Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
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.

Bear Islander...I am confused. You wrote to me;

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

Yet now you again imply that summer camps (at least one) belives it's too dangerous because of speeding boats? It is a camp director's JOB to be protective of his/her children. I would prosecute any camp director that did not, however their concern in this case is not valid even according to you.

Originally posted by Bear Islander:

...

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.

While NH has not adopted the USGC Navigation Rules, something I think should be done then improved upon as the state sees fit, 270:29-a and Rule 6 are similar enough that 270:29-a can, and should, be used by the Marine Patrol in instances where the officer believes the operator of a boat was traveling at a speed in excess of conditions that would endanger the lives and safety of the public.

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.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Now I have to credit you that you have admitted, unlike most of your speed limit advocates, that safety is not the issue. You are trying to eliminate a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

You wrote something I liked. "A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup".
The only problem with that analogy is that Lake Winnipesaukee is not YOUR soup, it's OUR soup.

[Bear Islander]

I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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.

That should about do it! Solves the kayak and camp problems by defining safe, rather than having it based on fear. Maybe our law-makers should take a new look at this, rather than the mess they are creating.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander"
I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever

Now there is this:

I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps.

So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

Now there is this:


So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

Are you deliberately not understanding something that is so simple?

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

[Airwaves]

Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389

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

Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409

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

And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389

Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409


And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429

Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

You are taking quotes out of context and attempting to link things that are NOT LINKED.

One of the things you can't seem to get strait is the word "Violations". Boat congestion and speed can be a problem even though there are no violations. As we have discussed many times some people are intimidated by conditions on the lake. This can be true even without any "violations".

I do not believe you are interested in fair discussion, you are only looking for what you think may be an inconsistency so you can use it to attack me. I will no longer respond to these types of posts by you.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

We certainly agree that the congestion and lack of boater "intelligence" is a problem particularly on weekends. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have. I personally think they have no place on the lake for several reasons, but that is in many ways a separate argument from speed.

The congestion and lack of intelligence is growing. Already there are days, other than weekends, when camp boating must be limited. My biggest concern is where the lake is headed. If things get worse camp activities may have to be limited even more.

One thing we can do is enact a speed limit. It will not solve the lakes problems but will improve things. A speed limit is a tool the MP can use to limit some of the worst situations.

Continuing to NOT have a speed limit will attract even more idiots to this lake. Especially when other lakes continue to enact speed limits.

Other lakes that have passed speed limits claim they have worked to slow the pace and reduce congestion.

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. With all do respect, as they say, I think that group has a better handle than you on current conditions and what is needed to improve them.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experince on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly un-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experience on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly UN-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Islander

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olypics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olympics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

R2B

I am sorry but I think you are confused. I never suggested any "special treatment" You posted this in your bash against BI.

"I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom."

You see it was you that brought up the subject of service. Does only YOUR service apply?

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Why is it Un-American to want a horsepower limit anyway. If a citizen truly believes that is the answer what should they do? Hide their beliefs? Freedom is the right to voice what you believe in even if other people don't like it.

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

Your posts are, in my opinion, a personal bash that are against the rules of this forum.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

I have covered this one many times before, I'd be happy to direct you to the links if you'd like. The bulk of the bodies of water in NH are limited due to their sheer size! Try putting a 25 foot boat in Milton 3 Ponds for instance... 110 acres of water. Winnipesaukee is over 6 times the size of the second largest lake and considerably deeper. From there, there is only a few that are 3000+ acres and below that it drops even faster.

How many other lakes in NH could accomodate the Mount? The Sophie C? the Doris E? You don't anything like those on Squam...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

Originally Posted by bear islander

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

You were wrong because you know my belief very well. Take a look at these past posts of yours. You are even telling other people about my proposal.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2008#post62728

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2008#post67118

My quote that "I" am targeting high performance boats was to explain that the speed limit movement is not targeting them, just me.

I am only targeting ones manufactured after 2008. Sorry if that was not clear. I have not changed my views or tried to hide them.

[codeman671]

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

Interesting idea. There could be "camp zones" similar to the school zones we have on our roads. I would certainly be in favor.

There would be resistance in some areas. There are a lot of camps that would like protection. Then what about public beaches, association beaches etc.

Some camps may be in areas that are high traffic, difficult to set up a zone without impeding navigation.

[hazelnut]

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

IIslander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

Please post it for us all to enjoy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed...?

