Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

{snip} At the very least, in lieu of an actual license, maybe all boaters should be required to take a refresher of the boater safety course every 5 years or so.

We all know ignorance of the law is no excuse but if anyone wants to be ignorant, just don't let them operate a boat!

I like the idea above. I've said it before, the problem with a 1 time test is that it's all too easy to "cram" for the test and then flush whatever knowledge that might be retained, away. Repeated testing is like the old school style of rote learning, repeat, repeat, repeat until the knowledge sinks in. I bet everyone my age got the multiplication tables stuffed down their throats until they gagged. I also bet most can do simple math in their heads today as a result. I bet that even Capt B would remember the more important rules if he was forced to repeat them ad naseum.

Whether that would make a difference can be debated.

2 x 4 = ?? Anyone ....

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

2 x 4 = ?? Anyone ....

I know this one Mac

2 x 4 = an almost 2" by an almost 4" piece of lumber of various lengths often used in construction. a 2 by 4. Do I get 100 on this one teach'?

P.S. I used to get a lot of A's on my report card... I think they were mostly A for Absent though...


RE testing: I agree with you MnM and Wolfeboro_Baja. Plus you don't need to be a professor to know that regular testing (including vision checks) is not a bad idea.

[winnidiver]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...Duck_8-64.jpgI have read all the speed limit debate.I have come to the conclusion that we don't need speed limits.
I think what we are all talking about is bad operators and bigger boats.There are way more boats than there use to be and they are bigger.It makes the lake seem more crowded than it is. A 30' boat going by at 25 seems a lot faster and more dangerous then a 16' boat at the same distance and speed. A lot of 25 to 30 foot boats in a smaller area makes people feel uncomfitable ,even if you are in a similar sized boat.
I put up a picture from another thread to show what I mean.That was Alton in the seventies. Back then there were not many boats over 20'.The bay seemed bigger then.
There is nothing we can do about more and bigger boats.But we can all set a example in our boating and encourage the state to do more enforcement.
I think that is the real problem,better enforcement of the laws costs money.Passing a new law to appease the people who are complaining cost nothing.

[parrothead]

I have spent that last two days at lunch reading through all of these posts. And after reading the posts from both sides of the issue, I don't think a speed limit is the answer to the problem. The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid. You become an obstruction on the highway even in the far right lane. A law is already on the books that says you should not operate your boat at an "excessive" speed. The middle of the Broads on a Tuesday and Meredith Bay on a Saturday call for different speed considerations. A Marine Patrol officer can stop you if you are operating your boat in a manner that can cause harm to you or your fellow boaters. The problem is that they can't be everywhere at all times, stopping every captain bone head. Excessive speed could be headway speed if you are coming into shore and there are other boats or swimmers in your area, or going 200 mph and weaving through other boat traffic. I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower. If you want to fight for something, then perhaps we should be trying to get more funding for boating safety. Just think what could have happened if both sides pooled all the money they used to lobby for this one bill, and used it to fund boater education, or providing a larger better trained Marine Patrol auxiliary. The likelihood of you doing something stupid decreases proportionately with your likelihood of getting caught. I pulled up and read though the USCG accident statistics that have been quoted many times during this discussion. While excessive speed is a cause of accidents/fatalities I find other statistics more frightening. The first is that "70% of reported fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction." Second that the leading cause of fatalities is alcohol related fatalities. And finally that the leading cause of accidents is operator inattentiveness. These are education/enforcement issues, and not based on anything else. So why isn't there a big push or outcry for education and enforcement? I just don't get it. I guess I am just naive, but I am most "afraid" of the boater that doesn't know what they are doing, or drunk. Because they can cause harm at any speed.

[fatlazyless]

Hey Parrothead...maybe not where you drive, but here in the NH lakes region, the speed limits on the roads are definately enforced. Every single day, I always see those blue lights at work, with another car stopped for something, and it's my guess it is usually for speeding.

On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that.

Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark..

[parrothead]

FLL, I guess we have different experiences, but I did think out my remarks and still stand by them. I still believe that a speed limit will just be one more regulation that capt. bone head will disregard. I still believe that the Marine Patrol does not have enough of a presence on the lake to adequately enforce it. I still believe that the biggest issue facing boater safety is that some boaters do not follow the existing laws. People drive while intoxicated, do not pay attention to where they are going, or get too close to other boats,swimmers, and land. I still stand the original premise of my post that boater education and more enforcement will make the lake safer, and that a speed limit will not make as big an impact.

[fatlazyless]

Well, in my opinion, it would just seem to me that sighting a hand held, radar, speed detector on a speeding 32' fiberglass hull from a distance of one quarter mile would be about as difficult as hitting a large barn with a snowball from thirty feet. The surface and angular design of a fiberglass boat should easily be detected as it moves across the lake. It's about as non-stealthy as a moving object can be, plus there's the noise, wake, bright colors, lights, and rooster tail of water.

Add to this the speeder's 'fear factor' for getting dunned through their next three year's car insurance bill, no matter which state you call home.

......sorry....but that's the way I see it.

[michael c]

1 5/8 x 3 5/8

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that.

Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark..

I strongly disagree with this statement. On I-93, at least from MA up to Concord, 75 is the norm. Yes, I am sure that some cars that travel over 70 get stopped. But those are the guys who are driving recklessly. Swerving in and out of lanes etc. Drive 75 in the left lane, and it is unlikely you will be stopped.

[fatlazyless]

My use of Route 93 is pretty much from exit 20 to exit 42 and that's of what I speak. On Friday evenings, the traffic is probably ten-twenty times heavier than on a tuesday at 10am.

With speed enforcement, It's sort of like duck hunting....a flock of 20 fly past....and maybe one gets hit.

There's a well known speed trap at the south end of Franconia Notch on Rt 93-south, where the road signs are all brown indicating a parkway. The road returns from one lane to two, it's supports a 70mph speed but the limit is still 45mph until you get to the next sign that says 65mph.

Basically, there's usually no crowds of traffic.....it's cruise control country.

It seems like with less traffic and a more empty route 93, the traffic settles on 65-70tops, and people drive a lot more polite.

The state police & highway patrol stake it out behind the snowbanks, or blending into the woods, and with not much traffic, a speeder is like a sitting duck.

Last time I was stopped for speeding was over three years ago, by a Thornton officer, who cut me a break, and lowered my offense by one level. It takes three years, here in NH, for a regular class 3 license, to get "safe' again with your ins co. Do not know how long it takes for a cdl-a to get "safe' again, and do not want to find out.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid..."

How many drivers in your example were at anchor?

A driver can't legally stop in Interstate traffic, but boaters can travel at less than 70-, 75-, or even 10-MPH. Boaters have been endangered when legally stopped!

BTW: The Marine Patrol's Speed Survey arrived at their "average" by including boats traveling under 10-MPH.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

.... I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower....

Perhaps I can explain how it can work..

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior. The fact that some will ignore that standard, is not a reason to have no standards at all. Right now are standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS. That is not an appropriate standard for an already crowded lake.

Further, I maintain that most people are law abiding.

[KonaChick]

I'm sure Capt. Bonehead's wife will have a huge impact on his boating purchases....it's worked for years on our highways and roads.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

How does that work now? So when more and more lakes enact limits they'll what? Drive to Michigan and launch? What about all the people who call the lake home and own these boats?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

When did you determine that the go fast drivers=Captain Boneheads? I thought we mostly agreed that Captain Boneheads encompass all types of boats. Most notably the rental boats and the small affordable runabout crowd most likely has a larger percentage of Captain Boneheads. What are we doing to shun them from operating on the lake. If anything the lake will be more appealing to the novice if you use your logic. Less "scary" = open invite to the rookie captain.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Based on a scientific study?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior.

We have SEVERAL standards of behavior. They are ignored. Just like this speed limit will be ignored.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

.... Right now are[sic] standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS.

Talk about spin. There ARE speed limits on the lake. The 150ft law dictates speed as do the plethora of No Wake Zones. Marine Patrol has many reasons to pull someone over for excessive speed based on CURRENT LAW!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I maintain that most people are law abiding.

I do too. However, most people do travel on I-93 over the posted Speed Limit. By most people I mean the majority.

[fatlazyless]

NH has tens and maybe hundreds of smaller lakes, and whenever some neighbor shows up with a new 'go-fast boat,' the neighbors all whisper to each other....psssst....that big fast boat...it don't belong on this little lake...that fruitloop should trailer it over to Winnipesaukee and leave it there.....until Captain Fruitloop sooner or later gets the neighborly message and takes it to the Big Lake.

