Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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.

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

Nope, look at it just like a cop might stake out a school zone.

As far as notifying boaters perhaps the marine patrol could give the camps rights to put out temporary No Wake buoys each day as needed?

[Silver Duck]

I think that Camp Zones are a fine idea, whether or not the speed limit is enacted!

Could this be done by the MP administratively, or would legislation be needed to create a new category of zone?

Silver Duck

[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.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

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.

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Second, if you look at the stats a few things become clear.

Operator inattention and careless, reckless are the 2 top reasons for an accident. Most accidents are from open motorboats, and collision with another vessels being a predominant accident. I wonder why sailboats are so far down the list................maybe because they are going so slow? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............................

Speed is number 3 on the list. No kidding. The first mistake is lack of care regardless of speed HOWEVER slower speeds gives everyone more time to handle those mistakes and we all make mistakes. Slower just gives us more time to deal with those errors.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Sure. To the exact MPH? NO, because it would be almost impossible unless someone was watching with a radar gun when it happened.

• In 2006 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed of over 30 mph . . . this is for the entire year and includes all 970 lakes/ponds and over 12,000 miles of rivers and streams.

• During the entire year of 2007 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 40 mph. There was 1 accident in 2007 that involved a speed of < 30 mph whereby an operator of a personal water craft (PWC) fell off and his craft struck another PWC.

• We hadn’t had a single boat collision fatality in New Hampshire for over 4 years. There was 1 fatality involving a personal watercraft (jet ski) at a speed less than 20 mph in 2007.

Somewhere on the forum there is an exact list of incidents from last year, I do not remember who posted it, but I am sure someone will chime in.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

Bingo!!!

[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?

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

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?

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by JDeere

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The point is when you go slower there is more time to react AND the severity will be less. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

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?

The is plenty of data, many accidents. However the opponents live in a river in Egypt and will explain away every accident.

Single boats accidents don't count

Accident before mandatory certification don't count

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't count

If alcohol has involved it doesn't count

Accident on another lake don't count

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't count

Accidents before (pick a date) don't count

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.

[chipj29]

The only accidents that should count are the ones in which speed (over 45 mph) was a major contributing factor. Period.

With that said, how many have there been?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The is plenty of data, many accidents.

Single boats accidents don't count Says who?

Accident before mandatory certification don't countAgain Says who?

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't countLike 47 MPH?

If alcohol has involved it doesn't countSo explain why it SHOULD count if Alcohol was present?

Accident on another lake don't countThe law on the table is specific to Winni

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't countThis is a funny one. Yeah ummmm do I even need to go there?

Accidents before (pick a date) don't countSaid Who?

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.Again if a kid is illegally driving a boat I'm SURE he'd obey the laws.

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.Does that lake have a speed limit?

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.You just can't seem to work that one out in your head can you? Excessive speed could have been a 20MPH collision with a dock? Above wake in a no wake? It just kills you to even consider that doesn't it

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.You are right about one thing this post was comical. I know I laughed when I read it.

Comments are in red.

[Bear Islander]

Woodsy says, that's who. Others helped.

Thanks for pointing out one I missed with respect to the Double Fatality.

Accidents on lakes without speed limits don't count.

That means no accident that has ever taken place on Winnipesaukee counts (good one!). You once asked me to give a yes or no answer with no explanations, qualifications etc. and I did. Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

[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%?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

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%?

The Coast Guard did not determine that speed was a factor in those accidents. They determined EXCESSIVE SPEED was a factor.

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.

Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Coast Guard did not determine that speed was a factor in those accidents. They determined EXCESSIVE SPEED was a factor.

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.

Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

"Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer.

[Resident 2B]

I think many are missing an important point.

In all bodies of water where the CG has gathered the data BI keeps pointing to, there is no 150' rule. So, any comparison to what is being proposed in NH were we have an existing 150' rule is completely bogus.

Excessive speed in CG's assessment can be any speed deamed too fast for existing conditions. Without a 150' NWZ around every other vessel, boats in CG waters are often moving at 25 MPH or faster even when within 25' to 50' of each other. It is a much more dangerous situation than we have on the lake. If you do not believe me, go out of Boston Harbor some summer week day, not even on a weekend, and you will see many things, much faster and much closer that we ever see on the lake. This is within the outer harbor, from Deer Island inwards to Logan airport.

