Life after speed limits

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

They spam every survey. Remember, "...delete your cookies and vote again and again..."?


WinnFABS concerns itself with arriving alive while boating on Lake Winnipesaukee: OSO is concerned about being voted off EVERY lake, and spams EVERY initiative.

Here's a quote of interest:
Join Date: Aug 2003

Location: Boston, Ma

Posts: 1,483

I think i voted too much. It won't let me vote anymore,,,,blank screen

So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK.
So winnfabs is concerned with "arriving alive", and I think that is great. But when was the last time that someone did not "arrive alive" due to a high speed accident?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK.
So winnfabs is concerned with "arriving alive", and I think that is great. But when was the last time that someone did not "arrive alive" due to a high speed accident?

Last summer on Long Lake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last summer on Long Lake.

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

Does Maine have a 150ft safe passage law?

If I post "Bush is an idiot" that is obviously opinion even if I don't specify. Actually that one borders on factual.

I say that as a Registered Republican. GO McCain!!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last summer on Long Lake.

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.


Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.


Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

I'll take a stab at this.

you've previously pointed out that if a law is enacted, that people will simply obey the law without the need for much enforcement. following that logic, the long lake accident would have been prevented by the 150' law simply because the driver of the boat would have had to slow down to head way speed when coming within 150' of shore. no one dies with the 150' law in place on long lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by B R

I'll take a stab at this.

you've previously pointed out that if a law is enacted, that people will simply obey the law without the need for much enforcement. following that logic, the long lake accident would have been prevented by the 150' law simply because the driver of the boat would have had to slow down to head way speed when coming within 150' of shore. no one dies with the 150' law in place on long lake.

The GFBL boat in question could not have slowed down as it approached within 150' of the shore.

There was no one on board to slow it down.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

1. My answer fit your question perfectly.

2. New Hampshire has no shield of invulnerability that protects boats from fatal accidents. That accident could just as easily have happened on Winnipesaukee.

3. I am not connected with WinnFABS.


Hazelnut-

Can you explain how the accident would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

GO McCain! (one of my clients)

Yes, you are right, I should have phrased my question to specifically include Winnipesaukee. I should know that I needed to clarify that we are discussing Lake Winnipesaukee, on a website called winnipesaukee.com.
I never said you were connected to winnfabs. APS brought it up in his post, not me. I was replying to him initially.
And yes, that accident could have happened on Winnipesaukee. It could have happened on the Merrimack River. It could have happened on [gasp] Squam Lake. How could it have happened on Squam Lake when they already have a speed limit you ask? Well if one is going to get drunk and fire up their boat, they could theoretically do it anywhere. Even GFBLs come on trailers.

But it didn't happen in any of those places. It happened on Long Lake. In the beautiful state of Maine.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Can you explain how the accident (on Long Lake) would have been prevented by a 150' rule?

By the same token, can you explain how that accident would/could have been prevented by a 45 MPH speed limit (or 25 MPH, if it happened at night, I don't know if it did)?? You're assuming that every drunk boater will still observe a speed limit, even in an inebriated condition!! They don't on land, in their car, why would you expect anything different on water in a boat??


Also, if there was no one IN his boat and the boat continued on to crash onshore, he obviously didn't avail himself of the kill switch lanyard included on most performance boats. I'll presume that's another bad choice considering his inebriated condition.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

By the same token, can you explain how that accident would/could have been prevented by a 45 MPH speed limit (or 25 MPH, if it happened at night, I don't know if it did)?? You're assuming that every drunk boater will still observe a speed limit, even in an inebriated condition!! They don't on land, in their car, why would you expect anything different on water in a boat??


Also, if there was no one IN his boat and the boat continued on to crash onshore, he obviously didn't avail himself of the kill switch lanyard included on most performance boats. I'll presume that's another bad choice considering his inebriated condition.

The opposition often makes asinine statements like "a speed limit is unnecessary because there are no high speed accidents". The Long Lake accident is proof otherwise, even if a speed limit could not have prevented it.

