Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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 ?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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.

"May" be suspect? give me a break. There are all sorts of errors in the way that the study was done and in the report itself: The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

On top of that, data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represents the entire study group. And studies of this type are never considered to be viable when members of the test population know about the study (or when the locations of the two main study areas were well known).

Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

So 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as most here seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study).

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

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?

No, I didn’t miss your point. My “science” is the logic of precedence - which is based on what has already worked elsewhere. Squam has had a 40/20 mph speed limit for many years, which has been enforced by the very same Marine Patrol. So perhaps this would be a better limit, since it has been used successful on a large NH lake for years.

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

Look, I didn’t miss any of your points – yet you’re totally missing (or ignoring) most of mine. The problem is that you’re trying to push my answers into your own slant – and I’m not letting you do that.

What would be your justification for banning kayaks from the lake? Especially sea kayaks, which are designed especially for large bodies of water. What harm or danger does a kayaker present to anyone? We make no damaging wakes, do not pollute the water, and are nearly silent on the water. A speed limit does not target any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit targets any type of vehicle.

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.

No, I didn’t. And BUI is just one of many reasons. A lake is a body of water that we use for recreation – Interstate highways are specifically designed for high-speed transportation. Yet even Interstates have speed limits. Allowing unlimited speeds on our lakes makes no sense at all. Most people don’t even realize that our state permits boats to travel on most of our lakes at unlimited speeds, and when they do find out, most are appalled.

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.

I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline.

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?

But we’re talking about a lake where high speed boats have actually hit islands – which are a LOT more visible than my kayak. My point is that 40 or 45 mph may very well be that limit. No one is totally attentive 100 percent of the time, and sun, spray, and fatigue all reduce the ability to see a small boat in time. High speeds just increase the danger when there is inattention, or when visibility is at all reduced (or when someone is BUI). You can argue all you want, but that’s a fact.

As far as kayaking on the ocean goes: Swells do not really make a small boat less visible. That’s because 50% of the time I’m on top of the swell – which actually makes me more visible than on flat water – since I’m that many more feet higher. Another thing – swells and large waves tend to slow down most high-speed powerboats.

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

Here's my compromise: Get rid of the amendments that changed this bill from "all NH lakes" to just Lake Winnipesaukee, and added a 2-year sunset clause. Then I'll be willing to discuss your compromise. So far, my side has had to make all the concessions.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...I can think of only three areas that feel overcrowded, i.e., the "slot" between Bear Island and Meredith Neck , the area between Eagle Island and the Weirs , and, sometimes, portions of Winter Harbor...But, honestly, to me it's seemed that over the last two seasons, at most times most areas of the lake have born a distinct resemblance to those "Where is everybody?"

Except for a view years ago from the deck of the Mount Washington, I can't speak to Meredith or Eagle Island's situations; however, I have seen what you described here to family boating in Winter Harbor.

People are staying away from Winter Harbor and it could be due to the frequent visits by ocean-racers to two Winter Harbor addresses in particular—why those two addresses, I don't know.

Wake-surfers and overpowered boats towing tubes appear to be adding to Winter Harbor's unfriendly waters as well.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving...At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses..."

That makes no sense at all.

This little boat may be in your way, but I'd rather be in front of his one acre of "Safe Passage" than the many, many, many acres a Nor-Tech has responsibility for in front of him every second at 130-MPH. (Or a Skater at 140-MPH or jet-boats at 150-MPH.)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country! ..."

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...And since you're retired you probably don't understand why someone who's in the working world these days might not either have the free time nor free $$s to spend on a new boat.

Although all who perish on our waters are rightfully missed, retirees have a right to a full life and fully-enjoyed pensions.

The view from the middle of an unpowered boat—or any boat at anchor—upon the approach of an unproven driver at the wheel of an extreme ocean-racer isn't one of those enjoyments. Giving up weekends to the cowboys is one thing: giving up night travel has become another.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Wow, just think of all the extra time he would have served for violating, by 3 mph, a speed limit. The mind boggles !

What speed limit could he have observed? There was none.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Or perhaps by going 1 mph slower he might have parked his boat on top of the Hartman's and sunk it and drowned them all. Perhaps if he had been going 10 mph faster his course would have passed in front of the Hartman's and missed them entirely..."

Of your two extremes, only by going slower would he have certainly missed the Wellcraft.

He was approaching from their right rear quarter, and overrode the slower boat's rearmost seat. With all involved having much to lose, a speed limit could have changed everything. Sadly, my warning of Winnipesaukee's excessive-speed problem appeared in newsprint on August 9, 2001. (And wasn't taken to heart by August 11, 2001.) Seven years hasn't improved the view from my dock.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...You have suspiscions, now back them up with evidence. It's what we would call science..."