Therefore, all the problemo, go-fast be-loud, boats end up on the Big Lake.

Verdict: the Big Lake needs and wants a speed limit.

After consulting with Judge Judy, this case is closed.....I have spoken!~! Please exit the courtroom on opposite sides of the room. Thanks and have a nice day!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

The average Captain Bonehead is not driving a few hundred thousand dollar GFBL, he/she is driving a 21' bowrider, small cruiser, rental boat, pontoon, or jet ski. I think that the average performance boat owner has more respect for their boat and the laws. There are certainly exceptions to any rule, and in this case it is the drunk ones that usually offend. You do not have to drive a GFBL to get drunk and kill someone, I could get loaded and flatten someone in my pontoon boat.

I would be happy to provide my boat for an afternoon to do our own survey of who the offenders really are. An hour at Glendale, an hour by Bear and an hour by the Weirs on a busy weekend would be all that we would need to see the gross disregard of the existing laws.

I do agree that a speed limit would limit my choice of boats if I was shopping in the GF market. I have wanted to pick one up for a few years now and decided against it for the possibility of a speed limit. It would be stupid to spend $100k+ if there is a chance the law will happen. The performance boat market in this area is hurting badly so there are plenty of deals out there but come resale time you will feel it.

Since the proposed law is Winnipesaukee only, maybe the GFBL's will redirect to Winnisquam, Ossipee, or other bodies where I am sure they would be certainly welcome...

[Bear Islander]

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean.

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Some wives get their way!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

Some wives get their way!

We are not missing your points, we just don't see eye to eye.. Why try to ban a few Captain Boneheads though when the true efforts should be to put in place preventative measures and/or training that will help deal with the overwhelming remaining 95%???

Originally Posted by bear islander

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Agreed, although I disagree with the standard in general, not the fact that it will be ignored. It is the fact that it is not needed that is my issue. The basis for it is simply not there.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean.

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Some wives get their way!

Are you certain we're all missing your points or are your points simply so transparent they're difficult to see?

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Perhaps I can explain how it can work..

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior. The fact that some will ignore that standard, is not a reason to have no standards at all. Right now are standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS. That is not an appropriate standard for an already crowded lake.

Further, I maintain that most people are law abiding.

I agree that most people are law abiding. But I still feel, and this is my opinion here, that many folks out there are breaking laws/regulations that they don't even know about. I think this is supported by the 70% of accidents that occur are by uneducated (to the rules of the water) boaters. Now I also want to say that the speed limit isn't really an issue that will affect my boating. My family's boat runs the most economical from 25 - 30 mph where it just gets on plane and that is where we run it. I am more concerned that the speed limit issue is getting so much hype that other safety issues on the lake are being swept under the rug. The main one being that some boaters are operating their boats in a manner that can harm others. Now that maybe going too fast, or not paying attention to their surroundings, or drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Why is it that no one is up in arms about this issue? Why aren't we spending time trying to provide more education and enforcement to educate boaters on the laws we already have. The speed of a boat does not equal safety. A guy going headway speed playing with the radio could run over a swimmer. And a boat exceeding 45 mph in the broads where there are no other boats around them is not excessive. While a boat going 45 mph in Meredith bay on a Saturday with many boats around them is excessive. I guess after reading all the posts and information I could find over the last few days, I just don't see how regulating speed is going to help. I do think somehow getting more funding available for education/ and enforcement will help. I know form past posts that many have have complained about their run-ins with Marine Patrol, me included. But an increased enforcement presence would be more likely to put a dent in boaters operating "excessively" than a speed limit. And provide a safer environment for everyone to enjoy the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

.... Why try to ban a few Captain Boneheads though when the true efforts should be to put in place preventative measures and/or training that will help deal with the overwhelming remaining 95%??? ...

Originally Posted by parrothead

I agree that most people are law abiding. ..... I do think somehow getting more funding available for education/ and enforcement will help.....

The old "let's have more training, education and enforcement" argument is a good one, except that IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

Those ideas all cost a lot of money, so once again IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

Speed limits are an imperfect solution. However they cost little to nothing and they ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

A partial solution that will in fact be implemented is preferable to better solutions that will not be implemented.

Instead of hacking away at speed limits perhaps you people should sit down and write legislation that will provide more education, training and increased numbers of MP officers. I'll tell you why you are not doing that, because you know it will never, never, never, get anywhere.



An additional argument is that Boneheads can be very resistant to education and training. The do respond well to things like a summons or handcuffs.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

An additional argument is that Boneheads can be very resistant to education and training. The do respond well to things like a summons or handcuffs.

I agree, who is going to provide the handcuffs and summons? The Marine Patrol and auxiliary are already spread too thin to patrol all the bodies of water in NH. Without enforcement of the speed limit, how is it going to be any more effective than the 150' rule, or excessive speed? I am naive, but not naive enough to believe that just because a law exists, that it will change everyones behavior. There are always a subset that will push the limits and the laws as they do now. And that is what the speed limit is aiming towards a small subset of the boating community. A Marine Patrol boat stationed somewhere with a radar gun will change the behavior of the boats around them, but what's to stop someone from speeding up once they are out of site. Regardless of the speed limit, I would imagine the presence of a Marine Patrol boat would cause everyone to be more cautious anyway. I am not really "hacking" at speed limits, as I said I don't really care one way or the other. I don't think that the speed of boats on Winni is the biggest issue facing a boater on Winni. And that the boating public's scourn should be more focused on the drunk boater, or the boater putting themselves and others in danger by not knowing what they are doing. Just my opinion, and I don't imagine it will change any views, but it seems that all this energy to get this one bill passed may have been better spent on other bigger issues.

[Islander]

I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com

Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee.

"I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!"

Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine.

Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com

Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee.

"I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!"

Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine.

Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.

Re-Read the thread... This time read it carefully. Note: The GFBL boaters are NOT the problem. We are discussing the fact that the amature/ignorant/careless/captain bonehead comes in all shapes and sizes, most notably the family runabout. So what we lose a few GFBL's and that's the magic pill. *POOF* Winni is safe now. LAUGHABLE

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Re-Read the thread... This time read it carefully. Note: The GFBL boaters are NOT the problem. We are discussing the fact that the amature/ignorant/careless/captain bonehead comes in all shapes and sizes, most notably the family runabout. So what we lose a few GFBL's and that's the magic pill. *POOF* Winni is safe now. LAUGHABLE

Entering Spin cycle

Who says GFBLs are not the problem?

We have been talking about performance boats all along.





So do you admit now that performce boats will be leaving?

[hazelnut]

ARGGGGGGGGHHHHHH

Seriously Bear Islander? SERIOUSLY??!?!?!

Do I really need to spell every little tiny detail out to you. I am guilty of one thing only and that is giving YOU any shred of credit to be able to read and understand meaning behind a message. Ok so here you go I'll explain it out the long way just for you!!!

We were all discussing that a Speed Limit solves nothing because the bad behavior on the lake has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED! We had all discussed earlier that by removing GFBL boats we solve NOTHING. I had said in SEVERAL posts before that I do not own a GFBL boat and I don't care either way about them. MY POINT IS and ALWAYS WILL BE that by enacting a law BASED ON NO FACT is not the answer. Islander claims that the lake will be "getting better" because GFBL boats are going to leave... I DO NOT AGREE that they will. HOWEVER if and IF they do it makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of safety on the lake. The boneheads will still be left behind in their wake to cause HAVOC and continue to ignore the RULES THAT EXIST.

Besides, You REALLY think that by GFBL boats leaving the lake all of a sudden the lake is going to be safer????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... :

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Entering Spin cycle
Who says GFBLs are not the problem?
We have been talking about performance boats all along.
So do you admit now that performce boats will be leaving?

By the way I do AGREE with you on one point you DID enter spin cycle on that last post.

[Skip]

Since I started this thread originally about comments that Lt. Dunleavy made in a "letter to the editor" many, many moons ago; can I ask if anyone has anything new to add in reference to that?

Otherwise most of what has gone on here for the last week or two (or three)is regurgitation of a lot of stale arguments.

Yeah, I know....if I don't like, it ignore it. However I have tremendous respect for both this website and its webmaster and am cognizant that many folks visit this site and its threads as guests...many times first time guests. I would hate for them to stumble onto some of these very lengthy and often nasty diatribes and think that it is representative of all of the great folks (and topics)that populate these and all the other threads.

