Speed Limit Passes House

[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.

[Bear Islander]

I believe I have made my reasons clear. However, I have never said it was about revenge or spite.

So again....

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I believe I have made my reasons clear. However, I have never said it was about revenge or spite.

So again....

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

Revenge for the needless death of your neighbor and friend, John Hartman.

Spite against folks who drive boats like the one that was driven over your friend's boat, causing his death.

I was under the impression this was your agenda from the beginning, no?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Revenge for the needless death of your neighbor and friend, John Hartman.

Spite against folks who drive boats like the one that was driven over your friend's boat, causing his death.

I was under the impression this was your agenda from the beginning, no?

No. I barely knew the man.

And that accident is not a good example of the accidents I would like to prevent. Last summers accident on Long Lake is much more to the point.

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.

If you want to go back and read my posts you will find my first choice was always a HP limit. And I am not so much concerned with the way the lake is now. Where the lake will be in 5 or 10 years is my reason to support HB847.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Where the lake will be in 5 or 10 years is my reason to support HB847.

So, let's support a new, feel-good law based upon your opinion of what you speculate may happen in the future 5-10 years from now? I guess I get it now. It,s worse than I thought.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No. I barely knew the man.

Sorry, I think I confused you with someone else with a similar screen name that supports speed limits.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.
.

Yes it is.The point were trying to make is if that drunk had been going 25 do you think the results would have been any different?You know as well as we do the answer is no. Of course there have been accidents with speeds greater than 45/25.There have far more at speeds less than 45/25.Maybe we should have a much lower limit than 45/25.

[winnidiver]

Last August on a Sat.I was heading from Lee's Mills to Wolfeboro with my dive gear to watch my son take his last certification dive at Clark's Point.I was down past Parker at about 7:00 am going around 35mph when I heard a noise.It sounded like a big wave,like a boat slowing fast,I heard it over the noise of my own motor.I looked back behind me on the starboard side and saw a bass boat with his bow straight up in the air.If I had been in the stern I could have touched him .I turned hard to port and when he got the bow down he gunned it and turned right,and took off.I never saw him again.Was he going over 45?I don't know.I do know if he had been going slower he would have had more time to see me during the few times he was looking ahead.I don't know what he was doing in that boat but it wasn't driving.We were the only two boats in sight so I guess he got careless.He almost ruined what turn out to be a great day. What's the answer slow down or pay attention? All I know is you can't legislate "pay attention". PS My son did get certified and now we dive together.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.

What riles me is when an ESTIMATE of 28 mph is portrayed as FACT , while speed limit FACTS gathered by the same organization are potrayed as wrong.
Which way do you want it? Or do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your face to suit your needs

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

. . . 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.

I never said that I "almost" got run over. I said that powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast.

You claim the speed limit isn't a safety issue, and your "proof" is that any boater who has stated that they have experienced a dangerous encounter with a high-speed boat on Winni must be "bending the truth" - because of some group conspiracy. The only boating group that I'm a member of is the Intercollegiate Sailing Association (which I have to be registered with to compete as an NCAA athlete). I'm pretty sure that neither the ICSA nor the NCAA are part of an anti-powerboat conspiracy.

I was at the hearing last March where many people told of dangerous speed-related encounters. One of our current Senators told me that her husband experienced a speed-related close encounter while kayaking. So I'm not the only one who has experienced these dangerous encounters.

Look, we're not all lying - the only reason that I am for a speed limit is that I have been in dangerous encounters, which would have probably not occurred (or been nearly as dangerous) if the boat had been going slower. Plus a speed limit is a tool that the MP can use to clamp down on things like BWI - so this is entirely a safety issue for me.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Weren't kayaks built for exploring shallow waterways? Like rivers and streams? I am just saying!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

Weren't kayaks built for exploring shallow waterways? Like rivers and streams? I am just saying!

From http://www.chicagokayak.com/kayak_%20history.htm:

"Kayak" in Inuit means "hunter's boat". "The boats primary purpose was to hunt animals on inland lakes, rivers and the sea. In many places where the native kayakers lived they had to turn to the water for food because the land was not fertile enough to support their population. It was also used for transportation across open water and rivers. Most but not all kayaks are considered seaworthy."

My 16 foot sea kayak is not a flexible plastic kayak, but is made out of a rigid composite material (similar to fiberglass) and is not made to bounce off rocks in shallow waterways, but is designed for traveling long distances on large open bodies of water. It is make for large waves and even has a rudder, and a compass.

Originally Posted by codeman671

You have claimed to have had close calls and had boats come very close, how is this different from "almost being run over"? As usual, your posts contradict each other.

You have yet to show proof that I've ever contradicted myself, so please stop accusing me of doing so - that is libel. Again, I never said that I "almost got run over" - Yes, I've post that I have had close calls, but a close call is not exactly the same thing as "almost being run over." Plus you were responding to my previous post where all I said was that "powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast."

