Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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?

[Hottrucks]

thought I would pass one what Exteme is

http://www.digitalexcellent.com/kaya...e-kayaking.php

[Airwaves]

APS wrote:
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.

You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself!

Extreme Drinks - (Featured this month—Champagne)

If you say so

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

Of course, just like with the Marine Patrol research it doesn't back your point of view so therefor it must be wrong.

APS wrote:
Quote:

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

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France?

Yep, Mercedes, Porche on land, Donzi, Formula on sea. All companies that sponsor professional race teams and their professional racing equipment is not "stock" off the showroom like the beginning of "stock" car racing that morfed into NASCAR.

In case you hadn't noticed those NASCAR racers aren't off the showroom floor any longer either!

[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.

[Hottrucks]

Hey Bi i think I found a way around the Speed limit someone sent this to me and i thought you'd get a kick out of it........so let enjoy the summer what ever happens......hope you guys can enjoy the light heartiness of this.....

Look for me this summer!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AApGZECbHwU

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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.

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

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.

Again, you're not very good at replying to what I actually posted. Read my posts, before just criticizing what you think I posted. This is a perfect example.

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

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.

Just because boater education is working doesn't negate the fact that "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.” And the Chief Warrant Officer was not just talking about Florida boaters. According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?

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.

Name me one casethat has held up in court in NH, where someone has actually been found guilty of traveling at an unsafe speed on any of our lakes.

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.

The study was completely flawed from the very beginning. It was nothing more than a political smoke screen. If they were actually serious of recording the fastest speeds on the lake, why was the Broads left out of the speed limit study?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

An unfortunate story comes to mind. A recent home makeover tv show arranged to makeover a run down house for a family that couldn't do for themselves. The show-people arranged for hundreds of local businesses and people to assist in the project. The family was sent on a vacation in a warm climate for 5 or 6 days. The house was razed and a new one constructed. 24 hrs a day until the house was completed. Materials, services, meals, and manual labor were mostly donated for the cause. A magnificent public effort. The display of community support was emotionally overwhelming. The show pulled off the major coup, the family was welcomed back by the people and city officials.

The drawback was those people that helped got minimal return for their efforts. The rest of the neighborhood doesn't support the new house when it comes to location, location. The people got a small thank you. The city got national acclaim, the tv show's sponsors got their money's worth. And the family got the nice vacation, a new home and belongings, a monstrous amount of cash and unconfirmed (to me) rumor says their rental income house is currently up for sale.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by JayDV

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

I don't believe your responce IS fair. It pre-supposes a bias. You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed.

The research was done by the American Research Group, Inc. An organization with very high credentials. The poll was not done at the request of speed limits supporters or paid for by them. The group polled was New Hampshire voters, not non-boaters. This is one of the questions...

Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer or not?

Only 9% answered in the negative.

Many that oppose speed limits will report that this is an unpopular law being pushed through by a few. The facts are the EXACT opposite. This law has wide approval by the owners of the lake.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

.......You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed........

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

After re-reading my post, Bear Islander, I guess I deserved your reply. The intent was not to say you were like that. I have found you to be a learned person and would expect nothing less. For the misunderstanding I am sincerely sorry. The reason I used the quote function was mainly for the "responsibilty" section and I didn't want to have anything taken out of context.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Not all boats are powerboats, and not all boat owners/users are on powerboat forums. Plus our lakes are not for the sole benefit of powerboat owners.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

Winni is not a limited access highspeed tranportation system. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to run a kayak business from your property on NH's largest state.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.

A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

Originally Posted by Dave R

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.

I’m taking about the degrees of liability, not insurance coverage. And NH hardly has a “perfect safety record” – in fact, NH has by far the worse boating safety of any of our neighboring states.

This woman considered her options and concluded that taking clients out touring on Winni in kayaks is more dangerous than taking them down class II and Class III rapids. She is a certified kayak instructor both for coastal waters and for white water and yes, I do respect her opinion.

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades? The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that. But he’s on your side, so you’re not about to call him out on this “skewed comparison.” I was merely bringing up the fact that Florida is also much larger than NH and has a LOT more inland water for all those boats. And, as you so kindly pointed out, many of those registered Florida boats are off that 8000 miles of coastline, so there’s actually a much smaller percentage using those 11,761 sq miles of inland waters.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar:
First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that.

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"?

YOU!

I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post.

And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate.

Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.
A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms. Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore??? By the way I own two kayaks and NO "speed boats." My bow-rider does 45. Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal. Bravo for fighting discrimination etc. I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

My post/posts have only ever been about one main point. Passing and or supporting laws, ANY laws that do not actually address a real concern/problem is down right irresponsible. I've heard it here time and time again from others on "your side" that there will never be adequate funding to actually address the safety concerns so we might as well just support the speed limit. Again, the means to an end. So again and again supporters of the limit have been asked and continuously fail to provide proof that SPEED is the major public safety issue ON WINNIPESAUKEE and therefore we need a SPEED limit ON WINNIPESAUKEE. All we ever get back are circumstantial, fictional, what-if, I'm scared, blah blah blah.....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms.

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

[quote] . . . yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore???[/quote
When have I ever written that I was scared? I have written that I have had close calls, and that my safety has been violated – neither is being scared. If I was scared, I would not kayak on Winni.

Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal.

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

Boats 300 feet away from me, going 35mph have never scared me. I’m supporting this law because I’ve personally seen the difference that a lake speed limit has. Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU:
"Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

....Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

The main reason that I own a sea kayak is because I happen to enjoy going out on large lakes (not just hugging the shoreline) – that’s what my boat is designed for. I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” Yes, compromise involves give and take – but so far the paddlers have been the only ones who are giving and the power boat operators are the ones doing all the taking. That’s not compromise.

