Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

Originally Posted by bear islander

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

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

Originally Posted by bear islander

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

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

Originally Posted by bear islander

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

Originally Posted by bear islander

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

[Bear Islander]

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

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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

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

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

sometimes you win,


& sometimes YOU LOSE!

:


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

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

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

[Bear Islander]

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

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

[Airwaves]

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

[WeirsBeachBoater]

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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

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

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

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

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

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

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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


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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

[Cal]

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

[Airwaves]

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

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

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

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

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

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

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

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

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

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

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

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

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

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

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

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Airwaves]

BI wrote in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

BI wrote in part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

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

[Airwaves]

BI wrote:

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

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

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

Thanks

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

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

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

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

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

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bear Islander]

Skipper

Speed limits are not the best solution to ALL of these problems. That would be a horsepower limit. However speed limits will IMPROVE all those things.

Other lakes that have enacted speed limits report improved conditions. The same will happen on Winnipesaukee. Your argument that speed limits will bring more power boats, confusion and congestion is ridiculous on it's face and contrary to experience.

Speed limits will bring more "boats", but they will be of the human or wind powered kind.

By the way, you lose all credibility when you make claims like "noise will not be addressed by speed limits". It is an example of the twisted logic necessary to oppose reasonable solutions to a serious problems.



The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

A response for the prosecution:

1) There is no single definition for "too big".
When I bought my boat at Silver Sands, I saw a 53' Carver parked there. While I personally think that 53' is too big (or, more accurately somewhat pointless) for this lake, that is only my own opinion. Others might say my 24' cuddy is too big, and still others might think that 75' is plenty comfy.

2) There is no single definition for "too fast".
The best answer is probably a variable speed limit, much like there is not 1 single speed limit that governs all blacktop. 55 MPH is too fast through the Weirs channel, but not too fast for the broads.

3) Who cares? The average everything in the US is in the rise. From drink sizes to houses. HP as applied to boats is sort of interesting. Boats have no variable transmission, the engine shaft rotation to propeller rotation ratio is fixed, as is the propeller pitch (save for some very extreme edge cases). Boats also never have to climb hills, nor do they coast down hills. So, the HP required to move a given hull at a given speed is fairly constant (winds, currents, and weight loading can affect this). Cruiser planing hulls have a maximum speed before they start to chine-walk and become very unstable, there is a very real cutoff point where more HP cannot be effectively utilized. Most operators never operate their boats anywhere near this speed. So, the fact that engine HP may be increasing on average doesn't mean much by itself. You certainly can't draw the conclusion that more HP == more speed. You might be able to draw conclusions of:
a) Boats are getting heavier/larger on average
b) People are buying engines larger than necessary and under-utilizing these engines


You keep tossing these straw-man arguments into the mix, they don't really seem to make a lot of sense. If your concern is overall lake safety and enjoyment, rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems. While there are always cases of people with more money than brains, Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats. The surface area and configuration just do not support those types of vessels in a way that makes them a cost-effective purchase for most people.

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Your position along the lines of "we know a speed limit won't do much, but in lieu of even more laws in others aspects of boating, we'll take whatever additional legislation we can get" really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position. Being that I'm an avid DIYer, the term "use the right tool for the job" comes to mind. You don't try to hammer in nails with a wrench because you don't have a hammer. You go and get a hammer, even if it's more net effort than just using the wrench to do a half-assed job of pounding nails.

You want to make the lake better, safer, more enjoyable? I'd be all for it, if the approach was logical and likely to be effective. Throwing more poorly thought out laws on top of the current stack of un-enforced laws is simply a lazy approach. Fight for a proper solution, or get out of the ring.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

...rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems....

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

... really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position...

I'm not looking for credibility or sympathy. I give my honest opinion no matter which side it favors. Truth told to reasonable people brings it's own credibility.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

In theory, if the 150' rule were either enforced or followed along with no wake zones being enforced/followed, 99% of what you claim to be the "upside" to the speed limit law (safety, land erosion, etc.) would be met by currently existing laws.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

I never said they didn't exist, just that this lake is not generally attractive to those kinds of boats, you can't get "full" enjoyment from them. Refer to my money/brains caveat in my original post, some people will still bring their big toys to the kiddie pool, but as a percentage of the overall boats on the lake, performance boats and large cruisers are an overall minority.