We have a rule on the lake, the 150' rule, that works when enforced. The CG has no rule like it. Therefore, the boating environments are totally different and the data is not applicaple to this discussion.

It is like comparing apples and watermelons!

R2B

[Cal]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

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.

BI knows this. He can't be THAT stupid. He just uses a partial truth from the Coast Guard to spin in his direction. And here's some laughing faces for you

[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.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Coast Guard did not determine that speed was a factor in those accidents. They determined EXCESSIVE SPEED was a factor.

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.
Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

See above in bold. You are being silly.

[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.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

Bear,
The problem is, it was my question. If you have your own I am sure you would be pleased to ask it.
I am very very sincere. If the argument for the speed limit is because some don't feel "safe" than it is a legitimate question. Your response is why I felt the need to be specific. If we need to give up a freedom for a smaller group, it is fair to weigh the benefits vs cost.

If a kyacker wanted to answer my question with "yes I would feel safe" it would say something. Your response also says a lot.

Often we have little choice but to settle for a little less freedom but we can try to understand the reason with more explanation than "because I said so".

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

From my experience, more than an "occasional" boat travels over 45 mph on the lake, and some boats travel much faster than 45mph.

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)

[GWC...]

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.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Alleged facts repeated over and over again do NOT make them true or more true. A Bear Islander tactic: responded to me by asking me a question then a few messages later, to "save me the time", he answers the question himself, his way.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que - Post #414 (as quoted by BI):
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg #416

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

Bear Islander answering for me with what he wants us to believe.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg 419

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.

That is all Bear Islander can come up with in desperation (in my name). Here's more info than we need however it is proof of NH speed regulations. I can come up with these without BI's kind assistance. I apologize to forum readers for the length of this post and have made a few notes about skimming or jumping over certain boring parts.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2-a
270-D:2-a Boaters Guide. – The department of safety, division of safety services, shall publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-D-2-a.htm

From the State mandated Safe Boating handbook guide:
Handbook - safe speed and distance: http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/meet.htm

Boating Basics: On the Water

Safe navigation on New Hampshire waterways is everyone's responsibility. All operators are equally responsible for taking action necessary to avoid collisions.

Encountering Other Vessels

Even though no vessel has the "right-of-way" over another vessel, there are some rules that every operator should follow when encountering other vessels. It is the responsibility of both operators to take the action needed to avoid a collision. The navigation rules page shows what to do when encountering another vessel.

To prevent collisions, every operator should follow the three basic rules of navigation.

* Practice good seamanship.
* Keep a sharp lookout.
* Maintain a safe speed and distance.

----------------------

Some have claimed that the required handbook is not always correct. And maybe BI can claim that "safe speed" does not look like "reasonable speed". So I present more boating speed rules from the New Hampshire General Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Speed on Lake:
The page: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-D/270-D-2.htm

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
I. Vessels shall be operated at headway speed only, while passing under all bridges.
II. (a) It shall be the duty of each vessel to keep to the right when vessels are approaching each other head on.
(b) When the courses of vessels are so far to the starboard of each other as not to be considered as approaching head on, they shall keep to the left.
III. When vessels are crossing courses or approaching each other in an oblique direction which may involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on its starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other, allowing the latter vessel to keep its course and speed.
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants. No person operating a vessel shall abruptly change its course without first determining that it can safely be done without crossing immediately ahead of another vessel.
V. If, when vessels are approaching each other, either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other from any cause, such vessel or vessels shall immediately slow to a speed barely sufficient for steerage until the vessels have safely passed each other. If it appears the danger of collision is imminent both vessels shall stop or reverse and not proceed until such danger has been averted.
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
(b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.
(c) The operator of a towing boat shall be responsible for compliance with this paragraph.
(d) The requirements of RSA 270-D:2, VI(a)(3) shall not apply to a vessel in the waters of the Androscoggin River from the Errol Dam to Umbagog Lake or in the waters of the Magalloway River within the state of New Hampshire.
VI-a. [Repealed.]
VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit.
VIII. When a vessel is required to keep out of the way of another, it shall, if necessary, slacken its speed, stop, or reverse, and avoid crossing ahead of any other vessel.
IX. Canoes, rowboats and sailboats shall be given the right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to allow deliberate impediment of motorboats by canoes, rowboats or sailboats.

Source. 1990, 171:1. 1994, 78:1. 1995, 191:2, eff. June 1, 1997; 191:3, eff. Dec. 31, 1998. 2002, 272:13, eff. May 18, 2002.