Having spent an entire career in science, I know good science.

As I previously addressed, much was left to learning-curve, guesswork, and a dismissive attitude towards collected numbers: NHMP only played at becoming scientists.

[Airwaves]

Evenstar wrote in part:
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni. So our views are based on our actual experiences on the lake, not on any "fear mongering".

Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. As an anecdote let me tell you a quick story that happened to me last week. I was driving down Rt 133 on a dry sunny day, traffic was light, I drove past Avid Technology and there was a traffic cop standing there. He began to give me the signal to slow down. I looked at my speedometer, I was doing 35 MPH, I looked up and the officer was still signalling me to slow down. He was standing in front of a sign that says Speed Limit 40!
Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.

I know a woman who owns a family camp on Winn and she decided to open up a kayak shop to sell kayaks and to provide tours and instruction. She wanted to run her business from her camp, but ended up opening her store in Lincoln. Her tours and white water instruction is on the Pemi River.

I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?

As I’ve point out several times the statistical chance of me being run over by a powerboat increases as the speeds of powerboats on the lake increases.

So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.

The four MP officers that I spoke with personally all want a lake speed limit law - that's also a fact. They see a speed limit as a "necessary" tool.

They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.

There are already two laws on the books in NH that address all the concerns that you have raised:
270-D:2 VI. (a) (the 150' rule) and
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.

[Airwaves]

Posted by APS:

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

Funny how APS takes my response to his quote, but forgets to include the statement he made that I responded to, so let's review shall we? THE ORIGINAL POST BY APS

APS:
Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Then my entire response to APS on that topic:

Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country!

As for the push for the use of PFD's, as a member of the Coast Guard family I can tell you it has nothing to do with speed but everything to do with saving lives. Even as we tow a disabled boat to shore we require all POB, persons on board, to wear a life jacket during the tow, as we require all Coast Guard personel to wear life jackets at all times while underway. Nope, not speed just trying to prevent the loss of life when someone falls overboard.

At that point APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat.

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Did I quote anything from a decade ago? No, but there was a PWC death on Lake Winnipesaukee last year but to the best of my knowledge it had nothing to do with speed or a collision.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Golly gee Mr. Wizard, if your business is falling off because of the economy or other factors I guess marketing is out of the question!

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing.

Of course, that's it! The downturn in boat sales is due to unfriendly boats, BTW as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!

As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

Just as New Hampshire can't report a speed for the accident in Meredith, that is a bogus argument and you know it. I guess you don't believe in forensic evidence either?

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

And we come back to an argument that the speed limit folks ignore, but now and again throw up trying to link it to boats on Lake Winnipesaukee that don't exist (ocean racers). A magazine that includes information on "extreme" drinks! Of course! It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right?

Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?

Well...let's just take a peek inside Extreme Boats magazine....

At the Helm - Fall Heatwave Poker Run
Extreme Mail Box - Letters from our readers
Offshore Racing - "War of the Worlds"
Extreme Girls - Nikki
Extreme Drinks - (Featured this month—Champagne)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right...?

The number of accidents attributable to high speed will be suppressed when collision speeds are unknown.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake...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???

1) Long Lake has no speed limit—today. Similarly-sized Lake Geneva has a 15-MPH limit at night—easy for a concerned citizen to act with a single cellphone call. (And flashing blue lights can be seen for many miles).

2) NH's "hit-and-run" boating law is an example of a penalty that had never occurred to the Senate before 2001. It was clearly and obviously necessary.

The needed Winnipesaukee speed limit comes with newly-enhanced penalties for the sociopathic risk that brings drugs, alcohol, thrills, and excess speed to Lake Winnipesaukee. At some moment in time, the would-be impaired will learn of this new law and go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...[concrete]...as opposed to the 150foot law...?"

Speed-recording instruments aid enforcement because it's a "concrete" measure. No instrument exists to scientifically aid the 150-foot rule—a rule unknown to too many visiting certificate holders.

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...The USCG stats show a declining to flat fatality rate, and accident rate, the last decade. Doesn't sound like it's getting more dangerous to me...Then again these stats include some ocean water so perhaps you're trying to indicate that the safe waters of the oceans are masking the unsafe inland waters ???

1) Trends are down primarily due to a decade's-worth of restrictive requirements on Jet-Ski operation.

Jet-Skis were targeted due to underage demographics, pollution, unique noise, unsafe operation, blunt trauma injuries, poor mechanical ergonomics leading to mishaps and too-frequent tragic headlines.

There are hundreds of thousands of US acres where Jet-Skis are not permitted to operate.

2) Ocean? I presently overlook Florida ocean waters with a multitude of overpowered and overweight boats: there's no reason for speed limits where I am because there are thousands of square miles of ocean out there!