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

You have produced arguments and data that further convince yourselves. You haven't offered logical support of your arguments. This is of course becoming a circular issue, so it's probably not a rat-hole worth going down.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

And I suppose I'm not posting here to try to convince the prosecution to see the fallacy of their arguments.

[Silver Duck]

I average about 150 hours per season, mostly on weekends, visiting all areas of the lake.

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.

Now, if WinnFabs wants to push for a speed limit there, I'm aboard big time! In fact, headway speed as a limit seems about right to me (though it may be a major PITA for island folks heading out of Sheps and Handy Landing.)

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?" Virgin Atlantic commercials. My wife and I have often remarked on that subject.

Silver Duck

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Skipper

Speed limits are not the best solution to ALL of these problems. That would be a horsepower limit. However speed limits will IMPROVE all those things.

Other lakes that have enacted speed limits report improved conditions. The same will happen on Winnipesaukee. Your argument that speed limits will bring more power boats, confusion and congestion is ridiculous on it's face and contrary to experience.

It's not Skipper's argument though. It's the one brought up by various supporters, that small and normal boats, not just human powered craft, are too scared to be on the lake. Presumably if the fear factor is removed then "they will come". I tend to doubt this but that's their argument.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Speed limits will bring more "boats", but they will be of the human or wind powered kind.

And this is preferable ... why ?

FWIW : I doubt the above.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

I'll answer them if you do.
1) Don't really know but I do know that the size won't be affected at all by a speed limit. Cruisers aren't fast.
2) As stated before it depends on where and when and the conditions but as an upper limit .... 100 mph.
3) Yes, who cares.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph...?"

You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake..."

How many acres-per-second is that?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...BI wrote in part:
Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe...!"

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?

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three?

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter? These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period...!

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats..."

You previously asked about a compromise?

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them....

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

....Finally, something concrete to enforce.

As opposed to the 150foot law?


Bear Islander you claim that only wind powered vessels and Kayaks will be drawn to a safer lake but NOT the thousands of runabout owners who will feel "safer." Sorry my friend you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you agree that Winni will be a draw for the wind and paddle crowd you have to allow for the possibility that Winni will become more attractive to the family trailered runabout crowd. To deny that is disingenuous at best. IMHO I'd rather have the comparatively small crowd of GFBL's than the onslaught of small runabouts trailered to the lake each day. At least most of the GFBL crowd has a stake in the lake being that they probably own real estate on or around the lake. I'd rather not attract the transient crowd who might not care what shape they leave the lake in when they leave.

P.S. I don't include the wind and paddle crowd in that comment, as they usually respect mother nature.

[fatlazyless]

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

And, on the brite side for all the go fast- be louds, HB847 does not take effect till January 1, 2009, as it is now written. So, that gives you one last summer to cruise at 65mph or more. And hey, if the Repubs regain their NH majority in Nov '08, probably the speed limits will get drowned again.

I can hear Republican Senior Political Advisor, Gene Chandler (R) Bartlett speaking from the house podium: "In memory of the late you-know-who, let's kill this whacky HB847 and steer NH away from the NANNY STATE." Full speed ahead & let's go back to the good old days.

As that well known English jet-skier, Lord Byron, said back in 1888, "all power corrupts, and all power corrupts," absolutely, or something, or something!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

Not at all, I have no reason to be nervous. I have no vested interest in the outcome either way. I don't own a boat that goes over 55mph, my average top speed that I run is 45-50mph. Honestly, I could care less. What I don't want is another useless unenforced law that people are claiming to be necessary. One that was pushed through due to lies, misinterpretations, misinformation, deception, etc.

When pollution is brought up as an overall point to push for a speed limit I feel the need to point out other activities that are just as polluting. Finely tuned GFBL's are going to burn more efficiently than an older 2 stroke, a family cruiser, etc. Fire up your old aluminum boat and watch the oil slick in the water...