We're not changing anyone's minds here folks!

So, does anyone have anything new and to the point?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Skip

Since I started this thread originally about comments that Lt. Dunleavy made in a "letter to the editor" many, many moons ago; can I ask if anyone has anything new to add in reference to that?

Otherwise most of what has gone on here for the last week or two (or three)is regurgitation of a lot of stale arguments.

Yeah, I know....if I don't like, it ignore it. However I have tremendous respect for both this website and its webmaster and am cognizant that many folks visit this site and its threads as guests...many times first time guests. I would hate for them to stumble onto some of these very lengthy and often nasty diatribes and think that it is representative of all of the great folks (and topics)that populate these and all the other threads.

We're not changing anyone's minds here folks!

So, does anyone have anything new and to the point?

So true.... I'm done. I think I've said all I need to say. The original thought on this thread was in reference to Mr. Dunleavy, I sent him a lengthy email quite some time ago in support of his efforts. That was the most important thing I wrote in the last month.


Honestly I would like to apologize to anyone who might have thought my posts to be "over the line." I get very passionate about "stuff" and I get so amped up. I would really really like to meet up with some of you, including and especially you Bear Islander and have a beer and discuss. I really am one of those people who just get passionate and involved with whatever I feel is important to me. I really think that we all have the same passion and love for the lake. We just have different ideas on how to make it better. Bear Islander I do appreciate your love of the lake and what you do with the cams and stuff.... I also know a Speed Limit is probably inevitable at this point but I do not have to like it!

[Neanderthal Thunder]

Originally Posted by Skip

We're not changing anyone's minds here folks!

Check out the second post on the day you posted.

[Steveo]

I don't get it...this Post has 243 responses...What a topic!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

We were all discussing that a Speed Limit solves nothing because the bad behavior on the lake has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED!

I totally disagree with your statement. Bad behavior becomes extremely dangerous behavior when you add high speed. When someone violates my 150 foot zone at low speeds, it is much less dangerous than when this happens at high speeds.

Just because no paddler has been killed or hurt by a high speed powerboat is not proof that high speed boats are not creating a dangerous problem on the lake. No agency keeps track of close calls. So we have no way of knowing how often high speed close calls happen. It's been my experience that they happen way too often.

I have had close calls with high-speed boats on Winni (that were going faster then 45 and that came way closer than 150 feet from me). Others have stated that they have had similar close calls. And here is a hard fact: The faster you are going, the further you will travel in the time that it takes you to react. That is a safety issue.

For me and for many others this is ONLY about safety. Yet when I state my reasons here, I'm accused of exaggerating or even of lying, or my posts are just ignored. I'm told that I must not be a very good judge of speed or of distance (when I happen to be an excellent judge of both).

Besides, You REALLY think that by GFBL boats leaving the lake all of a sudden the lake is going to be safer?

Speed limits do make lakes safer. With all else being equal, slower speeds are safer than faster speeds - that's a fact. And I've seen the effect of a speed limit on Squam - which is NH's 2nd largest lake.

I have only spoken to 4 MPs about a lake speed limit law, but all 4 wanted a lake speed limit. When that previous bill was in the House (which would have enacted a speed limit on all NH waters) I also spoke with 2 Coast Guard officers, and they both were in favor of the bill. Both the MP and the CG members told me that they saw a speed limit law as a "necessary tool".

The speed limit will not prevent all unsafe behavior on the lake, but the violation of other laws does not negate the need for a different law. And I do know from personal experience that some power boat operators travel faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of the 150 foot zone. I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time - it's the faster boats that are the problem in this situation - and a speed limit will in my opinion make this less likely to result in a serious accident.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

{snip}Speed limits do make lakes safer. With all else being equal, slower speeds are safer than faster speeds - that's a fact. {snip}

How much ? How much safer ? As the survey shows and is apparent to those of us who boat on the lake, the number of boats exceeding 45 is small. The majority of bonehead encounters occur at speeds under the proposed limit and therefore won't be affected by the presence or absense of a speed limt. The increase in safety (more below) is going to be minimal at best.

As for safety being increased with lower speeds, OK, but why not 35 or 25 or 10 mph ? Certainly these would all be safer than 45 mph. Why not those limits ? Why not a night-time limit of NWS ? It's done on other lakes. Why not ... because safety is not the be all and end all of considerations when it comes to using the lake ... or anything else. Speed limits on RT93 aren't set to make it as safe as possible w/o consideration for anything else otherwise we'd see them around 35 or so. I can understand your desire to feel safer but at what cost, what limitations for others ? You want what you want, "they" want what they want and frankly I don't see why I should much care about either wants.

There are times and places where you can go "fast" and times and places where you can't. It seems a lot of the debate here has been framed around what the lowest common denominator of boater could/might do. That is we're now letting the worst drivers dictate what the rest of us should be legally allowed to do. It's been stated that Winni should have a speed limit to better catch drunk boaters. It's been stated the Littlefield's* actions that night somehow support a need for a speed limit. I'd laugh at both arguments where it not that the thinking behind them (as best as I can determine it) further perpetuates the LCD disease. What ever happened to the "reasonable man" line of thinking ? If we are to limit peoples actions, let's not limit what a "reasonable man" could do safely. So what can be expected from a "reasonable man" in Evenstar's situation ?

How far away on a typical day can "we" reasonably expect to see Evenstar in her kayak ? I don't know about you all but in 30 years of boating on Winni I've yet to fail to see a canoe or kayak at distances in excess of 1/2 mile or greater. Next time anyone finds themselves driving a car down a long, flat, straight road think about how far ahead you could see someone sitting in a kayak. For the moment I'll take 1/10 of a mile as the minimum distance that a person paying attention will see Evenstar in her kayak. Winnfabs states that a boat doing 80 mph might take over 300 ft to stop. Let me use 350 ft. Use their number for reaction time (1.5 secs, a pretty standard 85% number for these types things) and guess what, you're not run over. I'm not sure of their numbers for stopping distance but then again I've left out any manuvering that would certainly be done as well in such a situation. Does that make 80 mph OK ? I'm not saying that (based on this simple analysis) but the point is that at speeds well over 45 mph, a "reasonable man" isn't going to run you down. When boaters nearly miss you it isn't because their speed is so high they don't have a chance to react (unless your contention is that these boats were doing 80), it's for other reasons. They may think their distance from you is an acceptable one. Could be they weren't paying attention. Could be they're being malicious. Could be a bunch of other things (BUI among them) as well but none of them make 45 mph as being the proper limit.

Is there an upper limit on how fast a normal human, not Superman with super vision nor the Flash with super reaction speed, can go before he/she is risking other's life and limbs on even the best of boating days ? Of course. But it ain't 45. Until the discussion starts to revolve around facts and reason vs wants, I'll just keep wondering about what kind of "free" world we'll be leaving to the next generation.


*Do I have to debunk this bunk again ?

ps - If you want to substitute "reasonable person" for "reasonable man" ... go ahead, I'm just not very PC at this moment.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

How much ? How much safer ? As the survey shows and is apparent to those of us who boat on the lake, the number of boats exceeding 45 is small. The majority of bonehead encounters occur at speeds under the proposed limit and therefore won't be affected by the presence or absense of a speed limt. The increase in safety (more below) is going to be minimal at best.

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

As for safety being increased with lower speeds, OK, but why not 35 or 25 or 10 mph ? Certainly these would all be safer than 45 mph. Why not those limits? Why not a night-time limit of NWS?

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has alreadly had to compromise enough.

Speed limits on RT93 aren't set to make it as safe as possible w/o consideration for anything else otherwise we'd see them around 35 or so. I can understand your desire to feel safer but at what cost, what limitations for others ?

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

It's been stated that Winni should have a speed limit to better catch drunk boaters. It's been stated the Littlefield's* actions that night somehow support a need for a speed limit. I'd laugh at both arguments where it not that the thinking behind them (as best as I can determine it) further perpetuates the LCD disease. What ever happened to the "reasonable man" line of thinking ? If we are to limit peoples actions, let's not limit what a "reasonable man" could do safely. So what can be expected from a "reasonable man" in Evenstar's situation ?

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?

. . . but the point is that at speeds well over 45 mph, a "reasonable man" isn't going to run you down. When boaters nearly miss you it isn't because their speed is so high they don't have a chance to react (unless your contention is that these boats were doing 80), it's for other reasons. They may think their distance from you is an acceptable one. Could be they weren't paying attention. Could be they're being malicious. Could be a bunch of other things (BUI among them) as well but none of them make 45 mph as being the proper limit.