However the accident it question MIGHT have been prevented by a speed limit. The operator brought the boat up from Massachusetts. If Long Lake had a speed limit he MAY have gone elsewhere. Although a speed limit MIGHT keep high speed boats off of a lake, a horsepower limit almost certainly would have.

A central point that keeps falling on deaf ears is that a boat that is not ON the lake can't be involved in an accident.


Parrothead-

If you move to a place just outside of a no-wake-zone you will learn about GFBLs and wake. On plane they may have a reasonable wake. However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake. All that horsepower has to go somewhere. I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The opposition often makes asinine statements like "a speed limit is unnecessary because there are no high speed accidents". The Long Lake accident is proof otherwise, even if a speed limit could not have prevented it.

But, as has been pointed out SEVERAL times, Long Lake is not the subject of discussion here; Lake Winnipesaukee and the speed limit law which will affect everyone that boats on it is the subject!! I don't care what Long Lake has or doesn't have for laws because it has no direct impact on Lake Winnipesaukee. I feel bad for any innocent person that is injured by an idiot boater but what happens on Long Lake is of no concern to me as far as HB-847 goes!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you move to a place just outside of a no-wake-zone you will learn about GFBLs and wake. On plane they may have a reasonable wake. However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake. All that horsepower has to go somewhere. I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not.

That's true of ANY boat with a planing hull, not just performance boats. Sure, when transitioning from headway speed to planing speed, an 18 ft boat might make a slightly smaller wake compared to my 25 ft, which might be a little smaller than a 35 ft, and so on and so on but every boat with a planing hull will make a larger wake while they are in transition compared to the same boat AT headway or ON plane, it's inevitable!!

GEE, we might just as well ban ALL powerboats from the lake!! But then, how would all the island dwellers get to their respective islands?? Don't bother, I know.......rowboats. I'm sure they'll all love that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

But, as has been pointed out SEVERAL times, Long Lake is not the subject of discussion here; Lake Winnipesaukee and the speed limit law which will affect everyone that boats on it is the subject!! I don't care what Long Lake has or doesn't have for laws because it has no direct impact on Lake Winnipesaukee. I feel bad for any innocent person that is injured by an idiot boater but what happens on Long Lake is of no concern to me as far as HB-847 goes!



That's true of ANY boat with a planing hull, not just performance boats. Sure, when transitioning from headway speed to planing speed, an 18 ft boat might make a slightly smaller wake compared to my 25 ft, which might be a little smaller than a 35 ft, and so on and so on but every boat with a planing hull will make a larger wake while they are in transition compared to the same boat AT headway or ON plane, it's inevitable!!

GEE, we might just as well ban ALL powerboats from the lake!! But then, how would all the island dwellers get to their respective islands?? Don't bother, I know.......rowboats. I'm sure they'll all love that.

Long Lake is part of the discussion here as far as I am concerned. And it was the correct answer to the question as asked.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Long Lake is part of the discussion here as far as I am concerned. And it was the correct answer to the question as asked.

Lake Winnipesaukee, and a potential speed limit is the discussion here.
And once again, I am sorry I didn't specify LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE when I asked the original question.

What happens on other lakes has NO bearing on what happens on this one. History somewhere else does not equal history here. Sorry.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Lake Winnipesaukee, and a potential speed limit is the discussion here.
And once again, I am sorry I didn't specify LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE when I asked the original question.

What happens on other lakes has NO bearing on what happens on this one. History somewhere else does not equal history here. Sorry.

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

So you admit that high speed fatalities are so rare that a sample size from any 1 lake is not statistically valid? By your logic we must then accumulate all high speed fatalities until we have a number large enough to make people take notice? A very odd logic path.

Winnipesaukee is not as large as the great lakes for example, but it is the only regional lake with enough surface area to safely support high speed (where I'll say high speed is > 60MPH) boat travel. Including regional lakes much smaller skews, rather than supports, the findings. You could most likely show that as lake surface area decreases, probability of fatal accidents increases for a given boat speed/size ratio. A 32' boat operating at 60MPH on Winnipesaukee poses no threat, provided that existing boating laws and regulations are being observed. The same boat at the same speed on Winnisquam is a moderate threat, and on little squam is an outright danger.