I simply feel, as others seem to agree that your experience on the lake is limited at best and you do not have the time spent on the lake that many of us do to truly see the problem for what it is. High speed is not the issue, it is overcrowding, drinking, inexperienced boaters, failure to maintain proper watch, etc that makes people feel unsafe and by banning a few boaters that you may attribute the problem to you will accomplish nothing in the end.

So, now you have to have some magical minimum amout of time on Winni to be able to perceive when you're in danger? I could easily argue that only NH residents have the right to debate a NH speed limit. Just a single occurance of a highspeed boat violating my 150 foot zone on Winni was enough for me to know that speed is an issue (and I've more than one occurance).

I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

Again, how is a 45 mph speed limit "banning a few boaters"? It is banning what many feel is an unsafe practice. Again, whenever someone like me recounts a personal experience that shows why we see speed as a safety issue, you and others here try to discredit them or accuse them of being part of some non-existant conspiracy.

I have talked with several MP officers (four to be exact) - all were in favor of a speed limit law. Two of the officers said that they felt it would help them to spot someone BWI, since they often speed.

I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't accuse me of having any hidden agenda.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You have yet to show proof that I've ever contradicted myself, so please stop accusing me of doing so - that is libel. Again, I never said that I "almost got run over" - Yes, I've post that I have had close calls, but a close call is not exactly the same thing as "almost being run over."

Huh? Libel? Give me a break. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...This is a heated topic that many of us are quite passionate about. Whining about being personally attacked, being picked on, libel, etc makes you sound like a child. This is not personal, don't take it as such. I don't lose sleep over it when someone makes a comment about me or has a conflicting view, neither should you.

You mean to tell me that your multiple posts of close calls and a comment of being within a second of being hit is not the same thing as you stating in fact that you "almost got run over"? From a literal standpoint, no you did not state in the exact words "almost got run over" however your posts have clearly indicated that you felt that way.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

"Kayak" in Inuit means "hunter's boat".

Maybe the Winnipesaukee definition should be "hunted" instead of "hunter". How about a new encyclopedia for Winnipesaukee? We can call it Winnipedia instead of Wikipedia!

These boats that you claim violated the pre-existing 150' rule (and I don't doubt that they have as it happens to me often) actually done what they should and stayed well away you would never have been in danger. The rules to keep everyone safe are on the books already, education and enforcement is the key to safety.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Huh? Libel? Give me a break. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...This is a heated topic that many of us are quite passionate about. Whining about being personally attacked, being picked on, libel, etc makes you sound like a child. This is not personal, don't take it as such.

Legal definition of libel: (n.) “To publish in print, writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.”
fficeffice" />>>
It really doesn’t matter how “heated” a topic is, or how passionate you are about it. If you cannot take part in a public debate without resorting to personal attacks, you really should stay out of the debate.>>
>>

You mean to tell me that your multiple posts of close calls and a comment of being within a second of being hit is not the same thing as you stating in fact that you "almost got run over"? From a literal standpoint, no you did not state in the exact words "almost got run over" however your posts have clearly indicated that you felt that way.

I have explained that I am extremely literal. I can’t help that. So when someone accuses me of making a statement that I never made, in an obvious attempt to discredit me, it really bothers me. My statement was in response to ITD’s comment that “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.”
>>
ITD misquoted me, because what I actually posted was: It is very unsafe when powerboats invaded my 150 zone because they are going too fast to see me in time. The two happen to have completely different meanings, and when I tried to point that out, you (who were note even part of that discussion) jumped all over me, and quoted me 5 times to show everyone how I supposedly contradicted myself. THAT was a PERSONAL attack on me. It was an obvious attempt to discredit me, it was intentional, and it was malicious – so it is definitely libel according to the legal definition. So back off.
>>

These boats that you claim violated the pre-existing 150' rule (and I don't doubt that they have as it happens to me often) actually done what they should and stayed well away you would never have been in danger. The rules to keep everyone safe are on the books already, education and enforcement is the key to safety.

You guys keep bringing up the “fact” that the 150 foot rule is all that needs to be enforced to keep people like me safe. The problem is that that 150 foot rule is often unintentionally broken because the operator of a powerboat does not see us in time – because he was going too fast!!! The 150 foot rule alone is NOT protecting me from high speed boats.

My main argument (just in case you’re missing it) is that a speed limit will slow down the powerboaters (who are traveling faster than their ability to spot small, slow-moving boats) to a speed in which they will have more time to notice us – which will enable them to stay outside of our 150 foot zone. It is my contention that a speed limit law will decrease the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

From http://www.chicagokayak.com/kayak_%20history.htm:
I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

One would think you would prefer the Baidarka to the kayak.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

That's odd...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I live up in Littleton, only a couple of miles from Moore Reservoir, which is a dammed up (~10 miles) portion of the Connecticut River. Moore is a totally undeveloped lake, where it’s not uncommon to see a bald eagle or two. I do most of my paddling up here, but I do get down to the Lakes Region fairly often as well, as it’s only about an hour drive for me. I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn. So I was excited when I discovered this site, with all the information about the Lakes Region! Anyhoo, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you all know that I love this site … especially these forums.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

That's odd...