(Or noise limitations either, 'cause there are no hills).

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...they could feel just as good and have just concrete a law with limits of 35/10 or 55/35. What makes any of these (or some other numbers) correct ?

Lake Geneva has speed limits: 35/15. One must be careful what one wishes for.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat..."

Haven't we all been watching a progressive PFD "push" by the CG?

The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!

"Race on Sunday...Sell on Monday"?

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France?

And Lastly...How about adding this to the certification test?

Someone asked about an eye test: here's a question of perception for NH's boating certificate test...

Question 45: Tunnel Vision...
These two images are the very same view of Lake Winnipesaukee:

Which view simulates 60-MPH, and which is the view at headway speed?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. . . . Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.

I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.

I’ve already posted several times why I have a pretty good idea of what 40 mph looks like on the water. No one’s 100% accurate, but I can tell when a boat is going way faster than 40 mph. Besides, a speed limit is the LIMIT – it doesn’t mean that it is always ok to drive that fast – perhaps that officer had a good reason for telling you to slow down.

I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?

I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.

Read some of my recent posts. I’ve explained all this numerous times before.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

As I’ve pointed out in my previous post (up in #348 in this thread):
1.) data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime hours over just 11 weeks
2.) only a relatively small section of the lake was covered
3.) the two main areas were very well advertised

The Broads was not even included in the study - even though that is the section of the lake where boats generally hit the highest speeds – why was this area of the lake left out of a speed limit study?

I cover a lot more of the lake in any one of my paddles than what those pilot areas covered, and my paddles were not limited to just those 11 weeks. So why is it so difficult to accept that I have at least one close call during 6 to 8 hours of paddling?

They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.

They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.

It’s not “my new law.” The law that I wanted would have covered all NH lakes – and it would have been permanent. I don’t see that enacting a speed limit will add a significant amount to the Marine Patrol budget.

As I’ve pointed out: Squam Lake has had a speed limit for years – which is enforced by the exact same Marine Patrol. If they can enforce it on Squam, they can enforce it on Winni.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.

And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.

Originally posted by Evenstar
I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.

Originally posted by Evenstar
Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

While the Former Commanding Officer of US Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce, CWO Krzenski (C.O. in 2000 not now) did write the above, he also wrote this:

Statistics have repeatedly demonstrated that accidents and deaths are significantly reduced when boating education is increased. Every boater should be encouraged to take a recognized boating safety course. Some boat insurance companies actually provide discounts for completion of these courses. Please call the U.S. Coast Guard's Customer Service Hotline at (800)-368-5647 to determine the location and date that the next boating safety course is offered near you.
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/022599f.htm

Since this is the first year New Hampshire requires the operators of all powerboats to have obtained a safe boating certificate I submit to you that you and the supporters of a “solution in search of a problem” are jumping the gun! Statistics show boating is getting safer and this is the first season that safe boating certificates are required in New Hampshire.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.

Originally posted by Evenstar
They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?

They have the tools now if they want to use them. Yes a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court. If you have to ask what an unsafe speed for the conditions that exist are then you don’t belong on the water.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

So what you are saying is she'd rather have students do something that everyone in the business knows is dangerous instead of doing something that has a perfect safety record? And this is someone who's opinion you value? If she is basing her decision on liability, she needs a new insurance agent.

[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 ....

[fatlazyless]

Well, it could be this week, or the next week, or the next week, before the Senate addresses HB-847....it is difficult to say...I read in today's Union Leader that the legislature has way too many bills to process, and then the UL did a typical UL slam against the Democratic nanny-staters.

Hopefully. come November's election, New Hampshire will see a flip-flop that returns the Granite State back to its' long time Republican majority, and any HB-847 speed limits law will be rescinded and all motor boat incurred, automobile insurance points accrued, will be totally annulled retroactively, and then shredded into 10,000 pieces.

For the next hundred years, people will wonder how the heck New Hampshire happened to stray off its' comfy Republican plantation for those horrible two years of November, 2006 to November, 2008? Like, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED HERE?


In just four years, the Union Leader will be referring to the 11/06-11/08 years as 'the lean years', and all will be right with NH, once again!


Hey gee-whiz, maybe HB-847 will get yes'ed on April 1st! .........april fool...ah-ha.........ha-ha-ha......ha-ha!!

www.floridaboathaulers.com

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...A bad day for the boat owner really isn't my concern in this debate..."

How about three bad days for extreme boating?

For 2002, 2003, and 2004, we were experiencing serial crashes of ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[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!!!!!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Outstanding Post.

If absolute safety was the "only" concern the lake would be empty and we would build a fence 100 feet from the edge to keep us all away like an electrical sub station.

[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.