[hazelnut]

And there it is Codeman. Plainly stated you do not even own a GFBL and neither do I. As a matter of fact I can emphatically state that I will NEVER own one. I think they are one dimensional and I have no use for them as I have children and they do not make good family boats. I stand to lose absolutely NOTHING with the passage of this law.

FLL you are missing the point big time. This is not a personal issue. Obviously it is to you as you have shown with your immature childish posts with the we win you lose happy dancing banana gimmick. If that isn't inflammatory in nature I don't know what is Don? I digress. Anyway, FLL there are some individuals in this country, like it or not, that disagree with the passage of laws based on a problem that is non existent. This law addresses Speed. The problems of the lake are not speed. They are in no particular order overcrowding, safety, pollution, ignorance to name a few. The Speed Limit does not address these concerns. With the passage of this law we are only delaying any potential we may have had to actually address the issues concerning Lake Winnipesaukee. You will se no measurable change in the areas of concern after this law passes. Sorry!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.
How many acres-per-second is that?

Aaah the ole foolishness of the fast boat "using up" more of the lake. To answer the above question directly, it's 60 times less than would be "used up" in a minute. Or 3600 times less than would be "used up" in an hour. Why not ApM or ApH, they're as equally meaningless as ApS and could "boast" bigger numbers to boot ! (a favorite tactic of yours)

Last I checked the lake was still there after the "fast" boat used it. When I'm waiting for the boat with the RoW to pass, I'd rather it be faster rather than slower so I wait less. When I have the RoW, the faster I'm moving the less the other guy has to wait. This is simple enough for most to grasp. The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving. I can't use their lake space at all. At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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?

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the above conclusion. 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 ???

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

That's in your opinion of course. Mine my say it's more to do with flat or decling boat sales. 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. Here's a question ... what do you think PWC sales vs those of conventional boats ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

And how many would have been changed by a speed limit ? Nobody knows ! (but I could guess, and say very little)

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three?

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

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

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. But by all means please do bring up this incident as something to do with speed limits, I'd love another opportunity to show just how silly that line of reasoning is !

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test?

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

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

No disagreement on those.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

You previously asked about a compromise?

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them....

No doubt you'll find crashes related to fast speeds. So what ? (see more below)

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

Funny, I keep hearing about it not needing enforcement .... But so what, 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 ?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

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

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.

One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

This has got to be the most hypocritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right? Can you say AL GORE? You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

True, and what kind of pollution will a rocket joy ride into space introduce into the atmosphere? How much pollution does a plane bring pleasure hikers to the Poles put into the air? Pretty hypocritical to claim pollution here when one does extra-curricular activities elsewhere that are just as damaging.

Go ahead, put the HP limit in place. Everyone that wants a large cruiser can just buy an older, more polluting one and continue to use the lake to get by your model year limit. The newer the technology, the cleaner the burn.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

That's totally untrue!

How could you possibly know my reason for joining this forum? You really should get your "facts" straight before posting criticism about me or my posts.

The truth is that I joined this forum to learn more about Winni, as I was planning to kayak on the lake. Here's my first post. My "coming here" really had nothing at all to do with the speed limit bill, although I've always been in favor of a speed limit on ALL NH lakes. The truth is that I didn't even "hear" about this debate until after I had joined this forum.

I have been totally honest here and have never once misrepresented my experience or my time on the lake. I never once implied that I had kayaked on Winni, before I actually did. In fact I posted several times that I had not yet paddled on Winni.

I've only kayaked on Winni a few years, and not nearly as much as I would have liked too - mainly because my best friend doesn't feel very safe on a lake where we have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled there. That's a fact.

If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers? Here are some more facts:

You see way more kayaks and canoes on Squam, and on all the other large lakes in NH. This is especially true for sea kayakers . . . who tend to be the most experienced paddlers. I have never seen more than a couple of sea kayaks on Winni on any given day - yet I have never been on Squam without seeing dozens of sea kayaks. Why is that?

I’m on several paddling forums – No one has EVER recommended Winni as a good place to kayak, in fact the opposite is true - I've been told that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on.

Winni isn’t even in AMC’s book on places to kayak in NH. And at the Sea Kayaking in NH website, Winni was never even mentioned.