So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

But it ain't 45. Until the discussion starts to revolve around facts and reason vs wants, I'll just keep wondering about what kind of "free" world we'll be leaving to the next generation.

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

How much ? How much safer ? As the survey shows and is apparent to those of us who boat on the lake, the number of boats exceeding 45 is small. The majority of bonehead encounters occur at speeds under the proposed limit and therefore won't be affected by the presence or absense of a speed limt. The increase in safety (more below) is going to be minimal at best.

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

As for safety being increased with lower speeds, OK, but why not 35 or 25 or 10 mph ? Certainly these would all be safer than 45 mph. Why not those limits? Why not a night-time limit of NWS?

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has already had to compromise enough.

Speed limits on RT93 aren't set to make it as safe as possible w/o consideration for anything else otherwise we'd see them around 35 or so. I can understand your desire to feel safer but at what cost, what limitations for others ?

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

It's been stated that Winni should have a speed limit to better catch drunk boaters. It's been stated the Littlefield's* actions that night somehow support a need for a speed limit. I'd laugh at both arguments where it not that the thinking behind them (as best as I can determine it) further perpetuates the LCD disease. What ever happened to the "reasonable man" line of thinking ? If we are to limit peoples actions, let's not limit what a "reasonable man" could do safely. So what can be expected from a "reasonable man" in Evenstar's situation ?

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?

. . . but the point is that at speeds well over 45 mph, a "reasonable man" isn't going to run you down. When boaters nearly miss you it isn't because their speed is so high they don't have a chance to react (unless your contention is that these boats were doing 80), it's for other reasons. They may think their distance from you is an acceptable one. Could be they weren't paying attention. Could be they're being malicious. Could be a bunch of other things (BUI among them) as well but none of them make 45 mph as being the proper limit.

So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

But it ain't 45. Until the discussion starts to revolve around facts and reason vs wants, I'll just keep wondering about what kind of "free" world we'll be leaving to the next generation.

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

[fatlazyless]

March 16, 2006, was the day when the NH Senate voted no to HB-162, the last time around. So, what day, probably coming soon, will the NH Senate make a decision on HB-847?

Hey, if you don't like your senator's vote on HB-847, you can always vote them out, next November. New Hampshire is one of only two states, Vermont and New Hampshire, where the senators, representatives and governor serve for just two years as opposed to four years:

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

While the study may not have been a rigorous as a good university study, I don't think it so flawed that nothing can be learned of it. Basically it says what people boating on the lake know, there aren't that many boats out there going over 45, let alone way over. The problem is blown out of proportion.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has already had to compromise enough.

You've missed my point. Let me try to be clearer. What's the proper method to set a speed limit ? Do we toss up a bunch of numbers and see which has the most appeal ? Do we pick the one that the absolute "safest" w/o regard for any other consideration ? There was a time when engineers did the analysis to set speed limits. To some extent this is still partially true in this country. It's certainly not true for the proposed law. Where's the analysis that says 45 mph is the proper limit ?

I'll address your idea of "compromise" further below.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

It would affect only a minimal number of boats. So what ? How about if I, having a run of the mill boat speed-wise, ganged up with all the others like me and tried outlaw both high speed boating and kayaking because they both were a PITA to our (majority) boating pleasure. We would be the majority, would that then make it right ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

So what if the 4 or 400 MP officers you spoke said it would help them catch BUIs. Try that justification on driving your car and see how well it plays. Set the speed limit on RT93 to 45 mph with the intent that it'll catch the DUI's because they'll probably be unable to contain themselves at such a slow speed. That such a limit would unfairly impact people who, not being drunk, can safely drive at > 45 mph doesn't/wouldn't bother you ?

Again you're now letting the worst of "us" dictate what the rest of us may legally do even if it's the case that when we do it (vs the impaired), it doesn't actually harm anyone.

Regarding see you in your kayak, I do believe it sets a limiting case. Prove to me that 45 mph is that limit. Your evidence so far is more anecdotal than the study you call flawed above. How hard to see is your boat ? Harder to see than the Mt Washington that's for sure, but also not invisible. How do we get from anecdotal evidence to something more concrete ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?
So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

I can understand your reasons, I just don't "buy" them. Consider the plight of a pedestrian walking down the road. Should a drunk or inattentive or malicious driver pass them by as they are walking, they too are in potential danger. Should we limit the speed on that road to such a rate so as to give them time to jump out of the way ? What if that person is my mother who can't react all that quickly ? Should the speed limit be set even lower then ? I'd say the speed limit should be set such that the normal driver, unimpaired and paying attention, will be able to see the pedestrian and avoid hitting him/her at that speed. (The pedestrian has his role to play as well) And that at much (we can debate about how much more) more above that speed, this would no longer be true. Then we go after those who drive unsafely due to alcohol or whatever. You attack the problem w/o unduly restricting the normal guy.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

I'm not one who believes compromise is a bad word. But the present proposed bill isn't based on compromise. The thinking isn't that more often than not that boats at 55 mph pose a clear and present danger to the public at large and therefore should be restricted. It's the same you posted above, the lake is so big and 27 mins is short enough and 45 if "fast enough" ... all opinions which have has much validity as someone saying 25 or 65 is "fast enough". Let's say that kayaking and true high speed boating are incompatible. Certainly at some high enough speed this is true. The "compromise" you seem to favor is the one where you get to practice your recreation where and when you want, unrestricted and they "can take it to the ocean". Compromise to me might have been you get part of the lake and they get part of the lake. Perhaps it would have been "you" get days XYZ and they get days QST. Perhaps something different. Had I said "You can kayak on Squam and many other NH lakes, they're only minutes away" and called it compromise would you have bought that line ?

I'm not against laws, just bad ones.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

While the study may not have been a rigorous as a good university study, I don't think it so flawed that nothing can be learned of it. Basically it says what people boating on the lake know, there aren't that many boats out there going over 45, let alone way over. The problem is blown out of proportion.

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, they did nearly everything wrong.

You've missed my point. Let me try to be clearer. What's the proper method to set a speed limit ? Do we toss up a bunch of numbers and see which has the most appeal ? Do we pick the one that the absolute "safest" w/o regard for any other consideration ? There was a time when engineers did the analysis to set speed limits. To some extent this is still partially true in this country. It's certainly not true for the proposed law. Where's the analysis that says 45 mph is the proper limit ?

I haven’t missed the point at all. Squam, which is the second largest lake in NH, has had a 40mph daytime speed limit for years. From my experience it is fairly well enforced and seems to work well. This is called precedence – having a speed limit on a NH lake is not something new (which is why I never did understand the “need” for a pilot program on Winni).

It would affect only a minimal number of boats. So what ? How about if I, having a run of the mill boat speed-wise, ganged up with all the others like me and tried outlaw both high speed boating and kayaking because they both were a PITA to our (majority) boating pleasure. We would be the majority, would that then make it right ?

You would never be able to ban kayaks from the lake. Kayaking is one of the fastest growing recreational sports in America and NH’s economy depends on recreation. According to the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium study (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_squa...warnick341.pdf), from 1993 to 2003 kayaking experienced (by far) the fastest growth of any water-based recreation activity in the Northeast. Over this 10-year period, kayak use grew by 16.0% (power boating only grew by 2.3%). And our numbers are still growing. If you actually tried to ban kayaks on Winni, it would just unite us against powerboaters. I really don’t think that you want that.

So what if the 4 or 400 MP officers you spoke said it would help them catch BUIs. Try that justification on driving your car and see how well it plays. Set the speed limit on RT93 to 45 mph with the intent that it'll catch the DUI's because they'll probably be unable to contain themselves at such a slow speed. That such a limit would unfairly impact people who, not being drunk, can safely drive at > 45 mph doesn't/wouldn't bother you ?

Now you’re missing the point. The Interstate is designed for high speed and has a minimum speed limit. It was designed for high-speed transportation. Winni is not part of a high-speed transportation network.

Regarding see you in your kayak, I do believe it sets a limiting case. Prove to me that 45 mph is that limit. Your evidence so far is more anecdotal than the study you call flawed above. How hard to see is your boat ? Harder to see than the Mt Washington that's for sure, but also not invisible. How do we get from anecdotal evidence to something more concrete ?

Powerboaters have stated that they often have trouble seeing kayaks. I have had way too many close calls from powerboats, because the operator didn’t notice me until they were way too close. Many other paddlers have experienced the same type of close calls.That’s “concrete” enough for me.