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

You aren’t going to be cited with excessive speed when there’s no speed limit – “excessive speed” is just too subjective, so MP will almost always cite the operator with something else first. Operators of fast boats have had accidents on winni at speeds over 45mph – they’ve even run into islands! So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely. I’ve had close calls on Winni with boats going over 45mph, that came well within my 150 foot zone, because they didn’t see me – that’s been my honest experience, but that’s not good enough for you. That is not sidestepping – that’s recounting my actual experience.

A great deal of legislation is based on the experience of residents. One of the Senators told me that her husband has had similar close calls with high-speed powerboats – so that’s not going to have any effect on her vote?

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU: "Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"? YOU! I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post. And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate. Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

... I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell [sic] that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” ....

This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care. Due to the fact that it currently is NOT a law it is well within their rights to go 75MPH across the broads. Once this law is passed they will lose that right after they did nothing to deserve losing it in the first place. You still have the right to go across the broads either way. You will of course tell us all that it is dangerous now but it will be safe or safer after the law. I maintain that it will not be any safer due to the inattentive careless boaters that populate the lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

All I'm saying is that I've been on this lake since the late 70's early 80's and I've boated sailed kayaked cruised on everything from a 10 foot rowboat to driving the Doris E. herself and I've had my share of incidents. The way you relay these incidents and the volume of them that only seem to involve one type of boat seems to be quite a stretch, or perhaps embellishment. You can whine about how I'm calling you a liar now but all I'm saying is that you must have one heck of a dark cloud hanging over your head to have had that many "incidents."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

.... So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely.....

So we should just make it a law? That solidifies my point. Legislature without a problem to solve. Lets go around making laws to prevent things that MIGHT happen. That is a dangerous and very LIBERAL way to govern.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Yes I am using your own words against you. Stinks doesn't it? If you want to throw out attacks whether in general or towards one individual be prepared to have those words come back to haunt you. By your comments anyone who does not agree with you is not open minded or objective or "narrow minded."

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Hey thanks for posting the stats to prove my point. If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. Oh I see it's semantics, Small Apples and Big Apples. What???? If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG!?!?!
Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.

Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Maybe I can enlighten to some other reasons people don't want speeds limits on Winni and to BE LIKE Squam.

1. Squam Lake Shore owners make every attempt to limit public access to THEIR LAKE.
2. Squam Lake owners have prohibited Jetskis.
I don't need to get into all the other Squam restrictions do I?

Tell me again about Give and Take. Please tell me and everyone here more about how you want Winni to be more like Squam. The more the merrier please!

According to the MP site on restrictions on public waters, how many restrict Kayak use? ......... Waiting..........
How many public waters have restrictions on motorized craft?........ Waiting.......

Tell me again about Give and Take.

Sounds more like Take and more Take, me and me. Regardless of any speed limit, period!!!

If you could get cabin cruisers off the lake, because kayakers could capsize, you would. This is not about a speed limit and you know it, its about who wants to win this battle and the ego that goes along with winning, from both sides. This, "I'm scared to kayak in the broads", may win your necessary votes, but its not the reason nor will it really solve your concerns. But its a battle and history shows life wouldn't interesting without them.

I'm not going to ask you to stop, it's entertaining. But in this case the truths are hidden.

[Mashugana]

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

... Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?[/b]

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

[Mashugana]

I asked:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

Your reply did not answer my hypothetical question. Noise is addressed in the rules as well as the 150 foot rule. You want speed limits to limit noise rather than the noise laws?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

Errosion? Look at the picture of that big boat throwing that huge wake at well below 45 mph. Speed limits won't help there. It is not a safety issue relating to speed.
Congestion? Fast boats will be out of the way quicker than slow boats. Some claim that speed limits will attrack more small boats leading to more errosion, polution and congestion but that is not my point.

Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today. Would a speed limit make the lake safer? How can it make the lake quieter? slow boats have blaring stereos and some have loud engines too. Will there be less errosion from those plowing boats? Will campers be able to use the lake more often on weekedays?
Please do not dismiss the question. Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer.

Thank you.

[Bear Islander]

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow. Your get out of the way theory is quite frankly mashugana. It takes a lot of open water for a boat to be able to travel at 90 mph. Boats going headway speed use up very little space, you can have quite a few of them in a very small area. Naturally I am giving you the extreme examples, however the theory holds true for all speeds.

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits...

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem.

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

WRONG! Again but that's nothing new. The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM.

The guy weaving in and out of a congested doing even 30MPH area violating the 150ft LAW is the problem. Very rarely do you see a boat doing above 50MPH in a congested zone. The more you argue that point the more you lose credibility so please keep pushing that one it only helps make my case that you are fear mongering.

Speed is a relative term BI. I consider it speeding when a guy is doing 45 in and around the Weirs on a Saturday. A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

[Bear Islander]

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly I did and I stand by the point that the person actually doing 35MPH "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem!"

Not the fantasy land scenario that you have concocted to insight fear. So once again please continue down this path as it further digs you deeper and deeper into a hole built on fear mongering and twisted logic.

...awaiting tall tale with regard to 75MPH boat weaving through a crowded bay.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni

How fast, how close, where and how many times?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed

Where have I seen that before?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem

And while you are playing with words your intent is clear, to imply that this is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when it fact it is NOT! Fear Mongering at it's worst!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades?

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

NH only has 18 miles of coast whereas Florida has over 8000 miles. Do you think that the 988,000 registered boats all boat on inland waters? I think this was the most skewed comparion to date on this site.

You may want to do some recalculating...

[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.