Since the USCG makes no speed determinations from waters where they have no jurisdiction, the USCG relies on the reports of mostly part-time Winnipesaukee officers. However, nobody's seen any determination of the speed at which Winnipesaukee's Eagle Island crash occurred, as one example.

Who would find "THE FACT" of excessive speeds on Winnipesaukee where no speeds are ever determined?

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine ) ..."

Every weekend boater—willing or not—participates in some way in a Poker Run. One might empathize with this Winnipesaukee bass fisherman on one Poker Run weekend.



In 2007, it was nice to see that Donzi finally filed the required NHMP permit after years of "fun".

Originally Posted by Cal

"...1) Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question..."

The oldest brother's body was found; however, as in so many other cases, a determination of alcohol's metabolites was never announced.

Originally Posted by Cal

"...2). Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense..."

Thanks, but what the request was, "What would those three brothers be telling us about a 'Need for Speed' on Winnipesaukee's protected inland waters?" (Where they could endanger more boaters, and boat even faster than they did).

Originally Posted by Cal

"...Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power..."

Is the special training available to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (Yes).

Is the special training required to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (No).

Three brothers lost to the thrill of speed together is an especially tragic loss—I can't readily dismiss it.

Originally Posted by jrc

"...You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that. What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe..."

What was the speed of the Rattlesnake Island crash? The fatality in Tuftonboro collision? The Parker Island crash? The Camp Island crash? The fatality off Parker Island of a seasoned boat mechanic? The upside-down crash into a cottage that took three lives? The most recent Long Lake collision? The kayak collision?

Answer: Nobody knows—not the NHMP and, most famously, not the Coast Guard itself.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way..."

Sorry, I've never heard of Wharton. (Sure sounds important, though).

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...So - let me ask, was your tunnel-hull racer bigger than 1/12th scale? I'm not talking models - I'm talking the real deal. And if it was a "tunnel-hull racer" as you refer to it, I'm also not referring to the ones with a 15hp. outboard on it that's 10' long. I'm talking a full sized, I'm-really-all-grown-up-now performance boat, Skater, Cigarette, Outerlimits... that kind of performance boat..."

Mine was a "real" prototype: think of a Jet-Ski only 18" high, but with a tunnel-hull underside. Here's what the tunnel-hull design looks like underneath.



However, a wake overwhelmed me on its first outing. (And how I discovered that a 6-gallon gas tank can be a floatation device!) As a 17-year-old—and not yet a high school graduate—I could only afford a 15-HP outboard. (And it was second-hand).

Since then, it's always been closed-course speeds for my thrills: the option of being extracted trying to "crawl away" from a collision has always been more appealing than trying to "keep from drowning".

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Your past posts read a bit differently than if you had real experience with what I am referring to and what you are so freely bashing. Come on - let's get it out there and see what you've got to offer in the way of REAL experience that can support your stance..."

I don't have the disposable income that would permit me a REAL toy that even some local governments can't afford. I also don't have the disposable income that would permit me to pay an annual five-figure insurance premium: I'm one of those "lesser" boaters, with one of those "lesser" credit ratings.

I should own a 20' Bayliner, I guess.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have.

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush

[Airwaves]

Quote: by APS:

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).

Yea, I would say a Great Lake is different. They are Federal/International waterways, patroled by the US and Canadian Coast Guard and they even have tides! There are no Ocean-racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, donchaknow

Quote by APS:

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

Actually if you look back he was quoting my post on that one.

As far as the night-time "Kayak Cut In Half" collision, that wouldn't be the kayak that was on the water in the middle of the night with no lights would it? You remember, the one that was abandonded unlighted in the path of an oncoming power boat traveling at barely headway speed because a spot light was in use and he didn't want to be seen naked? That one?

Quote: by APS

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


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

The difference is, my question was not a hypothetical like yours is.

I came into this debate not having an opinion on speed limits one way or the other. If your side had been able to show me that speed is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee I would help you lead the charge. You have only been able to show me that the 150' rule is routinely violated.

[wehatetoquitit]

I'm confused, as I often am ( one living brain cell,which I hope divides soon), when it comes to what everybody describes as a "go-fast boat". What is the defination of this type of craft. I have an old 20 foot Penn Yan that is capable, under the right conditions, of exceeding the proposed speed limit. I notice that probably most boats on the lake, Whalers, Grady Whites, C-Dorys, Bass boats, Sea Doos and others regardless of length and outfitted with modern engines are probably capable of exceeding the proposed limit. Are all of these go fast boats?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush:EM:

There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false.