… you posted above, the lake is so big and 27 mins is short enough and 45 if "fast enough" ... all opinions which have has much validity as someone saying 25 or 65 is "fast enough".

My point was that a 45 mph speed limit is not an actual “hindrance” to anyone, and that the lake is not a big as many try to make it out to be. I could easily paddle the entire length in an afternoon. There’s less than 2 square miles of the entire lake that is over a mile from a shore.

Let's say that kayaking and true high speed boating are incompatible. Certainly at some high enough speed this is true. The "compromise" you seem to favor is the one where you get to practice your recreation where and when you want, unrestricted and they "can take it to the ocean". Compromise to me might have been you get part of the lake and they get part of the lake.

The difference is that recreation does not pose a threat to anyone’s safety. I kayak and sail on the ocean, so I know that there’s a way more room there than there is on NH’s largest lake. The compromise is that this bill was originally written to include all NH lakes. Now it has been watered down to just cover Winni – and it has a 2-year sunset clause. My side has compromised enough already.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, they did nearly everything wrong.

No, not really. The only thing they did that I'd object to is advertise some of the test zones. The data from those areas may be suspect.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven’t missed the point at all. Squam, which is the second largest lake in NH, has had a 40mph daytime speed limit for years. From my experience it is fairly well enforced and seems to work well. This is called precedence – having a speed limit on a NH lake is not something new (which is why I never did understand the “need” for a pilot program on Winni).

You missed my point. Go back and read my 2 posts on this matter. What makes the limits (45/25) chosen for Winni, or those on Squam, the "safe" ones ? Where's your science to back up those numbers ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You would never be able to ban kayaks from the lake. Kayaking is one of the fastest growing recreational sports in America and NH’s economy depends on recreation. According to the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium study (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_squa...warnick341.pdf), from 1993 to 2003 kayaking experienced (by far) the fastest growth of any water-based recreation activity in the Northeast. Over this 10-year period, kayak use grew by 16.0% (power boating only grew by 2.3%). And our numbers are still growing. If you actually tried to ban kayaks on Winni, it would just unite us against powerboaters. I really don’t think that you want that.

Again you missed my point. Forget the practicality or legalities, would you think my proposal to be fair ? If not, why not ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you’re missing the point. The Interstate is designed for high speed and has a minimum speed limit. It was designed for high-speed transportation. Winni is not part of a high-speed transportation network.

Again you missed my point. You present the opinions of some MPs that a speed limit might help catch BUIs and that, because of that, it's a good idea. Try that reasoning out in the car world. If you don't like my example of Rt 93 then try a limit of 15 mph on all other roads. Certainly it would help catch DUIs for exactly the same reasons the analog would help catch BUIs. If you don't like the reasoning in the car world, I don't see how it "works" in the boating world.

Also consider what makes Rt 93 "safe" for "high" (ha) speeds.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Powerboaters have stated that they often have trouble seeing kayaks. I have had way too many close calls from powerboats, because the operator didn’t notice me until they were way too close. Many other paddlers have experienced the same type of close calls.That’s “concrete” enough for me.

Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My point was that a 45 mph speed limit is not an actual “hindrance” to anyone, and that the lake is not a big as many try to make it out to be. I could easily paddle the entire length in an afternoon. There’s less than 2 square miles of the entire lake that is over a mile from a shore.

The difference is that recreation does not pose a threat to anyone’s safety. I kayak and sail on the ocean, so I know that there’s a way more room there than there is on NH’s largest lake. The compromise is that this bill was originally written to include all NH lakes. Now it has been watered down to just cover Winni – and it has a 2-year sunset clause. My side has compromised enough already.

It's more than a hindrance to people who want to boat faster than 45 mph. Up to some limit I don't see that danger to you and other paddlers from anyone paying attention. While there's more room on the ocean, I don't get your reasoning on this point. If you kayak on the ocean aren't you in danger there too ? Aren't you less visible in the large swells typical on the ocean ?

EDIT : As to compromising, why not have certain sections of the lake speed restricted and others not ? Why isn't this a fair compromise ?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

We were all discussing that a Speed Limit solves nothing because the bad behavior on the lake has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED! We had all discussed earlier that by removing GFBL boats we solve NOTHING. I had said in SEVERAL posts before that I do not own a GFBL boat and I don't care either way about them. MY POINT IS and ALWAYS WILL BE that by enacting a law BASED ON NO FACT is not the answer. Islander claims that the lake will be "getting better" because GFBL boats are going to leave... I DO NOT AGREE that they will. HOWEVER if and IF they do it makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of safety on the lake. The boneheads will still be left behind in their wake to cause HAVOC and continue to ignore the RULES THAT EXIST.

Besides, You REALLY think that by GFBL boats leaving the lake all of a sudden the lake is going to be safer????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... :



By the way I do AGREE with you on one point you DID enter spin cycle on that last post.

My last post on this:
The goal of the speed limit proponents is not to make the lake safer by correcting the poor boating behavior. The goal is to get rid of the GFBLs. Period.

[Dick]

Supporters of the boat speed restriction bill often state that Lake George, New York, is a prime example of how well boat speed limits work. Really? A 202 page research report was published in 2006 concerning boating on Lake George. In part this report stated, “67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.” Evidently the speed limit has not solved the concerns of the lakeshore property owners. Nor did the speed limit prevent the tragic deaths of 25 senior citizens on a small tour boat two seasons ago . . . that was precipitated by a boat wake. Nor did it prevent the death of that young man who ran into a diving board off a dock with his boat. You can’t compare Lake George with Winnipesaukee . . . their configuration is completely different. New Hampshire has a 150 foot Safe Passage law on her waters. Lake George does not have such a rule.

If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

...If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.

Top me that is an indication that the Lake George speed limit is working! Enforcement does not seem to be a problem.

Originally Posted by Dick

“67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.”

I'm surprised the percentage is so low. Unsafe operation of boats is a problem everywhere.

Nobody has claimed that a speed limit will stop unsafe operation of boats. Anybody that does make that claim is a liar or an idiot.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

To(p) me that is an indication that the Lake George speed limit is working! Enforcement does not seem to be a problem.

Strange; I understood that to mean they weren't using radar. How can you enforce a speed limit without using radar?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm surprised the percentage is so low. Unsafe operation of boats is a problem everywhere.

Low?? I was thinking that was high, considering they have a speed limit which should make more people "feel" safe.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Dick

Supporters of the boat speed restriction bill often state that Lake George, New York, is a prime example of how well boat speed limits work. Really? A 202 page research report was published in 2006 concerning boating on Lake George. In part this report stated, “67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.” Evidently the speed limit has not solved the concerns of the lakeshore property owners. Nor did the speed limit prevent the tragic deaths of 25 senior citizens on a small tour boat two seasons ago . . . that was precipitated by a boat wake. Nor did it prevent the death of that young man who ran into a diving board off a dock with his boat. You can’t compare Lake George with Winnipesaukee . . . their configuration is completely different. New Hampshire has a 150 foot Safe Passage law on her waters. Lake George does not have such a rule.

If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.

If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

It's wondeful that 33% of the George residents think their lake is safe! After a few years with a speed limit I hope we can increase our percentage from 0% to 33%. That would be great.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

Everyone repeat after me: Unsafe operation of boats does not automatically equate to speed. Speed does not automatically equate to unsafe operation of boats.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

It's wondeful that 33% of the George residents think their lake is safe! After a few years with a speed limit I hope we can increase our percentage from 0% to 33%. That would be great.

Hmmm, what would the relative percentages be if I offered up this question :

Unsafe operation of boats is a

• major
• middling
• minor

problem on Winnipesaukee. {pick one}

Then also let me ask (as well) but substitute the word rude for unsafe. What would the result be I wonder. Betcha a lot would rank rude as major and unsafe not so much.

[ApS]

Unsafe operation of boats is a minor problem on Winnipesaukee.



(Kinda depends on one's perspective, though).

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Unsafe operation of boats is a minor problem on Winnipesaukee.

Finally we agree. Glad you're bad on your meds.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Kinda depends on one's perspective, though).

A bad day for the boat owner really isn't my concern in this debate, and not yours either I suspect. But hey if I posted a couple of pics to plane crashes in the Lake and made the inference that unsafe general aviation was a problem on/over Winnipesaukee what would that say ? How about if I started a campaign to ban floatplanes from the lake at all times because it's too crowded and the planes might land and hit someone.

