Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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.

[DoTheMath]

Funny - maybe if Winni is "too small" for big-bad-performance-boats-that-can-travel-the-length-in-no-time... then maybe it is "too big" for it-would-take-me-all-weekend-to-get-from-one-end-to-the-other-in-my-plastic-bottle-paddle-powered-boat!?

Just some food for thought!?

(Keep up the good fight Hazelnut! )

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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.

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.

All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

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. . . .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.

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.

So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

Originally Posted by codeman671

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.

I wrote: "At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni." That is a true statement. Starting at the tip of Alton Bay, and keeping at least 200 feet from shore, I get that is 20.4 miles to the end of Center Harbor.

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.

Power boat owners hit rocks all the time on Winni. Read my comments above concerning Squam, Winni, and Champlain.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.
All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

Where did I tell you to give up anything. I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force. The get out of my way attitude is not the sole possession of the high performance boat.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.
So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?
Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?


I never expect to change your mind but I just love how you can sling comments calling everyone narrow minded and how we "just don't get it" and thngs "go over our head." God forbid anyone else makes the same claim about you.

Finally, because I'm all done with you, here is some food for thought. You support a law that is based on legislating against could have and might haves. A law that targets a problem that doesn't exist. A law that targets a certain type of recreation, even though these people haven't done anything wrong. Your law is based on fear mongering and whether you like it or not is discriminatory. Whether or not you "take great offense to that" or not is really not my problem it is unfortunately the truth. Just because you do not like how someone else gets their kicks doesn't give you the right to stop them because it scares you. Stop acting as if every performance boater that gets behind the wheel of his or her boat is this uncaring demonic presence hell bent on ruining your good time.

[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.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats. It's kind of like painting a brick house, it makes a few people feel better, but then it starts peeling, causing problems while solving nothing.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

Wow! This is great. Maybe this is the answer to spark the rennovation of Weirs Beach. Put a race course out on the broads and have weekly speed trials. No wake of course, till out past Govnr's Island. With speed boats at the Weirs and sailing from Fays, the West side lake economy should pick up nicely.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

[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.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow.

Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50. If I'm two miles away, I can adjust my spead to sync up with the 50 MPH boat speeding through the graveyard, and have my turn while on plane. If I have to wait for the trollers, I have to come off plane and add extra exhaust to the waters to come back on plane aftewards. I am in the vicinity longer so create a more concentrated plume of exhaust. Plus, I create more wake by coming off and back on plane. In this case, the faster the better. Here's another example. If a boat crosses the lake at 60 rather than 30 mph, they are on the water half as long, so out of more people's way, meaning less congestion. Boats at headway speed take up huge space. Not only are they a blockage, but they back up others who wish to get by.

[Silver Duck]

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

I don't think you want to answer that question because the answer will not support the speed limit cause. You, Evenstar and other speed limit fans know that we already have the rules we need. We just need to enforce the rules and laws we already have.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

What will never happen, all the speed deaths or my answer? Might it be that you think I could never change my position on the subject? I am not stuck in the groove. I have an open mind. Speed limits are not the answer here.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

You brought up erosion as a benefit of speed limits. I simply responded that speed limits will not reduce erosion by using the big boat example. Others have presented valid arguments about erosion, speed and plowing boats. Speed Limits are not the answer to that concern

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

My inital question still is valid. There are rules and laws about maximum noise limits. Noise Limit laws deal with NOISE. Speed limits will NOT lower the level of loudness allowed by law. I'm not that "crazy" to believe it would. Many slow boats can make plenty of noise and have loud sound systems.

I concur that there will never be 100% rule compliance including any potential speed limit rule. My question takes away the variable. It assumes the current rules are followed and enforced 100%.

When you skirt the question it speaks volumes about your position.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft..."

"Oh, would that it were true, would that it were true..." (Apologies to John F. Kerry).

Originally Posted by hazelnut

WRONG!...The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM...Speed is a relative term...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

You can increase the GPS speed of your performance boat by taking it to less-choppy waters; unfortunately, that's where the people are.

Even in The Broads, among the sailboats, drifting I/Os, inflatables, kayaks, and even cruisers out there, I'd call that "Reckless Endangerment".

That rich neighbor in his tunnel-hull going past my dock at about 110-MPH—dodging swimmers, tubers—missing a neighbor's Hobie with five pre-teen girls—should have been arrested!

Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him around these past few seasons....

And now, top speeds for tunnel-hulls are over 170-MPH!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...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...!

I wrote over 70.

That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

[Extreme Drinks: Champagne]

It's 14% alcohol: I wouldn't take a dismissive stance on Champagne as an extreme drink among extreme boaters.

Originally Posted by codeman671

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.

Yup. Every slower boater is the problem—and the drunks who do have the speed to kill?

Originally Posted by codeman671

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) You may want to do some recalculating...

Not any more: it's four feet.

But every Floridian can drive to the ocean within 1½ hours: even on ocean waters, they recorded 80 fatalities recently.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

I know of one: at 4½ tons, it was too much boat for The Big Lake.

Originally Posted by Lake Geezer

"...Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50...If I have to wait for the trollers..."

Why am I reminded of tailgating by this?

Geesh—leave earlier.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread..."

Ae you saying that Mashugana's question wasn't totally motivated to improve the safety of bow-riding passengers—and that it wasn't an altruistic gesture to Winnipesaukee's boating public?

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today...Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer..."

We know how to pronounce "assume".

Pronounce after me: ass-u-me.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats..."