--------------------

The next batch of speed rules for the lake get to be pretty boring to read. You may want to skim down past all the “no wake zone” speed restrictions to PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES for other NH boat speed rules



Saf-C 402.88 Lake Winnipesaukee.

(a) That part of Paugus Bay between the buoy located 250 feet from the west side of the bay to the western-most black top buoy shall be a "no wake" area.

(b) The Weirs Channel, so-called, between the light buoy in said channel near the Endicott Rock in Lake Winnipesaukee, and the southernmost light buoy in the channel in Lake Paugus shall be a "no wake" area.

(c) That part of Alton Bay in Lake Winnipesaukee lying south of the line running east and west through the bandstand shall be a "no wake" area. Commercial vessels operating in this area shall pass on the east side of the bandstand.

(d) Between the red top buoy located by light buoy #23 and Sandy Point in Alton Bay shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(e) That portion of Lake Winnipesaukee known as Sally's Gut from the easternmost to the westernmost buoys marking this passage shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(f) From the red and white buoy situated off the southeasterly portion of Locke's Island in Lake Winnipesaukee to a point 600 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(g) From the red and white buoy at the entrance of Smith's Cove at Glendale and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(h) The channel between Loon Island and the mainland in the town of Meredith from the red buoy situated off the southeast portion of Loon Island to a point 400 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(i) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Varney and Kenniston Islands from the black and white buoy marking the southeast entrance to the red buoy marking the northwest entrance of the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(j) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Pine Island and Meredith Neck between the black and white buoy and the red buoy marking the northerly and southerly entrances respectively shall be a "no wake" area.

(k) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Horse Island and Meredith Neck, between the red buoy on the southerly approach and the black and white buoy at the northeasterly approach to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(l) Between navigation light number 69 and Governor's Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(m) From the entrance to Minge Cove at West Alton to the flashing light buoy located within the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(n) From the flashing light buoy in Minge Cove and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(o) Between Chase Island and Farm Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(p) In the cove on the southwesterly side of Governor's Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(q) From the no wake sign located at the southern entrance to Fish Cove to the northernmost point of the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(r) From the northernmost black top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the southernmost point of the channel between Three Mile Island and the Hawk's Nest shall be a "no wake" area.

(s) From 150 feet beyond the northwest end of the Beaver Island Channel to 150 feet beyond the southeastern end of the Beaver Island Channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(t) From a point 150 feet from the west side of the Black Cat Island Bridge to a point 150 feet of the eastern side of the Black Cat Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(u) From a point 150 feet from the southwesternmost red top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the northernmost red top buoy between Mark Island and Mink Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(v) From the red top buoy at the entrance of Glidden Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(w) From light buoy #75 to the southernmost point of Small's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(x) From light buoy #79 to the southeasternmost point of Robert's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(y) From a point 150 feet southeast of the Basin Bridge to a point 150 feet northwest of the Basin Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(z) From a point 150 feet from the east entrance of Green's Basin to a point 150 feet beyond the western entrance of Green's Basin shall be a "no wake" area.

(aa) From the red top buoy located on the south side of Whaleback Island to a point 150 feet beyond the north entrance to the channel between Whaleback Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ab) From a point 150 feet from the southeastern entrance of the channel between Ganzey Island and the mainland to a point 150 feet beyond the northern entrance to the same channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(ac) From a point 150 feet east of the black top buoy located off the north side of 9 Acre Island to a point 150 feet beyond the southwestern entrance of the channel between 9 Acre Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ad) From the westernmost black top buoy located off the Long Island Public Beach to a point 150 feet beyond the eastern side of the Long Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(ae) From light buoy #65 to the red top buoy located on the northeast side of Devens Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(af) From the southwesternmost red top buoy to the northeasternmost red top buoy located southwest of Hermit Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ag) From the southernmost black top buoy to the northernmost black top buoy in Salmon Meadow Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ah) From the no wake sign which is located on the southeast entrance to Kelly Cove to the northwesternmost point of Kelly Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ai) From a point 150 feet northeast of the no wake sign located at the entrance to Gilford Marina and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(aj) From a point 150 feet north of the entrance of Lake Shore Park and southerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(ak) From a point 150 feet easterly of the channel markers marking the entrance to Duck Trap Cove and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(al) From a point 150 feet southwest of the channel between Farm Island and Tuftonboro to a point 150 feet northeast of the entrance to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(am) From the no wake sign located on the eastern side of Shep Brown's Boat Basin and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(an) The cove portion of Lake Winnipesaukee west of Black Island, between Geneva Point Center and Black Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ao) From a point 150 feet south of Ledge Island and proceeding northward into Fish Cove shall be a "no wake" area. This "no wake" area shall not include the interior of the unnamed cove to the east of Fish Cove.