Surely this pic must be proof of that ....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Hmmm, what would the relative percentages be if I offered up this question :

Unsafe operation of boats is a

• major
• middling
• minor

problem on Winnipesaukee. {pick one}

Then also let me ask (as well) but substitute the word rude for unsafe. What would the result be I wonder. Betcha a lot would rank rude as major and unsafe not so much.

I'd vote minor in this poll.

As far as rudeness goes, I'd also have to say minor. The couteous people far outnumber the rude ones on the lake. People that see rudeness as a major problem are not giving credit to courteous people. They may also fail to understand boating laws and/or fail to comprehend how close 150 feet really is.

Keep a running count by adding 1 for people being courteous thing and subtracting 1 for people being rude. Even if you initially saw rudeness as a major problem, I bet you end up with a positive number, at the end of the day.

[parrothead]

Great post Mee N Mac!!!!!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by parrothead

....I am more concerned that the speed limit issue is getting so much hype that other safety issues on the lake are being swept under the rug. The main one being that some boaters are operating their boats in a manner that can harm others. Now that maybe going too fast, or not paying attention to their surroundings, or drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Why is it that no one is up in arms about this issue? Why aren't we spending time trying to provide more education and enforcement to educate boaters on the laws we already have. The speed of a boat does not equal safety. A guy going headway speed playing with the radio could run over a swimmer. And a boat exceeding 45 mph in the broads where there are no other boats around them is not excessive. While a boat going 45 mph in Meredith bay on a Saturday with many boats around them is excessive....

Very well put Parrothead I could not agree with you more!!!! This law will change NOTHING in terms of idiots/drunks/carelessness etc.

[trfour]

Adding a speed limit would be ludicrous... Putting teeth into the laws that are already on the books, makes much more sense to me.

Such as;

1. Vision and hearing Test

2. Handling and Driving Test

3.Boating certification Test, and on all copies of the above and including final in hand certificate in large letters, " Being found guilty of any offence related to boating safety brings a mandatory one month confiscation of the boat involved. And if the boat involved just happens to be a Rental, or not owned by the operator, So Be It-First Offence, and no exclusions. And I don't care if you know The President Of The United States.




Caught on the portible Weirs Bridge Cam awhile back

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Your logic is really quite laughable here. The same people that are either blissfully ignorant, or purposefully ignorant, of other boating laws are suddenly going to be intimidated by a speed limit law, and factor this into their consideration of where to boat?

I'm relatively new to Winnipesaukee (but not boating), if it wasn't for this forum and all the speed limit threads, I'm not sure that I'd even be aware of the great speed limit debate. Someone who doesn't even care to use courtesy and common sense in the first place is hardly likely to do some in-depth study on where they want to go boating, the likelihood of a speed limit law actually deterring anyone is about nil.

The boats on the lake that can actually top 45MPH are really a minority, and even the ones that can top that speed don't necessarily do so on a regular basis. This is truly a solution looking for a problem, no matter how valiantly you try to position it.

The speed limit law, if it passes, will solve no problems, nor will it discourage the types of boaters that you don't like from coming to the lake. Being a moderately sized inland lake, Winni is the perfect Captain Bonehead magnet. All the people who want/can afford big boats, but couldn't actually handle such a craft in truly "big" water love to putter around Winni in relative safety.

Further, if more lakes enact this law, the people who really want to go fast are probably MORE likely to come to Winnipesaukee (larger body of water, more places to go fast, harder to patrol).

This debate rages on, and I've stayed out of it for the most part, but my prediction is that if it passes you won't really be able to determine a season without a speed limit from a season with a speed limit, if your measure is overall safety and comfort on the lake.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-Lent

Your logic is really quite laughable here. The same people that are either blissfully ignorant, or purposefully ignorant, of other boating laws are suddenly going to be intimidated by a speed limit law, and factor this into their consideration of where to boat?

I'm relatively new to Winnipesaukee (but not boating), if it wasn't for this forum and all the speed limit threads, I'm not sure that I'd even be aware of the great speed limit debate. Someone who doesn't even care to use courtesy and common sense in the first place is hardly likely to do some in-depth study on where they want to go boating, the likelihood of a speed limit law actually deterring anyone is about nil.

Re-read yourself Hazenut. The post above mine thought nobody was going to leave because of a speed limit.

You yourself had the Lake Michigan comment. But now the facts are in. GFBL's are leaving because of speed limits that have no even passed yet. Get ready for a big exodus and more peaceful Lake Winnipesaukee!!

You should go to that thread and read what they really think about speed limits and all of us.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islandeer

Re-read yourself Hazenut. The post above mine thought nobody was going to leave because of a speed limit.

Re-read my post that you quote, I did not say "nobody was going to leave", I said that a speed limit wouldn't discourage ( or measurably reduce ) the types of boaters that you want off of the lake.

Your quote of one example from another forum proves no points.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by parrothead

Interesting Debate

Just letting everyone and to join those that agree. I agree with Parrothead. The current laws are sufficient for safe boating.

[Taz]

I never understood how this could even get as far as it did. Its simple. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! The only thing the supporters can supply is their alleged opinion. I say alleged because its obvious to me that the supporters reasons having nothing to do with safety or speed. Laws should never be based on opinions or false fear, they should be based on facts.

I have been boating on Winni for almost 30 years and mostly weekends when its busiest and I never experienced or witnessed a close call with a high performance boat, only recreational bow riders that were traveling much slower than the proposed speed limit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Taz

..... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! ...

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding 45MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

Testimony that speed limits will decrease business is evidence against a speed limit. I was pointing out the opposite kind of evidence. Obviously there is evidence on both sides. But to say the pro speed limit side has NO EVIDENCE is false. Conflicting evidence does not equal not evidence.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. .

I must be misinformed.There have been far more deaths that occurred with speeds far UNDER your magic 45 mph.Where is your passion for those dead people?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

I can say the same thing.The opposition likes to argue away the fact that by far the most boating deaths occur under the proposed 45 mph.However the accidents ARE real,the statistics ARE undeniable and the victims ARE still dead.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.

Originally Posted by bear islander

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?

Originally Posted by bear islander

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.

Originally Posted by bear islander

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.



Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?



Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.



The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!

Yes, deaths happen at low speeds as well, they happen at no speed, on land, in the air, on skimobles etc. etc. The only relevant question is do they happen in boats at speeds greater than those proposed, the answer is YES! All of your comments along these lines are nothing but misdirection or denial. Lets stick to the point.

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/...akes-on-boats/

hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

I'll respond to the rest later, but lets start with the Quabbin. It is a MAN-MADE body of water that was CREATED to be a water supply. It is not a natural body of water like Winnipesaukee is. It was CREATED to supply water to millions of people. You will also note that no direct contact with the water is allowed, no swimming or wading for instance is possible. Don't ya think that makes it different than Winnipesaukee????

A few quotes from the Mass Department of Conservation and Recreation:

Quabbin Reservoir is one of the largest man-made public water supplies in the United States. Created in the 1930s by the construction of two huge earthen dams

Things to know before you go
The primary purpose of DCR water and surrounding lands is drinking water supply. Public access, therefore, is carefully regulated and controlled to protect over 2 million people’s source of drinking water. State regulations require all entry and exit through gates or other designated areas only. Anything that could pollute the water supply system, such as litter or refuse of any sort, is prohibited. Please observe restrictions on recreational activities. Direct water contact activities, such as swimming and wading, are strictly prohibited by regulation.

Outboard motors shall have a rating of not more than one-half the BIA or OBC rated horsepower for the boat and shall not exceed 20 horsepower, except that outboard motors for Commission boats less than fourteen 14 feet six inches in length shall not exceed ten horsepower

Source- http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/quabbin.htm

So tell me Bear Islander, is this a solid comparison to Lake Winnepesaukee? A basically uninhabited man-made body of water that does not have the depth that Winnipesaukee does and has a sole purpose of being a public water supply? Get over yourself...Who is misdirecting or in denial now???

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/...akes-on-boats/

Originally Posted by bear islander

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

Way back in 1973 the director of a New Hampshire children's camp had a problem on his lake. He petitioned the state for help, and eventually a speed limit was set on that lake.

You and I discussed this earlier in this same thread. That was the "decades" I was referring to in my post. Sorry if I made it to obscure. For the evidence you seek go back and read your own post!

I guess we are in the "let's pick apart every little thing he says mode" now.

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

hazelnut - As I keep reminding people, I have always wanted to get ride of the big cruisers. I hope they ARE next. I am confident that the lake will have a horsepower limit eventually. The new two strokes are much better than the old ones. They have to be to meet the new federal standards.

