Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[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.

[Woodsy]

Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee...

Instead of everybody working together for real and meaningful changes that will appease everybody... (like the "Camp Zone" idea) and perhaps a few more No Wake Zones in selected areas, maybe even a nighttime speed limit.
WINNCRABS have chosen to pursue a 45/25 speed limit. Something I view as an unreasonable restriction on my liberty. A speed limit that will ultimately prove unenforceable for many reasons. Those of you who attended the meeting in Franklin and witnessed the NHMP testimony know the NHMP testified that while the radar units worked in a few certain situations, meeting the burden of proof in a court of law and the cost of operation was a concern. But I digress...

The reality of the speed limit is far more sinister!

BI, Islander, JDeere, Evenstar, FLL and the rest of WINNCRABS have an agenda, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it publicly. The sad part is, that while they wave the flag of safety, the agenda has absolutely nothing to do with safety... just ask Rep. Pilliod the original sponsor of HB-162! I have the message he left on MY answering machine where he SPECIFICALLY states "IT'S NOT ABOUT SAFETY!!"

The WINNCRABS agenda is to change the lake to THIER liking by ELIMINATING those who THEY consider undesireables... hi-performance boats first.... followed by the cruisers (told ya so) then the PWC's after that!

Unfortunately, WINNCRABS have no safety statistics or data to support thier need for a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, so they resort to using other states & lakes as examples.... all the while never having boated there! In fact none of the states & lakes they use as examples have a 150' Safe Passage Rule. It is this 150' rule that keeps NH unique among the the other 50 states. It also keeps our boat to boat collisions to a minimum.

WINNCRABS dismiss the speed study done by the NHMP as useless because it didnt fit in with thier agenda. No doubt if the study had shown a different result they would be raving about it! The study conclusively shows that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Lake Winnipesaukee has a long and storied love affair with hi-performance boats. To be sure there have been some accidents, and no doubt there have been a few Boneheads behind the wheel too. Overall the boating safety record on Lake Winnipesaukee is exemplary. The NHMP yearly safety report supports this.

NH should follow the existing law so often quoted by Evenstar and work towards making Lake Winnipesaukee INVITING to everyone, from the Hi-Performance boater to the canoeist/kayaker. Boat registrations will no doubt be down for the next few years with gas approaching $4/gal. This will also result in a smaller budget for NHMP. The first to feel the pinch of high fuel costs will be the daytripper family boater in the small runabout. They will be the first to severely limit thier trips or just not use it thier boat altogether. Next to feel the pinch are the average folks with camps and property around the lake... between the property taxes, fuel costs and the overall crappy state of the economy, thier boating will no doubt be severely limited. I know of several families that have thier boat for sale and have no plans to use it this summer. If HB-847 passes the next to go will be the hi-perfomance boats. As an example, there probably wont be a Donzi Poker Run if there is a 45MPH speed limit. While some of you think thats just dandy, thats 30 boats and about 100 people that won't travel to the lake and spend thier $$$ on food and lodging. (not to mention how much $$$ us local guys spend that weekend) If the local hi-performance guys don't feel welcome anymore, they will just trade in thier big $$$ hi-po boats on big $$$ cruisers. This trades one problem for another... more cruisers = more wakes! If the WINNCRABS agenda continues unabated, and they somehow manage to make the big cruiser folks and the PWC's feel unwelcome... Then then who is left to patronize the businesses around the lake that depend so much on the boating economy? What happens when Rusty Mclear can't blame the hi-performance boater for his lack of room bookings or boat rentals?

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam? I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee..."

Type...type...type...type...type...fix...type...fi x...type...type...fix...!

"...It's really sad how speed has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee..."

There!—It's fixed!

[ApS]

Rose, I was initially stumped by your earlier question—and since nobody has answered it yet...

Originally Posted by Rose

"...Why don't you support a limit on the NUMBER of watercraft (of any type) allowed on the lake...?"

By its very nature, HB-847 will "skim" those serially impaired, those most seriously impaired, those with sociopathic behaviors—plus, the largest, the heaviest, the fastest, and the most dangerous boats we face today...will leave Lake Winnipesaukee's waters.

Those boaters become another lake's problem: I suggest Long Lake and Ossipee Lake take up the slack.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...An auxiliary officer is hardly a schmoe off the street. In fact I'm willing to bet they even have some police type powers..."

'Better check that again.

Originally Posted by daveg

"...I have never had a "close encounter" with a speeding boat..."

Your boat is probably equipped with an engine...

Originally Posted by hazelnut

"...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding...!"

And if he's weaving? He's over the limit—AND speeding.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

With the economy the way it is and appears to be heading plus the cost of gas, maybe the overcrowding issue will soon be a non-issue.

I personally don't see the lake as overcrowded; unfortunately, there are some boats that use up more of the lake than others.

We may see a resurgence of sail on the lake: Sailboat manufacturers are crying "poor" too.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake..??"

It prevents dozens of "mistakes".

Every day.

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

"...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...

In many cases, it only takes a fraction of a million dollars to "force their desires" on us lesser boaters.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam...?" I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.

Many owners will die before selling out.

We desire the "by natural causes" route, however.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847..."

A decline we can LIVE with.

[parrothead]

WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit.
Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones.

The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community.
Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit.
Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones.

The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community.
Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse.

To answer a couple of your comments...

The Marine Patrol already has the Radar and Laser units from the speed study. No additional purchases are needed.

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.

The Woodsy post starts out with a "can't we all get along" attitude but then sinks into calling his opposition "WINNCRABS". I ask you to consider who is really serious about solving the lakes problems, and who is just pissed off that they can't go fast anymore.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

To answer a couple of your comments...

The Marine Patrol already has the Radar and Laser units from the speed study. No additional purchases are needed.

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.

The Woodsy post starts out with a "can't we all get along" attitude but then sinks into calling his opposition "WINNCRABS". I ask you to consider who is really serious about solving the lakes problems, and who is just pissed off that they can't go fast anymore.

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

This law will address the fact that slower is safer. I am also in favor of increased education and enforcement. Must it be one or the other? Why not all three?

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. However if you wish to start a movement along those lines I am with you. We need to tilt at windmills now and then.

You are correct, I am settling for an imperfect solution. However imperfect is better than nothing.



Where is that one word answer you owe me?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.
.

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

No, the speed limit is not Woodsy's fault.

It's Woodsy's fault there was no compromise solution, like one with an exception for the broads.