Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by JDeere

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 national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.



I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

The national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.



I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

Well maybe you got me. Not worth the time to go find something to argue the point. If your stats are correct I assume there is a correlation to airbags, seat belts etc...............

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by JDeere

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.

Ok fair enough, I can't argue that logic. Now remind me once again how many fatalities we've had on the lake due to excessive speed?

(btw love the jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...it reminds me of my kids when they are irritated with me!!)

[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?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

[Bear Islander]

JD eere

That IS a classic. If we could get all those slower boats to go faster, think how safe the lake would be then!

I could be all wrong about a horsepower limit, we need a horsepower MINIMUM. If we restrict the lake to over 300 HP we will never have an accident again.


Then again...... slower is safer

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by JDeere

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

Based on my personal experience on the lake I have not found there to be a difference between bonehead moves of boaters of fast or slow boats. I have seen a performance boat sink because it was taking high speed turns and he lost control. I have seen a performance boat create a wake then go over it to catch some air. I was in a cove and although the boat was 200 feet away I got out of there as fast as I could. because one mistake on his part and I became a statistic. I also had a very close call when an idiot did a 180 and turned directly toward my boat. I have always thanked God that he was only going 30 mph or so because any faster and I could not have gotten out of his way He missed my by 2 or 3 feet! (MP charged him with reckless endangerment)

I once was trolling near Welsh Island and it was just after sunrise. I saw a boat traveling at a high speed coming directly in my path. As he approached I was wondering if I should jump off the boat. He passed within 30 feet at 60 mph+++. As he passed me he gave a me a warm one fingered wave. I must have annoyed him somehow. Damn those fisherman. It is those types that have created a legitimate fear in boaters.

I firmly believe that anyone who has spent enough hours on the lake understands the problem and slower will HELP make things safer for EVERYONE to enjoy the lake.................oops I guess everyone who is happy traveling at 45 mph or less but that is almost all of us!

[Islander]

The skipper may not understand what we are talking about when we say reasonable speed law.

A reasonable speed law is a speed limit without a specific number. Instead of saying 45 day 25 night the law says that a boats speed must be reasonable and prudent under prevailing conditions. Or other word to that effect.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend..."

A "similar graph" takes just 0.28 seconds: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm...33_NH_2006.htm

Among the 50 states, NH is a tiny sampling and subject to extreme statistical peaks and valleys.

In NH, most alcohol-related roadway fatalities occur in counties contiguous with Massachusetts. The majority of fatalities occur "departing the roadway"—hardly an Interstate issue.

Among boaters, where seatbelt compliance and airbags are irrelevent, this is a non-starter.

[Resident 2B]

The pro-speed limit "few" keeps spinning things and posting things that are just plain not happening here.

We have a great rule with respect to safety: the 150' rule.

Things happening outside of NH, all in places without the 150' rule, just plain do not count. It is an entirely different boating environment! The 150" rule works. Enforce what we have.

Our law makers had great in-sight when they created the 150' rule. It makes things safer than it is in all other areas without this wonderful rule.

I liked yesterday's ideas about restricted zones around camps. That helps more people enjoy the lake and adds value to safety of the children. I fully support this proposal.

Today, we are back to the same-old, same-old. I guess the pro-speed limit "few" have figured out that their effort to get certain boat types off the lake is not supported with this thinking.

The pro-speed limit "few" are only trying to impose their will on the rest of the NH boating public and they will continue to stoop to the lowest levels to spin their agenda. This agenda includes removal of all fast boats and all cruisers.

After the speed limit will come wake sizes and/or HP restrictions. Trust me!! This is only "step one" in a well planned agenda designed to get all the vessel types they do not like off the lake. They will stoop to whatever it takes to do this.

Boaters Beware!

R2B

[Airwaves]

Why are opponents to this bill falling into the trap of trying to defend how safe Lake Winnipesaukee already is? Anyone who cares to read the NEW HAMPSHIRE boating stats from either the NH Marine Patrol or the US Coast Guard can see that is is a very safe lake.

As I pointed out in my post #510 (it tended to disappear between the lag time and APS' entertaining picture posts) I put forward this argument;

I submit that speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will have the exact opposite effect and make the lake less safe!

In my local paper last night an editorial suggests that New Hampshire's budget deficit could be $200,000,000! A much higher figure than the one that I had heard and used.

[Bear Islander]

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.

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.

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

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

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.

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

The 150' rule is a lot better than the speed limit proposal. It just needs to be ENFORCED. If they (the NHMP) can't enforce that then how will they enforce the speed limits. Answer: They can't.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seeker

The 150' rule is a lot better than the speed limit proposal. It just needs to be ENFORCED. If they (the NHMP) can't enforce that then how will they enforce the speed limits. Answer: They can't.

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.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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.

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.

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

The 45 MPH speed limit is certainly not the panacea you think it is either.

If slower is really safer, why didn't you folks go for a 35 MPH speed limit, or a 30 MPH speed limit, or even a 25 MPH speed limit?

45 MPH is a speed that excludes the faster boats from the lake. Ops, I'm sorry, I answered my own question.

R2B

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

The 45 MPH speed limit is certainly not the panacea you think it is either.

If slower is really safer, why didn't you folks go for a 35 MPH speed limit, or a 30 MPH speed limit, or even a 25 MPH speed limit?

45 MPH is a speed that excludes the faster boats from the lake. Ops, I'm sorry, I answered my own question.

R2B

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York?

I did not realize this.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York?

I did not realize this.

R2B

Now you know!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by 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?

Answer = NO!


Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat.

[ApS]

Hazelnut...(Now that THAT's settled...)

What effect did this have on the study?

LACONIA –
"Marine Patrol officers armed with radar guns have begun clocking boat speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee...

"Officers won't pull over boats until Aug. 1 when a pilot boating speed enforcement program takes full effect. As of yesterday, officers will be testing the radar and collecting speed information in six spots...

"Former Safety Commissioner Richard Flynn offered the pilot speed limit as an alternative that might help lawmakers gauge whether they should pursue a limit.

"Safety Services Director Dave Barrett said his officers are ready to enforce a temporary speed limit on Winnipesaukee..."

From the state's largest newspaper:
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...f-a1eb92561e49

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Answer = NO!


Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat.

I answered you with a single word, as you requested. I would have liked to have added an explanation. I didn't!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I answered you with a single word, as you requested. I would have liked to have added an explanation. I didn't!

.... Is that the rules? So sorry I forgot.

NO!

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Answer = NO!


Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat.

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

BI,

You are 100% incorrect with that assumption.

I like everyone! I even like those who do not agree with me.

What I dislike is the activities of people who spend money to force their desires on others who may or may not have as much money than they have. I really think buying or trying to buy a law that discriminates against a particular sub-class is un-American. I dislike PACs and I dislike the way many laws get enacted through the use of ad agencies and lobbyists.

So, it is possible for me to like someone, but to dislike what they are doing in certain circumstances.

Your friend for life,

R2B

[Bear Islander]

I agree completely.