[codeman671]

I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard. My problem is that other than his THEORY that a speed limit may keep this type of boat off Winnipesaukee, a speed limit would not prevent the Long Lake accident from happening here.

No factual data exists that a speed limit would prevent this. It can happen on a street with speed limits and it happens more often than on the lake, why would a speed limit on the water prevent it? It wouldn't.

Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard..."

That's good, because your Senator will also consider events and laws in other jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change..."

Start with a 4½ ton boat....

[parrothead]

BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward.
The definition of a wake from wikipedia is "a wake is the region of turbulence around a solid body moving relative to the water, caused by the flow of liquid around the body. The wake leading the body is caused by the compression of the liquid medium by the moving body, and is often called a bow wake when observed preceding a watercraft. As with all wave forms, it spreads outward from the source until its energy is overcome or lost, usually by friction or dispersion."

The engine provides thrust not the wake. As the props spin they provide the thrust to move the boat through the water. The shape of the hull determines the type of wake a boat produces.
Descriptions of different hull types from wikipedia.

* Displacement -the hull is supported exclusively or predominantly by the pressure of water displaced by the hull

* Semi-displacement, or semi-planing - the hull form is capable of developing a moderate amount of dynamic lift, however, most of the vessel's weight is still supported through displacement

* Planing - the Planing Hull form is configured to develop positive dynamic pressure so that its draft decreases with increasing speed.

Performance boats are planing hulls. So as they move through the water their wakes decrease. A boat with a planing hull with "enough" horsepower, will be able to transition faster from a big wake to a small wake. As the power increases the positive dynamic pressure increases lifting the hull out of the water. So performance boats are actually good for shoreline erosion.
Now cruisers on the other hand being semi-displacement are worse so lets get rid of them. Or increase their horsepower so they have enough thrust to push those hulls up on plane.

The only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too? I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by parrothead

BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward. {snip} he only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too? I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests.

Your posts have been very well presented Parrothead. Clear and logical information and opinion. You are explaination of wakes was excellent. I don't care much for loud noise either but Concord has laws about how loud your neighbors pipes and boat can be.

I am sure Bear Islander or his crony Islander will find someway to try and discredit your last message. Just as easily as BI did in the Lt. Dunleavy thread when they tossed out your post # 438 (click the post # for the entire post)

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.

Just because you were there working at the camps on Bear Island BI knows better than you do. Just ask him.


Thank you Parrothead

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Your posts have been very well presented Parrothead. Clear and logical information and opinion. You are explaination of wakes was excellent. I don't care much for loud noise either but Concord has laws about how loud your neighbors pipes and boat can be.

I am sure Bear Islander or his crony Islander will find someway to try and discredit your last message. Just as easily as BI did in the Lt. Dunleavy thread when they tossed out your post # 438 (click the post # for the entire post)



Just because you were there working at the camps on Bear Island BI knows better than you do. Just ask him.


Thank you Parrothead

So we all know BI has read this post. Waiting for comment. Parrothead seems to have shot some rather huge holes in your logic, yet no comments or admissions have followed???

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So we all know BI has read this post. Waiting for comment. Parrothead seems to have shot some rather huge holes in your logic, yet no comments or admissions have followed???

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer. Its just the old "bigger boat = less wake", "more horsepower = less wake", "2 + 2 = 5" arguments we get on this forum. They remind me of the "we never went to the moon" arguments you get on the internet. Interesting to read sometimes, but obviously pure baloney.

If you go back and read #432 you will find I told Parrothead the "Camp Directors" new better, not me.

But let me ask Parrothead directly - Who is better able to determine the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps, you, or the camp directors?


Chipj29-

The answer is hubris.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer. Its just the old "bigger boat = less wake", "more horsepower = less wake", "2 + 2 = 5" arguments we get on this forum. They remind me of the "we never went to the moon" arguments you get on the internet. Interesting to read sometimes, but obviously pure baloney.

