess you did not see the movie or Ballard's showing of the aftermath at the bottom of the ocean...

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch. tis was asking for a rule that involved imprudent speed, there is no such rule.
.

How much more clear can imprudent speed get than with the speed limit we ALREADY have,headway speed when within 150 ft?This covers all that's needed on both sides already.THERE CAN BE NO BOAT SPEEDING 45 OR WHATEVER EXAGERATED SPEED PROPONENTS MAKE UP WHEN WITH 150 FT.Why is this not a speed limit in your eyes?

[Bear Islander]

The is no speed limit of any kind at this time. There is no "reasonable and prudent" language in the rules we have now.

Almost all of the opposition arguments revolve around the issue of safety. Safety is the most important issue to many speed limit proponents. However it is not the only issue.

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

[Airwaves]

GWC wrote:

about as successful as the 150' rule...

Reminds me of the Titantic and the iceberg incident...

Guess you did not see the movie or Ballard's showing of the aftermath at the bottom of the ocean...

Actually I had the pleasure of speaking and interviewing Bob Ballard twice personally. Funny, neither time did he mention a violation of Rule 6 or 150' rule during his exploration of Titanic or Bismark.

If you are trying to point out that had Rule 6 been in effect when Titanic was afloat then she may not have hit the iceburg, that is probably true.

I don't know if Rule 6 was in effect or not back then but it is today and imposes a speed limit on all vessels on federal and international waters and it acts as a tool for law enforcement to bring charges against the skipper who ignores it much as the current NH rules regarding Conduct Near Other Vessels and the Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats currently do if law enforcement choses to use them.

Bear Islander wrote:

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I think we have put the safety issue aside since even the Marine Patrol research has shown the lack of a speed limit on Winnipesaukee is not an issue to safety. Erosion? It gets back to the issue of what causes more erosion, a boat on plane or a cruiser pushing a bow wave that washes up to it's flybridge (a sight I personally spotted this past summer) Pollution? How does limiting speed reduce pollution? Noise? Unless the Go Fast boats disappear which is unlikely, the noise will not be effected. Congestion? No one is going anywhere, the Marine Patrol research proved that. Equitable use of a limited resource...that's where it lies! An attempt to get a type of boat you don't like off the lake!

One other point, funding. I draw your attention to an Associated Press item today that I will have to paraphrase because of copywrite issues but it will be in your local paper tomorrow.

Revenues for January were $6.8 Million below estimates, receipts are $11.4 Million below estimates for the year. Gov Lynch is asking agency heads to address the shortfall.

So where are you going to get the money to fund this "Solution looking for a problem"?

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The is no speed limit of any kind at this time. There is no "reasonable and prudent" language in the rules we have now.

Almost all of the opposition arguments revolve around the issue of safety. Safety is the most important issue to many speed limit proponents. However it is not the only issue.

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

No speed limit? What about Headway speed, and no wake zones.
It has never been proven that additional speed limits will increase safety.
Erosion, the faster a boat travels on plane, the smaller the wake.
Noise has already been addressed, and just this past year.
Pollution, Thats a volume of boats issue, not speed.
Congestion is just that, Safe passage address that issue in relation to speed.
Equitable use, it is already 9 to 1 in your favor, and that ratio will not get better.
In the real world, the lake just gets conjested on summers with good whether. Common sense says stay closer to shore. Thats what I do when in my kayak.

The solution: EDUCATION not IGNORANCE, and of course COMMON SENSE

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

I can't agree that the points raised here are more than enough to justify a speed limit. The point about noise is somewhat valid, as boats are louder as they go faster - but then again, they are gone faster too. Congestion is a poor argument, because faster boats are - woosh - out of the fray faster. The rest of the points are all valid issues, but boats going over 45 aren't the problem. Boats of all sizes and speeds are the problem.

In fact, if we want to switch to the issue to water quality and erosion, the separation rule is a huge cause of environmental issues. When boats slow down to pass and then come back on plane, bigger wakes are generated than if they had remained on plane. I'm not advocating that we eliminate the separation rule, but those who violate it are being kinder to our water quality and shore line. Its a trade-off we make.