(ap) The area 150 feet north of the Bear Island mail dock to 150 feet south of the mail dock in the channel between the Bear Island Post Office and Pine Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(aq) Hanson Cove in Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area, including that area between the mouth of the cove, 150 yards due west of the large rock, to the large rock's corresponding black top navigational marker near Toltec Point.

(ar) That portion of Langley Cove in Paugus Bay, beginning from the city of Laconia Tax Map 69, Block 248, Lot 6 and running westerly to the western most point of Christmas Island in Paugus Bay, shall be a "no wake" area.

(as) The unnamed cove easterly of Light 41 on Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro, shall be a "no wake" area.

(at) Raoul’s Cove in the town of Moultonborough, from a line drawn beginning on the northern side of Lot 35 and the southern boundary of adjacent lot 33, proceeding across the cove to a point on the northern most side of Lot 91 and the southern boundary of adjacent Lot 92 on Moultonborough tax map #32 shall be a "no wake" area.

(au) That part of Meredith bay in Lake Winnipesaukee running from an imaginary straight line as drawn from the Town of Meredith Tax Map U-2, Lot 7 southern boundary to Map U-15, Lot 48A southern boundary, to the northerly end of the bay on Route 25 shall be a "no wake" area.

(av) The channel named Eagle Island Narrows between Egle Island and Governors Island on Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 402.75), amd by #8614, eff 4-25-06

----------------------------------

PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.01 Operating in Fog.

(a) When vessels are running in a fog, mist, falling snow or heavy rain storm, or when vessels cannot see each other, it shall be the duty of the pilot to cause a long blast, 4 to 6 seconds in duration, of the whistle or horn to be sounded at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes.

(b) A vessel hearing the fog signal of another vessel, apparently forward of the beam, the position of which is not ascertained, shall immediately slow to headway speed only, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over.

----------------
Saf-C 404.04 Meeting or Passing Log Rafts. All vessels when meeting or passing rafts or logs being towed shall, during such meeting or passing, reduce their speed to such an extent as to prevent their wake from causing logs to break away or washing out of the raft or boom.

-----------

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.

(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.

(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:

(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;

(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;

(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and

(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

(d) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) Water events as set forth in RSA 270-D:4 and Saf-C 413; and

(2) Law enforcement agencies and their representatives acting in their official capacity.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 404.11)

---------------------------------

Saf-C 405.04 Regulatory Markers. Regulatory markers shall be geometric figures painted international orange and white. They shall indicate the existence of danger, speed zones, swim areas and other controls. Spelled-out words or recognized abbreviations may appear on these markers to convey their meaning to the operators of vessels.

------------------------------------
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-D-2-a.htm

Originally Posted by Bear Islander to Skipper of the Sea Que

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

Over DONE - have a nice day now.

[Bear Islander]

Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post!

It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen.

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

You can highlight every time the words "No Wake" appears in the regulations but they are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW!

[Commodore]

I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee.

That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant.

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants.

VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.
---------------------------------
PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner.

Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Commodore

I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee.

That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant.

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants.

VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.
---------------------------------
PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner.

Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you.

Once again, none of them are a reasonable speed law, not even close. Perhaps, as Islander points out, there are those that do not understand the term. More likely they are grasping at straws.

I notice that the Commodore only posted the first part of Saf-C 404.12 He could not post the entire thing because the rest does not help his argument. He even adds his own comment in a way that makes it seem like it's part of the rule.

[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.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Question: How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee? Reminder...

GWC, I really don’t get why you feel that it is perfectly right to quote me out of context numerous times, by dredging up posts that I made over 3 years ago!

I don’t even get why you even used most of those quotes, since you didn’t even bother to comment on most of them.

If this is just another one of your lame attempts to discredit me on a public forum (which is such a cowardly act) why don’t you be a man, borrow a kayak, and try to follow me out on the main lake some time. I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet.

Now it’s my turn to add the stuff you conveniently left out:

1.) With a kayak, being tipped over by a wake is not the same as being swamped by one. Swamping is when you take on water. On that particular occasion, we took on enough water that we had to paddle to a nearby island and bail out.