I am in favor of a ban on two strokes on the lake, that will be a hard one to sell however. It will come eventually, it will have to. The lakes gas guzzling, gas in the water, oil in the bilge days are numbered.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I am in favor of a ban on two strokes on the lake, that will be a hard one to sell however. It will come eventually, it will have to. The lakes gas guzzling, gas in the water, oil in the bilge days are numbered.

Can't wait for those nuke engines to appear. No emissions, plenty of horsepower. Powered by powdered granite.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I guess we are in the "let's pick apart every little thing he says mode" now.

And how 'bout that Quabbin...??? I'd still love to hear your thoughts on how the two lakes are similar. Do you propose a 10hp limit? How about no swimming, skinny dipping (or chunky dunking it if is the case), or playing at the beach?

Getting back to one of our previous conversations, I had no issue with you comparing Long Lake in proximity and in relation. A drunk driver is a drunk driver, there was one on Long Lake and people died. There was one here and an individual died. I doubt the outcome would have been different if other types of boats were involved. You don't have to be doing 60mph+ to crush a 14' boat or kill someone seated in the back of a 22' boat . And one of those incidents did not involve excess speed for the conditions.

I fail to see the logic however when comparing isolated incidents in other parts of the country as some love to point out. Accidents can happen anywhere, and for the overwhelming odds (including here) speed is not the major contributing factor. As far as snowmobiling, cars, etc more people die every year in these other vehicles than in boats. Speed lmits are not saving those people. What is taking their lives is drinking and driving, inexperience, etc.. Sure, limiting speed at some level can save lives, but when the incidents that people claim are the causes are actually provoked by large amounts of alcohol a speed limit didn't save anyone.

[Bear Islander]

Quabbin and Winnipesaukee both provide drinking water for thousands of people. That is the relevant similarity. The relative numbers of people drinking the water doesn't matter.

Winnipesaukee is still in the pristine range, but the quality is dropping. When the water quality drops below pristine you will see some drastic changes. There will be calls for severe restrictions and they will pass in a walk. With respect to boats we are in what will be called the good old days. Every year anti pollution laws, codes and standards are increasing in this country. It is happening everywhere. If you think Winnipesaukee is immune you are in fantasy land.

Do you really think there will be 1500HP boats on this lake in twenty years. Not a chance. Try 100HP or less, that is my guess.

I don't think we will have nuke boating, but electric is a definite possibility.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Quabbin and Winnipesaukee both provide drinking water for thousands of people. That is the relevant similarity. The relative numbers of people drinking the water doesn't matter.

Winnipesaukee is still in the pristine range, but the quality is dropping. When the water quality drops below pristine you will see some drastic changes. There will be calls for severe restrictions and they will pass in a walk. With respect to boats we are in what will be called the good old days. Every year anti pollution laws, codes and standards are increasing in this country. It is happening everywhere. If you think Winnipesaukee is immune you are in fantasy land.

Do you really think there will be 1500HP boats on this lake in twenty years. Not a chance. Try 100HP or less, that is my guess.

I don't think we will have nuke boating, but electric is a definite possibility.

Sure we may have electric boats or Nuke boats or whatever boats. I would WELCOME any new innovative idea that would lessen pollution. However, I could care less if said new style electronucleo boat does 75MPH as long as it is clean burning. Speed Limit does not solve a pollution problem. Who knows with new technology we may be whizzing around on 100MPH electric boats. Whooooopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

What we need is something that can roam the lake in tiny numbers that have a high perceived danger but have little actual risk of hurting anyone to scare the 1000s of potential polluters away. If we could just think of something.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

What we need is something that can roam the lake in tiny numbers that have a high perceived danger but have little actual risk of hurting anyone to scare the 1000s of potential polluters away. If we could just think of something.

Hey there Rattlesnake Guy, yes it's true that rattlesnakes are pretty decent swimmers. They have to be, just to writher out to their island. Plus, they could supply the bike week venders with the raw material for custom biker boots, and belts........another win-win!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Les,
Glad to see my suggestion was to subtle for you.

[fatlazyless]

Here's an advance preview of what I'm gonna say when HB847 passes the senate.

Well golleeeee....I'm speechless....I don't know what to say, so why don't I just say,

sometimes you win,


& sometimes YOU LOSE!

:


Hey, if you like the lake at 75mph, you'll like it ten times better at 45mph,
so just slow down & look at the view,
& use less gasoline, understand!

Going 45mph is a wicked fast speed for most normal boats.

This has been a public service message brought to you from your local mental health rehabilitation center! ..b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b...

[Bear Islander]

There is a saying in sports .... get cocky, get stuffed!

And something about waiting for a fat lady to sing or a Governor to sign the legislation.

[Airwaves]

As I bring your attention to post #277 written by AL, Skipper of the Sea Que an my response at #289, both on page 3 of this thread, there is another search underway for a missing snowmobiler

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Winnipesaukee is still in the pristine range, but the quality is dropping. When the water quality drops below pristine you will see some drastic changes. There will be calls for severe restrictions and they will pass in a walk. With respect to boats we are in what will be called the good old days. Every year anti pollution laws, codes and standards are increasing in this country. It is happening everywhere. If you think Winnipesaukee is immune you are in fantasy land.

Where's your water quality data? How do you know the quality is dropping? I have been unable to find anything newer than the 2005 UNH student project that drew its biggest conclusions from 1986 to 1999 data.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I have an idea to help the alleged pollution problem! I think I will get together a group, called the WMA, Winni Mainlanders Association. Petition the legislature to take all island property by eminent domain. That will instantly clean up the water quality by taking hundreds of boats off the lake, stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake. Now look what you have done, I am starting to make as much sense as FLL or BI.... Geez

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

... take all island property by eminent domain..... .....stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake....

What makes you think failed septic systems are only an island problem? I suspect islanders are more aware and more diligent than mainlanders about this problem.

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

Have you seen the water quality results for the last 5 years?

I do see what you mean by ever increasing restrictions, but we both know it's never been about pollution.

BTW, in that thread, it was determined that I can legally take my boat on Squam, I just can't take a porta-potti and a bed at the same time.

[fatlazyless]

Just checked the quik bill search at the NH Senate and after passing the house on 1/31, it now shows 3/13: "Introduced and Referred to Transportation and Interstate Cooperation."

On March 16, 2006, hb162 was drowned in the senate by a vote of 15-9.

Wonder what it will be this year, and when it will occur? The legislature is in session today and tomorrow, but I have no clue as to when hb847 will splash across the senate floor?

Reminds me of a saying from the back of a marina forklift: If you want to go splash,
you best have the cash!

After that hb847 gets passed, I wanna see a NH Marine Trades Assoc bumper sticker that says: We have the cash, so where's our splash?

[fatlazyless]

As for the reason why the 45mph land speed limit does not apply to snowmobiles when on a frozen lake surface? It probably has something to do with the same legislative reasons why a three seat jetski is legally a boat.

Now, if the motorboat speed limits soon gets passed, is it likely that it will be rescinded if the Republicans regain a majority in the legislature? It's an interesting question. Senator Joe Kenney is a Republican, and supports the boat speed limits, and he could well be the Republican candidate to oppose Gov Lynch in November.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

I have an idea to help the alleged pollution problem! I think I will get together a group, called the WMA, Winni Mainlanders Association. Petition the legislature to take all island property by eminent domain. That will instantly clean up the water quality by taking hundreds of boats off the lake, stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake. Now look what you have done, I am starting to make as much sense as FLL or BI.... Geez

HEY! Hands off my Island you flatlander!!!!!!!!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

You might not have posted that if you had ever seen me drive my Seadoo. I love speed, next year I will be going Mach 4 as I leave the atmosphere.

Pollution is not my first concern, nor is speed. The direction the lake is going in is my first concern. It's all about bigger, faster, louder and get those kayaks out of my way. The opposition has actually suggested that children's camps may need to hire Marine Patrol details to protect their boats. Talk about clueless!!!

As with all things in life there are limits. How big is to big for this lake? How fast is to fast? Are there places that kayaks and canoes should not go?

Next summer visit a children's camp on Winnipesaukee for a day. Talk to the director and waterfront staff. I think you will find a new perspective.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!


I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

The Long Lake Accident cannot happen here because half the people involved were killed and one of the boats was destroyed. Talk about silly arguments! It was already against the law to collide with another boat, to operate under the influence, and to operate at night without lights, and those laws did not help.