There's no question that high performance boats are increasing in numbers—so are the headlines of tragedy.

Nobody answered my speed limit question before—so here it is again:

What headline would cause you to change your mind?

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

. I know that some boaters like to be loud and some big fast boats are so expensive that no $$ is left for a good muffler .

Noise is not a new issue. I remember a forum thread from 8 years ago on the subject. Someone wanted to make their boat louder to get closer to the legal limit. That whole thread from the archives makes me laugh a bit. Anyway, there was a post that addresses making any size boat sound loud. I'll reprint it below but you can read it and the thread if you wish:
The original post from 2000 Forum Archive

Re: More Sound Please - I've got your answer!!!

Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 5:54 p.m.

In Response To: More Sound Please!!! (Screw-Canoe)

I have an excellent cassette and CD of a LOUD boat motor at various stages of RPM. No need to modify your engine, just plop in my tape or CD and PUMP up the volume. Track 1 for idle, Track 2 for fast acceleration, and etc...

I assume you have a 5,000 watt stereo system on-board so that you can play your music loud enough for all of us within 5 miles of your boat to enjoy (whether or not we want to). SO, why modify your engine when you can buy MY tape or CD and achieve your goal of sounding like a BIG GUN on the lake?

Of course my tapes and CDs come with a "self destruct" remote mechanism I can use if/when I get annoyed at the noise.....

AL
-------------------------

Go Fast does not necessarily mean Be Loud. Going slow does not mean quiet. varoom varoom under the Weirs Bridge is not fast or quiet. It is the boaters choice to be loud or not. When I was on my honeymoon (lakeside of course) it was the loud fishing boats that woke us up, not the big fast boats you speak of. Many motor boats of all sizes and types were able to be considerably loud at idle, during warm up and out on the water.

As has been said several times. Sound level laws are already in place. To add a speed limit in an attempt to lower sound levels is not the way to insure less boat noise.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits.

As to safety it is possible to flip a boat at high speed and kill the passengers. I don't mention the operator because that is his own responsibility. The State certainly has a duty to protect the children on board. Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

Consider also that a similar argument can be made about highways. If we all obeyed all the other laws why would we need speed limits on our highways? If we all obeyed all the other laws why do we need DWI laws? It's not easy for a drunk driver to kill someone, even himself, without violating some other law. It may be possible, but its hard to think of a scenario.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy. No, your answer is not the reason I am happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. (but WHY) I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits. Kayaks and campers are not as important as WHAT? Answer the question {snip}
Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, (No I'm not) that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! (in reality I don't favor ADDITIONAL limits like 45/25mp) If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. I have no credibility? really? But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

remarks in blue were added by Skipper of the Sea Que

I don't believe anti-speed limit advocates are arguing for absolutely "NO LIMITS". What I hear is, No additional speed limits". For me it means this speed limit bill is not an answer. Some have suggested higher speed limits but we are dealing with a 45/25mph issue here. Those are the limits I don't think will solve problems. There are speed limits already: 6 mph, headway speed, speed limits for passing within 150' of boats, land and people. We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

You (or any speed limit proponents) are not answering the question posed by mashugana and your weak reasons for not answering are that we still need speed limits so why answer the question. You claim the need for more speed limits are to address noise, congestion and erosion. I believe that at least 2 of those 3 are all covered by existing laws. Congestion is another topic. There are more people everywhere. Slowing them down means more people in the same area for a longer time.

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 erosion 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?

I think his question raises a very good point which has yet to be properly answered. Carry on guys and gals.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
...

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

[DoTheMath]

I posted this to another thread, but it seems to apply here as well...

So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience - not from watching them on TV, maybe - have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph everyone keeps referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."

Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."

Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..

Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

It would be up to the individual whether to exceed 45-MPH or not—irrespective of boat design.

(After dark: 25-MPH).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."

We're even? ,,,I never got an answer to:

"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"

(Those NH Senators in opposition? Please include the word "children" in your answer.)

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum...."

Civil law doesn't protect children as well as it protects retirees. But with all the creative penalties around, why did a judge use up a perfectly good jail cell to punish Lake Winnipesaukee's most experienced performance boater?

I'd have sentenced him to weekends sitting in a kayak, anchored off the lake's most talked-about flashing light, day and night, every June through September—for five years. A diary would be required proof of compliance to record NHMP passings, and scheduled calls to a Probation Officer. (He would be permitted only two D-cells for his light). Like you, I'd ban him from the lake forever after completing his sentence.

Oh yeah...I'd also mandate that he carry the whistle that meets NH boating laws.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

...So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats...!?"

When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

[Silver Duck]

BI

You asked "So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?"

My response is H**L No!!!

So far as I'm concerned, any operator of any type of boat that recklessly endangers a child, in whatever way, deserves no mercy. At a minimum, confiscate his boat and take away his privilege to operate a boat in NH forever. Tar and feathers might be good, too. You knock 'em down and I'll stomp on 'em! My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.

But, as I've said all along, to get my buy-in you need to go after the specific bone heads that are doing the endangering rather than punishing the many for the sins of the few.

I also feel that Camp Directors need to exercise due dilligence in protecting their campers, though. For instance, on swims that go outside marked areas there need to be plenty of highly visible safety boats, and I wouldn't let a kid get more than a few feet from shore in a canoe - period. (IMHO, the darned things are death traps. Stock up on decent kayaks for paddle sports, and tradition be danged.)

I'll let you in on a well kept secret. I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

...

But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

[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.