Maybe you should just start a "Bash Evenstar" thread. Frankly I'm getting a bit sick of constantly having to defend myself here.

That post of mine that you quoted is 3 years old! It would have been nice if you had mentioned that. I happen to be a very fast learner, and a very dedicated kayaker and sailor.

I have learned a great deal over the past 3 boating seasons.

I have paddled roughly 800 miles on NH lakes since then (I keep a journal).

I have attended a navagation workshop (on coastal navigation) at UNH.

I had attended two advanced paddling seminars.

I have white water kayaked on class III Rapids.

I have kayaked on coastal waters.

I am employed by the athletic department at my university, where I am responsible for the instruction and supervision of kayaks used by students, and have had rescue training (where I operate a Zodiac on the bay), as well as cpr and first-aid training.

I am also an NCAA athlete, as a member of my university's sailing team, and a registered member of the Inter-Collegiate Sailing Association. My team is currently ranked 8th in North America (out of 118 colleges). I am training with and competing with likely future Olympic athletes. My coach also competes in international sailing regattas.

I have to study and know the "Racing Rules of Sailing", which includes both the International Sailing Federation Racing Rules and the US Sailing Rules. The book is an inch thick.

My last race was on Nov. 3rd, at MIT, on the day that a huricane was just off the east coast.

I think that quallifies me as being "a very experienced boater."

If you still don't believe that I'm very experienced, you're invited to try kayaking with me sometime, or perhaps you would like to try ocean sailing in Feburary on Naragansette Bay in a 13 foot Vanguard. I doubt that you would last 30 minutes out there - we have 3 hour practice sessions on the two bays here, 4 days a week. And then we spend weekends competing all over New England.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by GWC...

That's odd...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn.

All that experience gained in just a few years. Amazing...

I think you may like these even better:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Apparently you don't know kayaks very well. My avatar image is a 16' sea kayak. That's the type of kayak that I'm planning on taking on Winni.

And my personal favorite:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Ok, I have no personal experience with fast boats, so I'm likely a bit clueless here.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Look, we're not all lying - the only reason that I am for a speed limit is that I have been in dangerous encounters, which would have probably not occurred (or been nearly as dangerous) if the boat had been going slower. Plus a speed limit is a tool that the MP can use to clamp down on things like BWI - so this is entirely a safety issue for me.

Evenstar, most boaters have had their 150 zone violated by Captain B, that is not in dispute. Do you think your close encounter was going over 45. Anything over 30 can seem "fast" when you are almost standing still, and "fast" is the term most are complaining about, not "over 45". One point of view you might consider is that those driving over 45 are likely to be more alert because of their speed, and more likely to see you in plenty of time. Those going a relaxing 30 are probably the ones that don't see you until its almost too late.

Your point about giving the MP an excuse to stop the faster crowd for BWI brings up the non-existant safety issue again. Historically, boats going over 45 don't cause more accidents than slower boats and don't deserve to be checked for BWI any more than a kayak does.

Even if the incident that scared you was a boat doing 46+, I honestly believe that very few Captain B incidents happen above the proposed limit. Restricting hundreds of boaters in using their boat as designed because of the fast but still under 45 Captain Bs is unfair and disruptive to solving the real safety issue you faced, failure to give proper separation.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I never said that I "almost" got run over. I said that powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast.

Evenstar, don't you think the statements "almost got run over" and "had close calls" have some similarity in your posts? I do in your case...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes (including Winni), so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

2.) Personally having powerboats come well within my 150 foot zone, because they don't see me in time and are traveling too fast to stay further away

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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

You have claimed to have had close calls and had boats come very close, how is this different from "almost being run over"? As usual, your posts contradict each other. "Close calls" to what then???

I only had to go back two weeks for this, I am sure if I wasted another 10 minutes to look further I would probably find plenty more.

My point, other than to poke a bit of fun at your expense? I simply feel, as others seem to agree that your experience on the lake is limited at best and you do not have the time spent on the lake that many of us do to truly see the problem for what it is. High speed is not the issue, it is overcrowding, drinking, inexperienced boaters, failure to maintain proper watch, etc that makes people feel unsafe and by banning a few boaters that you may attribute the problem to you will accomplish nothing in the end.

25mph vs 28mph? Come on Bear Islander...I certainly agree that 28mph is higher than 25mph but either way HB847 would have no effect here. No MP in their right mind is going to make a stop for an estimated 3mph over. We all know what was involved in that incident. Taking booze out of the equation though, do you have any deaths on Winnipesaukee to discuss that are truly attributed to speed only and not alcohol related in the last 5-10 years?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

.....................Look, we're not all lying.......................

I rest my case...........

[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.