I thought one of the purposes of the speed limit was to increase traffic on the lake through tourism. Isn't that why some businesses support the limit?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!
hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

WE need the clue???? Ummmm yeah. Runabouts, Speedboats, and the like are NOT NOT NOT the offenders. If you want to champion a pollution effort start with 2-strokes and jet skis. If you want to champion an erosion campaign start with the cruisers. If we had a lake that banned 2-strokes and cruisers THEN and only THEN could talk less pollution and erosion. Getting rid of a FEW speed boats will have a little to no impact.... Here's a $20 keep the change.

My new nickname for Bear Islander is: "The King of Misinformation" a moniker that is well deserved.

[Cal]

I'm getting so discusted with this ,I hope you get your speed limit and every "go fast" goes somewhere else and now that YOUR lake is so safe , for every "go fast" that leaves you get 10 more Captain Boneheads in their 18' smokey , oil dripping two cycle bow riders to add to the congestion and idiocy of weekends on the lake.
I will personally laugh my azz off because you just shot yourself in your foot

[Airwaves]

Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster.

So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter?

Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster.

So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter?

Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

I do not speak for WinnFABS, but I will point out that the "B" in WinnFABS stands for "boating". I must assume that is why they are not involved in snowmobile legislation.

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)

Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.

If we assume statistics show automobiles cause more deaths than trains, planes or snowmobiles. Then by your logic, we should stop all efforts to make trains, planes and snowmobiles safer. Once we have automobiles nice and safe we can start work on one of the others.

Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but your methodology is idiotic. There is no logical or particle reason why all safety efforts can not proceed in parallel. There is NOTHING whatsoever about the speed limit movement that is stopping snowmobile safety efforts or even slowing them down.

The WinnFASS idea is not really a joke. It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.

At least I, and others that support speed limits, are trying to do something positive. You may believe that we are misdirected, but at least we are not sitting on our fat asses and whining about snowmobile dangers not being addressed by WinnFABS!

If you think snowmobile dangers on the lake need to be addressed then put down the remote control and stand up and do something about it. Feel free to hit me up for a small donation.

[Airwaves]

BI wrote in part:

It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

I've posted this several times, but have been pretty much ignored every time: The absense of boat fatalities and collisions is NOT proof that the lake is save. What about close calls?

There are no statistics on close calls, but that doesn't mean they are not happening. In fact it has been my personal experience that they happen rather often.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

I've shown why that study was not even a valid study. They basically did everything wrong; in fact that study was so flawed that it could be used for an example of all the things not to do, when you are attempting to do a valid study.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

I'm actually in favor of having lake speed limits apply to snowmobiles.

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

My goal is to make NH lakes safer, period. The original bill was for all NH lakes, and that's still my goal. I honestly feel that a speed limit is a good way to make any lake safer. It's not the only way, but it is part of the overall solution.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

BI wrote in part:

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

Any "reasonable" person can understand that what happens on the ice in winter has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with HB847. It's just misdirection and denial.

Plus safety is not an absolute. There is no such thing as a "safe" lake. Safety is relative, and speed limits will make it safer.

Your restrictions that only certain accidents count, and only if the speed can be absolutely determined, and only if it happened boat to boat etc. etc. are silly, more denial. Winnipesaukee does not have an invisible safety shield that protects it from serious accidents. The Coast Guard considers speed to be one of the primary causes of boat accidents. They don't recognize any exception for this lake.

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

It has been answered in the past. I have answered it prior to. It can happen here. It can happen here with or without a speed limit!!!

A speed limit will not stop a drunken driver from speeding. If he is smashed and wants to drive, I don't think a speed limit will deter him from cranking it up. We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake, we have also seen that you don't have to do over 30mph to kill someone here. If a person gets hammered and gets behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, so what makes you think that a speed limit will curb their behavior???

If you want to stop the deaths, stop the drunks. Why have MP hang out just around the corner from the Meredith docks watching people come out of the NWZ? Why not have them at the dock watching people get in their boats. Why don't local police put some focus on policing at the docks as well? We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats.

How about spot checks leaving the Naswa? Stop the drunks and lives will be saved.

[Airwaves]

BI wrote:

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

So reality doesn't matter, what matters is you get a type of boat you don't like off the public waterway.

My point about what happens on the ice that is being ignored by your crowd while you wage a crusade against Hi Performance boats with a solution in search of is to feature the statement you just made. SAFETY IS NOT THE ISSUE even though it says so in the acronym WinnFABS, Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating SAFETY.

Thanks

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

Safety is an issue, it's not the only issue. Even if you could do the impossible and make the lake completely safe, that does not solve all the problems. We have talked about pollution and overcrowding. That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.

A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake. We are talking about a crowded limited resource. There are limits, and we have reached them. How big is to big? How fast is to fast? My answer is that 90 MPH is way to fast for this lake. That the big cruisers are to big for this lake.

And again the biggest problem is the direction the lake is going in. I will bet the average boats horsepower has risen steadily for decades. I am guilty of this as well. I started power boating in the 60's with a 2.5 HP. Since then every boat I have had has been considerably more horsepower than the one before it. We need to start going in the OTHER direction.

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Airwaves and all (and al too ) hear a lot more than you think.
Many are questioning the reasoning that more speed limits should be the next step (and a necessary step) in making things better.

Many folks are concerned about the ITEMS quoted above. Speaking for myself, I just do not think speed limits are the solution.

Overcrowding and sharing a public resource. Yep, on a nice summer weekend it is crowded. Lets say you want to take your family or group on a boat trip from Meredith to Alton Bay to get ice cream across from the public dock. Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph? I imagine the 60 mph boat will use HALF as much lake time as the slower boat. That would ease boating overcrowding but not the crowds waiting for public dock space. Then we could argue about boating use by time (a 3 hour tour) or by destination (A specific trip from point A to point B and maybe C). However, either way, speed limits will not help this overcrowding.

Noise should not be addressed by speed limits. Fishing boats at 6 AM make too much noise for me while I'm trying to sleep. The remedy was closing the near by launch ramp until 8:30 or 9 AM. Noise limits and enforcement, not speed limits will help with noise.

Kayaks are being pushed off the lake you say. Fix it with speed limits. Heck, my wife doesn't want to go out mid day on a busy summer weekend in our 24 footer because there are too many boats and to many wakes, not because of their speed. My kids (now 22 and 18) love a crowded lake ride. But, If my wife wants a boat ride we go before 10 AM. Or we will go out later in the day. Or go out during the weekdays. She loves a sunset cruise and it's not crowded. Timing our boating, not speed limits is our answer. No one kind of craft is being pushed off the lake by speeding boats. Overcrowding is not just an alleged problem for kayaks. The same with alleged fear.

Wouldn't the false sense of security brought about by speed limits bring MORE boats to the lake. Not GFBLs but more trailered boats from out of the area. Increasing crowding and decreasing safety.

How do people know about the current rules of the lake? How do they know about the 150 foot rule and other lake or NH specific rules? Is it posted at all launch ramps? Nope. On billboards? How do tourists find out about these rules? Too many don't. But they have Boater Safety Certificates - sure, but NH has made it so that it is easier to get an acceptable on-line certificate from another state with NO testing on NH specific rules, like the 150' rule. Speed limits gonna fix that too? Nope. If visitors and some regulars don't know about the 150' rule how will they learn about any new speed limits?

We are listening but do not agree with all that we hear. However, this is the USA and you have every right to be wrong .

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over...

Well said and I do believe in your sincerity. I also agree with you on a few points. YES the lake is getting too crowded. Water Quality is a major concern. Safety, noise, fear all good points. We just totally and completely disagree on a solution that will actually work. I slide more towards the right on this issue. Making laws as a "lets throw this against the wall and see if it works" approach is a horrible way to govern.
My fear is this law will pass and the powers that be will pat themselves on the back and say "well we did our job, the people wanted a safer lake and we delivered." The reality is the lake will be no safer and none of the issues you mentioned above will be addressed. Where does that leave us? Will the lawmakers undertake real measures to address the concerns or will they be fed up with "Lake Winni" talk and table any discussion addressing real concerns. Especially when it will cost money to enact the measures such as increased patrol and enforcement. I believe you have even said yourself that they won't throw any more money into any initiatives involving policing the lake. So instead this blanket arbitrary 45MPH speed limit gets thrown in the books as a safety solution and as a solution to the problems you listed? It just will not work! It also sets us back several years in terms of addressing the real problems and that is a fact.