2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak.

In answer to your question: My friend and I have only paddled sea kayaks on Winni – so we’ve never really been swamped while kayaking there (some water from waves and wakes has entered our cockpits, but not enough to be what I would call “swamped.” We’ve never had to pump out our sea kayaks.)

Happy? And my statement that “I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat” is completely true.

3.) I have never suggested that I a speed limit will solve all the problems or that one will make any lake feel totally safe, from all power boaters, 100% of the time. When you’re in a kayak and a powerboat is heading directly at you – you always wonder if the operator sees you. Many don’t, until they get fairly close, but others are just intentionally trying to scare us, and often succeed in doing so.

Just because some boaters violate current laws does not mean that we don’t need a lake speed limit. I have also stated many times (although not in these exact words) that an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph.

Now why don’t you get a life, or at leastr take up a hobby or something.

[Airwaves]

It's abundantly clear to everyone that we are at an impass. So as my final post I will try one last time to show the supporters of the solution in search of a problem, why their solution will create a potentially dangerous problem

As Bear Islander wrote in post#541

The 150' rule is hard for the MP to enforce. In almost all cases it's not possible to actually measure the distance, an estimate is required. And even harder if the MP is looking at a possible violation from a distance. And people will disagree about what is 150'

A speed limit is easier to enforce, point the radar gun and read the speed.

He is 100% correct. Now here is where his logic goes off track

The only real problem with putting your efforts into increased education and enforcement is that they are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Wonderful ideas that will not be implemented do not do it for me. They cost money, and the money is NOT THERE.

Okay, so he's agreed that the 150 foot rule is hard to enforce, and he's agreed that money is an issue.

So their solution?
DIVERT THE MARINE PATROL AWAY FROM SAFETY PATROLS!

What will be the impact of diverting manpower away from safety patrols and converting them to radar speed posts?

DIVERTING ALREADY THIN MANPOWER WILL MAKE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LESS SAFE!

If this bill becomes law I will remind all of the speed limit supporters when an incident happens because Lake Winnipesaukee's Marine Patrol was pointing radar guns trying to catch the .09% of boats exceeding 45 MPH.

Believe it!

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander msg # 530

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander, msg #530

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.


I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.


Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

I was responding to a post that claimed we don't need a speed limit because we have a 150' rule. I pointed out that the 150' rule didn't prevent those accidents. I was not making any claims about speed limits, just pointing out that the 150' rule is not the panacea the poster represented it as.

I think you understand this very well. But your method is to attack, attack, attack.

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet.

Really? You must have been reading too fast to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have."

Originally Posted by Evenstar msg 346 to Airwaves,

{snip} 2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak. {snip} an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph. {snip} Now why don’t you get a life, or at least take up a hobby or something.

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades. How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.

BTW, my boat can only go get to 40 mph DOWNHILL .

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Really? You must have been reading too fast to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have."

Ok so I have to make another post to defend myself yet again from another series of lame comments. You guys are getting really pathetic.

I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348 (so who isn't paying attention here): "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline." He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does.

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.

A sea kayak is a recreational vessel. So aren't white water kayaks, touring kayaks and recreational kayaks. I didn't make up these categories - that's just the way that kayaks are classified - by their design. A sea kayak is a long touring kayak.

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades.

The number of boating years doesn't mean all that much. I've probably paddled more miles in NH lakes than most anyone on this forum. I've also run class II and III rapids, and am a collegiate sailor and a registered member of the Inter Collegiate Sailing Association. My sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. During the school year were out on the bay practicing 4 days a week, and compete all weekend. We also have team meetings each week - just to study the racing rules of sailing - plus morning workouts. So I probably have more actually real time in a non-motorized vessel and actual knowledge of non-motorized boats than most of you on this forum.

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.

Here we go again . . . This just shows how little most of you know about a sea kayak. And I never claimed to be a "professional." You don't wear a helmet on a sea kayak - helmets are for white water kayaking. If I added all the junk to my sea kayak - it would surely tip over in the first light breeze. Few of you could even sit in my kayak without tipping it over. Heck, most of you would never even fit in my kayak.

How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.

A speed limit is a pretty simple rule to follow - and the Marine Patrol would make sure that they followed it. What is not logical is allowing powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow moving boats.

[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!