[KonaChick]

From what I can gather, BI is for speed limits AND restricting a certain kind of boat on the lake (having to do with hp). I'm sure if I'm wrong in these assumptions I'll be corrected.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

From what I can gather, BI is for speed limits AND restricting a certain kind of boat on the lake (having to do with hp). I'm sure if I'm wrong in these assumptions I'll be corrected.

You are correct. I support the speed limit legislation HB847 endorsed by WinnFABS. This is only a speed limit and does not target any kind of boat. A great number of boats can go more than 45 mph, not just GFBL's. And a huge number of boats can go over 25 mph, the nighttime limit.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

I though I was making this distinction clear, but it seems I was wrong.

[Silver Duck]

Today, Islander posted:

"There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false."

But, back on 1/16/05, at 3:26 PM, Islander posted the following:

"This law does not require ANY enforcement!

When owners of boats that can go 90mph are looking for a lake to visit or dock their boat at they will NOT choose a lake with a 45mph speed limit. So no new fast boats will come to lake winni.

Some die hard owners of fast boats on the lake may stay. But year by year there will be fewer and fewer fast boats on the lake. All this without the Marine Patrol writing even one ticket.

There will be people that go 50 or 60 on the lake and get away with it. Just like people go 75 or 85 on RT93 and usually get away with it. But nobody goes 130 on RT 93 and nobody will be going 90 on the lake anymore.

If you read the article about the people that came up with this legislation you will find that they are already talking about horse power limits."

And on 1/18/05, at 4:44 PM, Islander posted the following:

"This is where these people are coming from! They want to blast by Eagle Island at 200 mph.

Notice that the generic name for these boats is "Offshore". Winni doesn't have anyplace that is offshore."

On a different note, on 1/14/05 at 3:27 PM Bear Lover posted the following:

"ITD

Your missing the point. A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake.

If you really think it can't happen read the list of NH lakes with speed and or horsepower limits. It's about 1 in 3."

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Today, Islander posted:

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents?
Silver Duck

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny, being that the list of opponents published (and posted on this site) is larger than the list of proponents... DUH!!!!!!!!!!! And honestly, how do you know that the intent ISN'T to ban performance boats? Seems rather odd to me that this originated from Bear Island, the sample place that a certain individual lived that passed away at the hands of a DRUNK, NON SPEEDING (sorry, and estimated 3mph variance is not excessive) GFBL/driver?


DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????? Even my eight year old uses more witty remarks than that...

Let the speed limit come. Next time someone dies at the hands of a boater doing less than the speed limit what will the argument be then?? Ban them all? For the record, more people have died in non-powered accidents in the last few years on the lake than at the hands of any boater. Multiple drownings and someone falling off the Mount. Let's ban swimming off boats to start. Wasn't it two in the same weekend???

You can't fix stupid...

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

You can't fix stupid...

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by JDeere

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

JD, I think you are missing the point of the argument. Are you calling going 60 MPH in a bass boat, on a calm uncrowded day absurd? This rule attempts to define what is proper for the whole lake, all the time and under all conditions. Yes, let the captain do what they want, within the limits conditions define. That is called freedom. Existing laws can deal with the captain bonehead who gets it wrong. How is that absurd?

Those who use the lake on the weekend, should not dictate rules that impact others when they are not around. That is absurd. Nobody is claiming its their right to do what ever they want, only their right to safely enjoy speed when the conditions are right.

[JDeere]

LG,

I use to spend a lot of time fishing on the lake. I grew tired of getting buzzed by some of the speedier boats on the lake. I hvae had too many close calls or maybe to close for comfort situations with boats going IMHO too fast. Again IMHO if those boats were traveling SLOWER thier Captain would still be a bone head BUT at least I will have more time to react.

So, yes I think a bass boat going 60 MPH is too fast.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by JDeere

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But 22 people have NOT been killed on the lake. Not last year, and not any year before that. The last time someone was killed by a boat going faster than 60 was...when??
I know what you will say next...a speed limit will prevent 22 people from being killed by boats faster than 60. Of course it will. Riiiight.
Fear mongering at its finest. Let's solve a problem that does NOT exist.