If you go back and read #432 you will find I told Parrothead the "Camp Directors" new better, not me.

But let me ask Parrothead directly - Who is better able to determine the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps, you, or the camp directors?


Chipj29-

The answer is hubris.

Bear Islander, I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on how the difference in hull design effects wakes. I posted my reasons for why I think what I think. I looked up hull designs and read about how water interacts with those designs. And how a wake is produced by a mass moving through liquid, and they didn't jive with your explanation of why performance boats cause more beach erosion than other boats. So I read up on hull design (2) and read up on how a boat motor propels a boat (2) added them together and thought I came up with 4. But I will defer to you because obviously the research I did, and my own personal experiences can't compare to your expertise on the subject. I must be wrong, sorry I doubted your omniscience.
I do believe we landed on the moon, I don't think it was a sound stage or something if that is what you mean.
I also never said anything about the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps. What I did say in the referenced post is that I was working in the transportation department for both camps when the weekend boating programs were stopped. I also stated the reasons that were discussed and why decisions were made. I have worked and interacted with both camp directors. I can say that their primary concern is the safety of the children and staff that are placed under their responsibility for the summer. And they take that responsibility very seriously. At the time that this decision was made which was quite a few years ago, the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed. If those concerns have changed now, then you are right I can't speak to that, but I can speak to why the decision was made originally.

[Airwaves]

Originally pposted by Parrothead
I have worked and interacted with both camp directors. I can say that their primary concern is the safety of the children and staff that are placed under their responsibility for the summer. And they take that responsibility very seriously. At the time that this decision was made which was quite a few years ago, the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed. If those concerns have changed now, then you are right I can't speak to that, but I can speak to why the decision was made originally.

This is the problem with trying to debate Bear Islander. He writes one thing, then denies it, then writes again and denies it again.

Bear Islander at first wrote that high performace boats were chasing camp children off the lake, then he spent how many posts denying that statement when I questioned him? Now he continues to try to fear monger by perpetuating his fear of high performance boats and linking them with summer camps and then tries to discredit you by saying that he, through his alleged conversations with camp directors, knows better than you who was actually there at the time, what the motivation was behind the suspension of whatever on water activities on weekends.

Hell, I'm afraid of heights, so by the logic Bear Islander and his supporters are putting forward, he and they and everyone else should be prohibited from any activity that could possibly take him over not only my property but wherever I happen to be at any given moment because they might fall on me! Heavens!

Bear Islander has yet to tell us where he got the data about a 130 mph boat that is causing fear among family boaters on Lake Winnipesaukee or provide details of these 5 fatalities that he's linked to speed on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Pretty easy to make accusations when you don't back them up.

[Bear Islander]

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You made the statement..

"the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed"

Even Woodsy has admitted that a speed limit will lower the number of boats on the lake. HB847 isn't just about speed. A speed limit will make the lake less hectic and crowded. Not a lot, but a little. Perhaps that is why the camp directors support HB847.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

BI...

FINALLY! You hit it on the head... "HIGH SPEED FATALITIES ARE RARE ENOUGH" You & WINNCRABS NEED TO INCREASE the statistical pool to legitimize your argument! The reality is that high speed accidents are EXTREMELY RARE and statistically NON-EXISTANT if you remove ALCOHOL from the equation!

Statistically, every time someone gets behind the wheel of any sort of vehicle, car, truck, snomobile, boat, atv, etc there is a POSSIBILITY of an accident occurring. The PROBABILITY of an accident increases dramatically when the operator has been drinking!

If you dissect the Long Lake accident, All things being equal, if remove ALCOHOL from the equation, the POSSIBILITY of the accident doesnt change, however the PROBABILITY of that accident occurring would be NIL.

There is always the POSSIBILITY of a boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee, however the PROBABLILITY IS NIL!!

Still waiting for that SOBER High Speed accident.....