It's also a fact that many of my paddling friends will not join me on Winni, "because of the high speeds that boats go on that lake" (their words, not mine). And some of those people used to paddle there regularly. So several people I know personally have actually been driven off the lake due to the high speeds of the powerboats.

That's the honest truth, whether you believe it or not.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

..This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

I purchased my current boat many years ago.

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward. I also believed there were WMD's in Iraq!


My share of the fuel to get me to space or Antarctica is less than a 1,800 horsepower GFBL cruising the lake for a weekend.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward.

By "moving forward" are you downgrading your boat to something more in-line with your personal opinion of what is appropriate for the lake?

[Airwaves]

Let me take this opportunity to clarify a few points.
First:

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

Every one of those points you touched on is true and needs to be addressed, except one, I do not own or operate a boat that will exceed 45 MPH! If you look at the thread asking about gasoline tank size you would realize this.

Evenstar wrote:
If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers?

Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

APS wrote:
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?

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.

Bottom line:

Your side has admitted that boating safety is not an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee when it comes to speed. 99-point-1 percent of boaters clocked by radar last summer were traveling at speeds under your limit.

Did you feel safer?

I commend you and WinnFabs for bringing the issue to a debate and causing a close look at what is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee. However you went wrong when it was shown that the problems on the lake had to do with the violation of existing rules, such as safe passage and lack of enforcement, not excessive speed.

What WinnFabs and their supporters should have done at that point, that would have had the support of nearly all of us, is to refocus the effort to lobby for more Marine Patrol personnel and enforcement of existing laws.

You (collectively) didn't do that and it sparked this unnecessary fight.

Now that New Hampshire is facing a $50,000,000 deficit over the next couple of years I hope that you will work with your opponents to look for solutions, not unfunded mandates for the Marine Patrol.

I am always willing to talk, PM me with ideas.
AW

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

There are many facts that support a speedlimit, but most of the anti-limit crowd just dismiss them as non-facts, exagerations, or non-issues

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".

The same is true with other people who I have talked with. Most of my paddling friends as sea-kayakers, which is not a timid group, but are rather had-core paddlers. Most of their views are based on their own experiences on the lake. Sea kayakers are not that easily scared.

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. She told me that Winni is just too dangerous for that type of business – because of the high speeds that some powerboats travel. This woman is a certified expert kayak instructor, with many years of experience, and she feels that class II and III rapids are safer than kayaking on Winni.

Again, from my own experience, and from what others have told me, close calls between powerboats and paddlers happen rather often. So far we have been really lucky that no one has been killed.

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. When a mistake happens the consequences of that mistake increase exponentially as speed increases.

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.

When compared with our neighboring states NH has the worse boating accident record:
NH has the highest number of boating accidents of all 4 states
NH has 11 times more boating accidents / square mile of inland water than the next highest state. (Source: United States Coast Guard Boating Statistics 2001 – 2005)
NH has the highest number of boating accidents / number of registered boats.

[Gilligan]

Airways, Hazelnut, Skipper of Sea Que, and a few others have excellent posts. While speed limit advocates are changing their tune and grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.
Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

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

I never said stop everything. My methods are not idiotic. I am pointing out that the number of deaths by snowmobile far and away exceeds death by boat. IMO that may be more of a concern than speed limits. We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. Safety efforts can work in parallel. Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

I applaud you for not sitting on your fat behind and whining about snowmobile dangers. Who is continually whining about boat speed limits?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

I am not on a crusade. I never said stop trying to make the Lake safer. I care about safety for all and that includes boaters and snowmobile riders and everyone. I disagree with you and Evenstar about the need for speed limits and the results that speed limits will bring about.

My methods are not idiotic. We should prioritize resources relative to danger and importance. Put more money into AIDS research than you use for finding a cure for hangnails. The method is the degree of relevance. We don't stop one in favor of another. We look at what needs to be done and adjust our effort accordingly. Research cures for cancer and AIDS and CP and other major problems at the same time. You put quite a spin on my comments.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

...We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. ... ....Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?....

There is a Winter Sports Forum and almost every thread is about snowmobiles. There is a speed limit for snowmobiles, but for some reason it does not apply on lake ice.

hazelnut

Using a radar gun now and then, that they already own, will not break the MP budget.