Originally Posted by JDeere

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

Ya, how dare us try to fight for what we believe in. We are horrible, horrible people.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by JDeere

... How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

Absurd? Are you sure you are in the right country?

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
...
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
...
synonyms see freedom
...

Now of course "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" acording to Holmes. But you want us to stop even when there are no noses.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Codeman671
If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem?

A very good idea but as you point out it probably wouldn't be offered as a compromise on the speed limit issue, although it might sway some in the NH Senate if it were offered to them.

I would think that if a violation of the 150' law is a problem around these camps they could probably petition the Dept of Safety to get the no wake/no boat zone increased administratively just as waterfront property owners can petition for no rafting zones.

The slippery slope here is if a couple of camps can do it more will follow, then various 'associations' etc etc.

[TiltonBB]

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.
B. A boat bigger than mine went by my house, made some noise, and left a wake.
C. I tried to row my 12 foot aluninum row boat (with 3 kids and the dog aboard) accross Meredith Bay on July 4th and some boats went by and scared me.

What will the end game be?

Safer lake? No, there is no factual evidence that it will make the lake even a little safer.
Quieter? No, this has nothing to do with the existing noise laws.
No more 150 foot violations? No, those will still happen.
Smarter Captains? Nope, doesn't address that.
More Marine Patrol Officers? Nope, not mentioned.
Smaller Wakes? No, slower boats leave larger wakes.

Wow! A lot of noise and effort to take away your rights and acomplish nothing.

When the horsepower and speed laws are eventually established what happens if: I get a 40 foot Marine Trader displacement hull with a single 120 HP diesel engine and cruise the lake at 6 knots. Will the speed fairies cry about the wake? Will they try to establish a size limit? If I paint the boat pink will they want covenants in place to establish appearance standards?

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it!

What happened to live free or die?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.

First of all there is a problem - apparently you’re not reading what I have posted. Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles.

My contention is that allowing power boat to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds is just not a safe practice – and many others agree with me, including the US Coast Guard. 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)

I can only comment on “A”, since the other two don’t apply to me. I own a 16 foot sea kayak, which is designed to be used on large bodies of water – and I am an experienced kayaker. So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater.

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it! What happened to live free or die?

If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws.

NH RSA 270:1, Section II. “In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. ...

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

It think she nailed it in this reply although I would say "we know" it is an unsafe policy.

Slower is safer.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles. .

Ok I'll bite,How about the ultra light planes and similar craft which fly right over the lake or with hang gliders?Hey you asked.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater. .

Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws..

What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by jrc

Absurd? Are you sure you are in the right country?

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
...
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
...
synonyms see freedom
...

Now of course "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" acording to Holmes. But you want us to stop even when there are no noses.

I think your freedom ends at the bow of my boat. I too have the right to liberty. The difference between you and me is that see your version of liberty (to go as fast you want) infringing on my liberty to enjoy the lake with out people traveling at high speeds.

I boat and have boated in many places. Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.

Re-read ad the posts about speed limits and the logic should become apparent to you. Speeds above 45 scares people into fighting for limits, but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. So, its a battle between those that are afraid of something they can't control or understand and freedom fighters. Here, the fight is to retain the existing right to persue happiness by going fast under appropriate conditions. Speed limit proponents are entitled to push for laws that restrict others, so they can feel safer. It should make sense to you that others will not accept what they feel are ineffective restrictions of freedom without a fight.

The right to not be scared is indeed one that has emerged into our culture over the past 8 years, but not everyone buys into the new agenda of fear based politics. If that doesn't make sense, go read the documents that founded this country - and see if you find anything about freedom from fear in there.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. .

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I don't think anyone is arguing that slower speeds give you more time to react. The historical data on accidents in NH indicate the trend to be lower speed accidents instead of high speed. Take a look at the deaths, hit kayaks, etc in NH. How many took place at speeds of 45mph+ compared to less than 45mph? It is not the reaction time that has caused the accidents that we have had, they mainly have been alcohol contributed.

Creating a law that is not needed according to factual data in NH, and striking on peoples fears instead of facts is not what laws should be based on.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by JDeere

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JDeere

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks.

You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is
A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof.


And JDeere , being the owner of a "performance boat" I consider this and attack from BI.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"I" am targeting performance boats

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is
A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof.


And JDeere , being the owner of a "performance boat" I consider this and attack from BI.

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

From Coast Guard statistics http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2006.pdf

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.


Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

What good theory is that? Excessive speed means what? Surely not some number!

I was guilty of excessive speed last time I dinged my prop on a rock. Had I been going 20 rather than 25 MPH, I might have stopped in time once I saw the rock. On our lake, we have a lot more accidents involving alcohol abuse than speeds over 45. Excessive speed is a relative issue, based on boat type, weather, sea and traffic. Encouraging the MP to stop people for traveling over 45 when conditions would allow it, threating them with fines and suspended licenses is what we're fighting.

[Silver Duck]

Islander

What part of "A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it" is so unclear that I could possibly misunderstand it?

Whether or not you and/or Bear Lover were involved with creating the speed limit legislation, you are both, as I stated, "proponents" of that legislation. With proponents singing that tune, I must, in good conscience, oppose it!

In addition, I strongly feel that a "one size fits all" speed limit of 45 mph is far too fast in certain areas of the lake (e.g., the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island, the stretch between Eagle Island and the Weirs) at busy times! Since other proponents have opined that operating in a reckless manner is not a tool that the MP can use to curb excessive speed, my feeling is that the speed limit, as curently written, will only serve to legitimize going through those kinds of areas during crowded times at what to me seems an excessive rate of speed.

Silver Duck

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Islander
Whether or not you and/or Bear Lover were involved with creating the speed limit legislation, you are both, as I stated, "proponents" of that legislation. With proponents singing that tune, I must, in good conscience, oppose it!

I have also been accused on this forum of supporting the speed limit because my goat is to rid the lake of a certain type of boat - which is not at all true.

Is it possible that this may in fact be the goal of some speed limit supporter? Yes, of course that is possible. But I seriously doubt that many have this as a goal.

I don't support that goal, but that doesn't mean that I should give up my support of a bill that I believe in. I was at the State House long enough to see that many bills are supported (and opposed) for both good and bad reasons.

In addition, I strongly feel that a "one size fits all" speed limit of 45 mph is far too fast in certain areas of the lake (e.g., the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island, the stretch between Eagle Island and the Weirs) at busy times! Since other proponents have opined that operating in a reckless manner is not a tool that the MP can use to curb excessive speed, my feeling is that the speed limit, as currently written, will only serve to legitimize going through those kinds of areas during crowded times at what to me seems an excessive rate of speed.

Now that's just silly, and the writing in the bill is clear about what it permits. A speed limit is the maximum speed that a boat may travel- not the permissible speed for all conditions. Here's text from HB 847:

"(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:

(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and

(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time."

Seems pretty clear to me. A speed limit is an addition tool for safer boating - it does not replace all the other boating laws.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

From Coast Guard statistics http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2006.pdf

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

BS. You know darn well the EXCESS SPEED can also be 10mph while docking or 25 mph in bad conditions but DON"T mention that. You keep digging yourself into a pit of deception with your statements. Keep up the good work

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

BS. You know darn well the EXCESS SPEED can also be 10mph while docking or 25 mph in bad conditions but DON"T mention that. You keep digging yourself into a pit of deception with your statements. Keep up the good work

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

In the context of the statistics that you posted, what is the definition of excessive speed?
A. More than 45 mph at day?
B. More than 25 mph at night?
C. Travelling too fast for the conditions?
D. Travelling faster than someone else thinks he should have?
E. Exceeding an existing speed limit?

How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed?

[jrc]

Evenstar
How can you find the ability to ban certain boats and certain operations in the phrase "the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses" ?

Unless a boat or operation can be shown to be unsafe, it would seem that this phrase would require that it be encouraged. So show me direct un-biased evidence that traveling over 45 MPH is always or at least usually unsafe on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can't because there isn't any. All we have is fear, derived from estimates of speeds in anecdotal close calls.

Bear Islander

Show me in the Coast Guard safe speed rule where sets a numerical speed limit? From a USCG point of view excess speed means breaking this rule, it has nothing to do with speed limits. You know this, stop pretending.

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.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Bear Islander

Show me in the Coast Guard safe speed rule where sets a numerical speed limit? From a USCG point of view excess speed means breaking this rule, it has nothing to do with speed limits. You know this, stop pretending.

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

If you crash your boat while attempting to dock at 10 mph, then USCG will label speed as a factor. If you run aground at 30 mph in thick fog, then USCG will label speed as a factor. Given that, how many of those 464 speed related accidents do you suppose were similar to my examples? How many were above the proposed speed limits? 10%? 50%? 90%?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

NWZ speed is the safest speed possible. I think the whole lake should be NWZ.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....