Woodsy

Possibility: the state or fact of being possible

Probability: Statistics: the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

The REAL joke is this logic. Yeah sure BI we need to increase the statistical sample pool until you are satisfied with the results. What a JOKE. If at first you are not satisfied with the data just twist it skew it increase the sample and then you get what you want? Give me a break. Face it you yourself said it : High speed fatalities are rare enough If that is the case WHY DO WE NEED A LAW?!?!?!?!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

Involving speed. Yes, any moving craft involves speed.
OK...how many of those 5 fatalities were at speeds higher than the proposed limits?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Involving speed. Yes, any moving craft involves speed.
OK...how many of those 5 fatalities were at speeds higher than the proposed limits?

At least 4.

I don't know what the speed was on the 5th.

[Islander]

This is where the faithful jump in with a list of silly reasons why those 4 or 5 deaths don't count.

[chipj29]

Again, I guess I should clarify.
What speeds did those accidents occur at? Were the speeds above or below the proposed limit? And remember..."excessive speed" does not equal anything over 45.

And what was the primary cause of the accidents?

[ApS]

Once HB-847 is enacted, I will ask one Lakes Region website to open its doors to new members when the spamming finally ceases there.

Another website will not be "moving" speed limit threads, and still another that will not be "purging" their Boating Forums entirely.

Another, www.tuftonboroforums.com was closed down due to the dreaded Unlimited-Speeds onslaught, and could very well re-open for business.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake...I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not..."

Meaning, it is possible to "eliminate ignorant behavior through education?"

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...I can't get my head around how performance boats can cause more wake damage than other boats..."

Start with 4½ tons.

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...And yes, that accident could have happened on Winnipesaukee. It could have happened on the Merrimack River. It could have happened on [gasp] Squam Lake...But it didn't happen in any of those places. It happened on Long Lake. In the beautiful state of Maine.

and...

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry, I didn't realize winnfabs was concerned with accidents that occur on lakes outside of the state of NH.

and...

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

That's right - Long Lake in the State of Maine.

Senators vote on laws that affect case law produced by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Here's 504,000 reasons New Hampshire Senators must consider high-speed crashes from other jurisdictions.

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...So one guys quote on OSO means that all posters on the site vote more than once? Oh, OK..."

Well, if OK means OK, then here's some more proof of multiple voting.

I had previously chosen a spam-voter from Boston, as he would also likely spam any on-line poll for unlimited speeds on New Hampshire's inland protected waters.

Here they go:

With as many memebers (sic) as we have here, certainly we can change those results

Go vote

The power of *** we are up by a significant margine. (sic)
Dont worry ****, just keep this thread rocking.

Voted as well several times. It's 53%, NO.

Come on guys lets stick together and scew (sic) the hell out of this poll.

voted several times -- NO. Check out the poll numbers now. ZGood (sic) luck

Vote up, everyone! We don't need any more negative publicity regarding this matter. We certainly don't need ignorant non-boaters taking polls like this away from us.

[ ]

The power of the board must be kicking in. We are up from 23% to 35% against speed limits.

I just gave us about a 60-70 NO votes and it will now not register any more of my votes.

Point is....when you make noise, people will listen. Keep voting...

I guess we are making a difference 1050 No / 540 Yes !!

I bet you won't here (sic) about this poll again!

Yeah, I'd saw we swayed that poll back in the right direction

Today speed limits. Tomorrow....

No, submit, close the box, No, submit, close the box. I took it from 640 to over 700 then it stopped counting my votes.

Speed wins!

Should there be a speed limit for boaters...?
no: 2179 votes
yes: 688 votes

Group hug..............................

I use History, whereas BI uses Logic...

Opponents seem stuck in the same arguments with BI, and may just not want to read what I'm finding in History; for example, did you see the on-line post on "I drove drunk" by the creator of the "A.I.S." condition?

[Excalibur]

I will find it funny to see all the small pleasure boats being pulled over around and after sunset for going over the 25 mph speed limit.

Then there will be the 30 foot plus boats not being able to plane and making a huge wake..

We may even see a few boats with out running lights going along with night vision goggles. My spot light has pissed a few off in the past...