As for the children's camps; not being able to go out on weekends may be a real-world problem, but not one that would be solved by a feel-good speed limit. Boats that are going over 45 are likely to be far from shore and more likely to be taking extra care to watch where they are going. The kids should learn not to be scared of them anyway. Fast boats don't cause any more accidents than the slow ones. Its the captain boneheads (fools at any speed) that are the danger to the camp kids. Just too many boats is likely another factor. While nobody seems to have a solution to Capt B, or congestion, I would tell the camp directors to encourage the lake community to come together to solve the problems of separation and the right-of-way rules, rather than fighting over an issue that won't solve the problem.

Oh, and I would also encourage a fast-boat driver to come in (bass boat or jet-ski would be my preference) and give the kids a thrill - one that they may soon lose the right to legally experience.

[gtxrider]

I hope the bill does not pass since I am planning on repowering the Jet Ski

[WeirsBeachBoater]

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

I love this one.... Let me ask you this. Do you think it is reasonable and prudent to take campers, who by their nature are new to kayaking, canoes, or sail boats, out into the broads? Let me qualify that further, lets say for the sake of argument it is a week day, light traffic, but we all know how quickly the lakes mood can change. Storm kicks up. Now you have inexperienced boaters in a bad situation. I have never seen GFBLS run out of control between Sandy and Cow or Long Island. I have however seen SI sailboats challenge the Sophie C? I have never seen GFBLS run circles near 3 mile, or drag race amongst the buoys near Camp Lawrence. I never have seen GFBL's run wide open at Brewsters rowing skulls or Sailboats. I have seen B/A set up their sailing course in a way that made it a hazard to boats entering and leaving the town docks.

So who is creating the "situations" the GFBL crowd or the Camp and their Crews???

[Bear Islander]

You can't eliminate the Capt Boneheads. But you can make some of them go away. When Capt B. looks around for a lake to torment, he is more likely to select one where he can go full speed with impunity.

Or look at it the other way around, having no speed limit at all, when other lakes do, is like a "Boneheads Welcome" sign on our lake.

The opposition logic has become so twisted that now campers in canoes, sailboats and kayaks are the problem, because they get in the way of the powerboats.

If the lake ever gets so congested that camp canoes and powerboats can't co-exist, then the powerboats will need to go. Including mine.

[Resident 2B]

The lake is not crowded in most areas. It is crowded around the Weirs and between Meredith Neck and Bear Island on weekends. It is a bit congested around a few of the marinas also on weekends, but most of the lake is not crowded even on weekends. This is only between the hours of 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. on good weather weekends. It is also crowded around the Weirs for fireworks on Friday nights in July and August.

In fact, it is less crowded now than it was five years ago, and it was not crowded in most places then either. The cost of gas has had an impact.

Let's be fair in making these statements. The citizens of NH that have never been to the lake during the summer get the wrong impression and start to make decisions and support HB's based upon misinformation.

R2B

[jrc]

Come on, if it wasn't for misinformation, this argument would have been over years ago.

270:1 Declaration of Policy. –
...
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. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species.
...

We're supposed to share the lake, some people want to ban certains uses they don't like. They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

270:1 Declaration of Policy. . . . provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species. . . .
We're supposed to share the lake, some people want to ban certains uses they don't like. They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

RSA 270:1 can and has been used to show the need for a NH lake speed limit. How is allowing high speed powerboats to travel at over 15 times faster tha the maximum speed of other boats on the same lake "safe and mutual enjoyment"? (And I could have a field day with the environment, water quality, and endangered species part, but I won't even go there.)

I know plenty of people who won't kayak on Winni because of the high speeds. It is very unsafe when powerboats invaded my 150 zone because they are going too fast to see me in time (and this is not "bending the truth"). Slower speeds are safer, because slower speeds give a person more time to react. That's a fact.

Most people that I know who are in favor of a lake speed limit are for it because they feel that the lake has become unsafe for smaller, slower boats. They are not out to ban any group, just slow people down. No class of powerboat is being forced off the lake by a speed limit - they will just have to slow down.