All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that.

What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe.

[TiltonBB]

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?

If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake?

Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

Evenstar
How can you find the ability to ban certain boats and certain operations in the phrase "the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses" ? Unless a boat or operation can be shown to be unsafe, it would seem that this phrase would require that it be encouraged. So show me direct un-biased evidence that traveling over 45 MPH is always or at least usually unsafe on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can't because there isn't any. All we have is fear, derived from estimates of speeds in anecdotal close calls.

First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

[quote=TiltonBB;67721]So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?
Where do you think kayaks got their origins? Most recreational kayaks are not “sea-worthy” sea kayaks are. I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat – and I have experienced what you described many times. Is it safe, no – but I never felt that I was in any danger when that happened.

If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"

Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake? Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.


Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

Originally Posted by Evenstar

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

Originally Posted by chipj29

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

{snip} The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

All of the above factors are controlled by law.

Show us where USCG defines excessive speed as over 45/25 mph or ANY solid numbers. Excessive speed could be 10 mph. Excessive speed is a relative and changing number which depends on many factors and circumstances.

BTW BI, you never gave an answer to the question that assumes all current boating laws are obeyed 100% what more would this 45/25 bill accomplish. Your style is to just dismiss the question saying that 100% compliance will never happen. We can all agree 100% will never happen. This simply takes away a variable for discussion.

Not only do you avoid and dismiss certain questions you raise doubts about the personality of the questioner (and I'm being very polite). Your posting style and debate tactics often appear hostile or designed to "press buttons". We can debate and discuss on this forum and still be friendly or do you want to change that too?

You claim that those who are against the 45/25 mph speed limit on Winnie are therefore advocating NO LIMITS. It's not true. The debate is about the proposed 45/25 mph speed limit or NO 45/25 mph speed limit. That is the question put to the NH House and Senate. BI Spin at work.

A side note. Just like there is a speed at which it becomes unreasonable so too is there a point when too many POSTS becomes unreasonable. Point in case: My (now locked) thread about riding on the Bow. There were 79 total posts in the thread. 18 were by Bear Islander. Not even ONE of his posts addressed the thread topic. Bear Islander responded to asides but failed to deal with the subject. He can claim that he was not the one to hijack the thread. Still, Almost 25% of the messages in that thread were by BI but none mentioned the topic, the safety or legality of riding on the bow of a boat. If I used BI tactics I'd say that BI must NOT be in favor about safety of riding on a bow. No PFDs and no seats designed for that activity but not on the agenda of Bear islander.

How many posts are too many? If you look at numbers, your USCG report shows that Excessive Speed (whatever the actual numbers are 10 mph or 100 mph) was listed as a factor in 18% of the total accidents. Your not-on-topic posts were almost 25% of the messages in the ride on bow thread. Just talking about the percentage for a moment and not the topic, which % is excessive, 25% or 18%?

A casualty of Speed Limits seems to be the thread I started about riding on the bow.

Teach me to come out of lurking and get involved.........

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cal

"...You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof...."

Though speed has claimed as many as 6 unrelated boaters at once—inside a cruiser, btw—I find the ocean-racer crash that claimed three brothers off your NJ coast especially disturbing.

1) Was it A L C O H O L that claimed those brothers?

2) If they could, what would those brothers advise us today about keeping the thrills of excess speed "in the family"?

"...Clouds are nice...brothers together...harp tunes getting old...send three MP3s..."

??? ???

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Though speed has claimed as many as 6 unrelated boaters at once—inside a cruiser, btw—I find the ocean-racer crash that claimed three brothers off your NJ coast especially disturbing.

1) Was it A L C O H O L that claimed those brothers?

2) If they could, what would those brothers advise us today about keeping the thrills of excess speed "in the family"?



??? ???

1. Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question.

2.Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense. Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power.

Their autobody shop is still 2 miles from my house but under a different name.
Didn't know them personally but have heard a lot of local scuttlebutt that never gets to the newspapers.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

I was not involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation. I know Bear Lover wasn't either. There goes that argument.

I guess your theory is we are lying about the real reason for speed limits. Can you please explain why. Why do we lie, if it were true why would we not say so? We have no reason to lie.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

Silver Duck

Please post a reason why we would lie about the origins of speed limits, or stop making the accusation!