HB847 is all about sharing the lake. It's called a compromise. How is traveling at unlimited speeds a compromise? The high speeds of some powerboats are virtually forcing other boaters off the lake - which I see as a selfish act - these high speed powerboaters are not sharing the lake - they are hogging it.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jrc

They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

Let me have an AMEN , BROTHA, how true , how true.

[Bear Islander]

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

This "secret agenda" stuff is pure nonsense. Do you folks have these paranoid tendencies in your normal lives? Or is it just when you think about speed limits?



And once again we seem to have forgotten that many NH lakes already have speed limits, and have had them for a long time. Therefore this "270:1 Declaration of Policy" stuff is moot.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

This "secret agenda" stuff is pure nonsense. Do you folks have these paranoid tendencies in your normal lives? Or is it just when you think about speed limits?



And once again we seem to have forgotten that many NH lakes already have speed limits, and have had them for a long time. Therefore this "270:1 Declaration of Policy" stuff is moot.

It's not a "secret agenda" Bear, you come right out and say it, you're one of the few with the guts to do it. Nobody said it was a "secret agenda", just the real agenda, the safety issue is BS, no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can't eliminate the Capt Boneheads. But you can make some of them go away. When Capt B. looks around for a lake to torment, he is more likely to select one where he can go full speed with impunity.

Or look at it the other way around, having no speed limit at all, when other lakes do, is like a "Boneheads Welcome" sign on our lake.

The opposition logic has become so twisted that now campers in canoes, sailboats and kayaks are the problem, because they get in the way of the powerboats.

If the lake ever gets so congested that camp canoes and powerboats can't co-exist, then the powerboats will need to go. Including mine.

Statistically it is proven that the captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits.
Any type of activity on the lake has a possibility of becoming a problem.
When the lake gets congested, I find another activity to make my day. I would never be so self centered to suggest elimitating someones use of the lake on the basis that I do not participate or condone.

YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH CO-EXISTING

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by overlook

Statistically it is proven that the captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits.
Any type of activity on the lake has a possibility of becoming a problem.
When the lake gets congested, I find another activity to make my day. I would never be so self centered to suggest elimitating someones use of the lake on the basis that I do not participate or condone.

YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH CO-EXISTING

There are no valid statistics that prove "captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits".

However if that were true the the proposed speed limits will make no difference whatsoever. If nobody is speeding, there will be no violations. So what is all the fuss about?

When the lake gets congested you are able to find another activity to "make my day". I live on an island, we can't pick and choose when we use the lake.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are no valid statistics that prove "captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits".

However if that were true the the proposed speed limits will make no difference whatsoever. If nobody is speeding, there will be no violations. So what is all the fuss about?

When the lake gets congested you are able to find another activity to "make my day". I live on an island, we can't pick and choose when we use the lake.

MP data for violations, and the latest Coast Guard report shows that most violations are occurring under the proposed speeds. They do record the speed, I will agree that the speeds are not conclusive, but the types of violations indicate speed was not the problem. For example the most common speed related accident is a skier or tube. A skier that cuts the wake can exceed 45, the boat is should only be at 36 at most unless they are barefooting. Most collisions happen under 10, docking or poor maneuverability.

You can pick and choose when you travel to and from, Just like I attempt to avoid the Wiers when it is congested. (Ever try to maneuver 38' twin with 34" props, engaging one at a time to maintain the flow of traffic and then some rental boat cuts out of Thurston's) we have our concerns too.

The performance boats that are traveling in open water at high speed are not violating any current law, and I might add there is no such thing as UNLIMITED SPEED. E=MC2

[gtxrider]

I want to know what statistics are used to determine a speed limit is needed. Is it the number of accidents caused by high speed? How many were there on the lake last year? I think tax dollars can be better spent! Just like Arlen Spector looking into whether or not the PATS taped the RAMS walk thru. Lets worry about cutting waste in government.

MY 2 CENTS

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

None of your arguements have anything to do with speed. You will never be happy, and even if the speed limit passes you will find something else to complain about. Isn't there a speed limit on Squam? Please move there.