Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

Considering that hasn't yet happened, it is pretty hard to "imagine".

Conversely, if he DOES veto the bill, and the proverbial sky doesn't fall, will you then give him credit for not implementing a needless law that solves no problems?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Considering that hasn't yet happened, it is pretty hard to "imagine".

Conversely, if he DOES veto the bill, and the proverbial sky doesn't fall, will you then give him credit for not implementing a needless law that solves no problems?

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back



Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back



Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

There's a safe answer if there ever were one...

Why?

Because none of the above will ever happen as a result of the passage of the Speed Limit Bill.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back



Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! You're wrong on all counts.
1. Nope, no boating accidents there.
2. WInnipesaukee has a noise limit regulation in place, right? That would be an enforcement issue....duh!
3. That would be a planning and zoning issue with the towns, they want money they grant developments. On water the 150' law.
4. Boats on plane don't erode the shore.
5. Kayakers, canoers etc. continue to use the lake and die in more numbers than powerboaters due to drunk boating and hypothermia, not collisions.
6. Some have compared Winnipesaukee to Quabbin. Quabbin does not allow boats or camps. Wanna do that?
7. Bear Islander continues to link the two, then deny it. However performance boats/speed limits don't appear to be at play here.
8. Hi Performance boats generally don't go near Loon nesting areas, it appears the major problem is the family boat and paddler.
9. As someone who rents to families, the economy, not boating is the key. Most former hotels and motels are now condos, there are fewer places for the "family"to go.

Not a single issue was raise by Bear Islander in his top "9" list that had to do with a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee!

This is the first year of mandatory boater safety certificates, let it work!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

So what your saying is...

It's perfectly acceptable for a 300HP family bowrider to have a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee? After all, they would not have left due to a speed limit! WOW! I kinda expect that kind of glib statement from APS, not you!

There have been NO ACCIDENTS ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE in the last 5 1/2 years involving a "Boat that might have left due to a speed limit" In fact I find it funny that you guys have to use the sensationalized boating accident that occurred in other states to make your point! Unfortunately the common theme with all the accidents you use as examples is Alcohol Intoxication! I am STILL waiting for you to post an example of a hi-speed boating accident that DID NOT INVOLVE ALCOHOL! Good thing I am not holding my breath!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

People stop complaining about boat noise

I am pretty sure we already have a law on the books to address boat noise... and it is ENFORCED! How does a speed limit help with noise? Fay's sells thier family bowrider Chapparalls with thru hull exhaust and switchable exhaust (illegal I know, but it doesnt seem to stop Ole Merrill!) so even the family boats make noise!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

The Lake Winnipesaukee is not congested... there are maybe 8-9 WEEKENDS out of the summer the lake has some busy spots... and they are usally centered around the different town docks... Weirs, Meredith, Alton etc. How is a speed limit going affect congestion? A speed limit will not drastically reduce the number of boats plying Lake Winnipesaukee! In fact its the WinnFabs position that EVEN MORE boats will come to Lake Winnipesaukee if a speed limit were to pass!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Wakes stop eroding the shores

The only way to prevent boat wakes from eroding the shoreline is to eliminate boats completely. Is this your suggestion? Regardless of size or HP, every planing hull ever manufactured throws a tremendouse wake while transitioning from displacement to on-plane and viceversa.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Kayakers & Canoeists have to share the lake with everyone else! Thier fear while real to some of them, is completely unfounded! There have been no incidents of any canoe or kayker being injured from a collision with a powerboat at any speed on Lake Winnipesaukee! The only accident involving a kayak or canoe in recent memory is the one that occurred last year... but ultimately, the kayakers were in the wrong! Paddling at night without a light, and intoxicated is asking for trouble... naked and without a life jacket just compounds the situation! How is a speed limit going to remedy this situation?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Water quality stops dropping

If you have an issue with water quality, why not push for a ban on ALL 2-stroke motors on Lake Winnipesaukee? They by far the worse polluters on the lake! Why not campaign for cleaner powerplants in the Midwest to alleviate the acid rain and help restore the lakes PH? I really dont see how using a speed limit to get rid of a few large fast boats only to replace them with a greater number of smaller boats helps the water quality?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

Childrens Camps are a great resource, however, ultimately they have to share the lake with everyone else. A speed limit will not enable Childrens Camps to use the lake whenever they wish, especially if as WinnFabs states more boats will come to the lake if there is a speed limit! However, a "CAMP ZONE" NWZ that extends out 300'-500' might just do the trick! There is an idea that doesnt infringe on anybody and protects the children!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The loon population rebounds

Unfortunately, the Loon population is not going to dramatically rebound... it really isnt a question about boat wakes or speed, the reality is Loons are terratorial birds, and a nesting pair needs space... traditionally Loons nest in quiet calm coves. Not the place you find speeding Hi-performance boats! Lake Winnipesaukee doesn't have any habitat left for them to nest! People have built on just about evey piece of shoreline on Lake Winnipesaukee. Unless your advocating a building moratorium and taking peoples houses & camps by emminent domain there isnt much that is going to dramatically affect the Loon population on Lake Winnipesaukee. Perhaps your $200,000 space flight money would be better spent by tearing down your camp and converting the property back to its natural state? Maybe the Loons would appreciate it?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Families that were staying away come back

Just where are these families supposed to stay? Where are they supposed to put thier boats? There are only a few cottage rental places left as most have been converted to condos. That leaves the expensive hotels like Church Landing, The Inn at Mills Falls, BayPoint, Chase House, NASWA and the Margate. All but two are owned by one company! Most of these places get between $180 -$330 per night during the summer season! How is this affordable to the average family? Especially given the state of the economy and the price of gas! How is a speed limit going to help make a visit to Lake Winnipesaukee more affordable for the average Joe?


Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

So what your saying is...

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

Let me make it simple, the lake does not need a speed limit. There is not a problem the speed limit will solve. The speed limit will cause meager MP finances to be further strained. MP will be taken from useful duties, such as monitoring the Weirs area for 150 foot violations and other concerns, to set up speed traps in the Broads and other low density areas to catch the less than 0.5 % who may travel over 45 mph. It won't save the loons, it won't make less wakes, it won't reduce noise, it won't reduce congestion. The speed limit will INCREASE the probability of a death, because the MP have LESS time for more useful enforcement.


Woodsy was quoting your written posts in this forum, that's not putting words in your mouth.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Woodsy was quoting your written posts in this forum, that's not putting words in your mouth.

Woodsy posted this...

So what your saying is...

It's perfectly acceptable for a 300HP family bowrider to have a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee?



Where did I say that?

That's called putting words in someones mouth. I never said that or anything like it, and I certainly never would. Woodsy knew that when he posted it. He was doing it for effect.

[fatlazyless]

HB167, which was the 2006 version of HB847, got nixed on March 16, 2006. And, as of today, May 2, 2008, which is six weeks later along a similar legislative schedule, the speed limits bill is still very much alive & kicking. Apparently, HB847 has legs otherwise it would have already been nixed.

Anyone know what is going on with HB847. Like, is it resting inside a plain manilla folder in the "in" shelf of the Senate President's 220 year old state house desk, or somewhere. Like, if you could pinpoint exactly where this bill is physically and intellectually located.....where's it at? How's it work? Do the 24 state senators all come back from a lengthy lunch where the senator who buys the final ice-breaker gets to decide what bill gets acted upon, or what?

I got to wonder...wonder...wonder where-o-where it is...just a simple answer please...this simple inquiring mind needs to know?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

That is YOUR opinion. Here is mine:

The lake will not be better with a speed limit.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

In your Opinion (there ya go, you keep forgetting to add that).

[Woodsy]

BI...

I did not put words in your mouth!

You stated....

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

Explain your meaning then? Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong? Your statement was crystal clear! I merely extrapolated the obvious. You want no accidents involving boats that might have left because of a speed limit.

Statistically, boating accidents are going to happen regardless of any and all laws & regulation. Your statement above would lead one to belive that as long as the accidents do not happen to involve a high performance boat, you're ok with it! So if some 300HP family bowrider causes a fatal accident, well then its ok because it didnt involve a high performance boat. The logic path you use is pretty simple.

The biggest problem with your argument is that there haven't been any accidents that caused serious injury or death "involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee in 5 1/2 years! The one accident that occurred happened at night @ approx 28MPH and get this... that accident involved ALCOHOL! By your own admission, high speed accidents are so rare you need to search far & wide to come up with a high speed accident, and when you do they all inevitably involve ALCOHOL! I am STILL waiting for you to produce the SOBER high speed accident data...

Ultimately, your mind is made up You just don't like High Performance Boats and thats that! You ought to just be straight up about it instead of using ridiculous, misleading, false propaganda coupled with a healthy dose of fear to prove your point.

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

I did not put words in your mouth!

You stated....



Explain your meaning then? Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong? Your statement was crystal clear! I merely extrapolated the obvious. You want no accidents involving boats that might have left because of a speed limit.

Statistically, boating accidents are going to happen regardless of any and all laws & regulation. Your statement above would lead one to belive that as long as the accidents do not happen to involve a high performance boat, you're ok with it! So if some 300HP family bowrider causes a fatal accident, well then its ok because it didnt involve a high performance boat. The logic path you use is pretty simple.

The biggest problem with your argument is that there haven't been any accidents that caused serious injury or death "involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee in 5 1/2 years! The one accident that occurred happened at night @ approx 28MPH and get this... that accident involved ALCOHOL! By your own admission, high speed accidents are so rare you need to search far & wide to come up with a high speed accident, and when you do they all inevitably involve ALCOHOL! I am STILL waiting for you to produce the SOBER high speed accident data...

Ultimately, your mind is made up You just don't like High Performance Boats and thats that! You ought to just be straight up about it instead of using ridiculous, misleading, false propaganda coupled with a healthy dose of fear to prove your point.

Woodsy

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

Once again you are taking one small comment and running hog wild with it and assuming it says things it doesn't.

This is a quote by you from post #678 of the other thread.

While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake!

If there will be less high speed boats on the lake with a speed limit, then there will be less chance of high speed boating accidents.

Less high speed boats = Less high speed accidents

No high speed boats = No high speed accidents




B R-
It's an honest answer to a question I was asked

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.


No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.


No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[BlackCatIslander]

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by BlackCatIslander

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

Ditto,

Democracy is messy business. I too have been following these exchanges and while they are certainly passionate, they have been for the most part respectful.

While these debates are outside of the normal course of these forums, our webmaster has set aside a special area for this topic so that people offended or sick of the debate can easily avoid it. Please use this option and avoid the debate if it bothers you, rather than complaining here about the debate and jeopardizing this medium. This sub forum has been priceless for ferreting out the truth as to what the speed limit is about.

Thank you Don.

[Dave R]

If Senators are really reading this forum, they should know that Bear Island is adjacent to one of the busiest narrow passages on the lake. Any law that reduces the number of boats on the lake would benefit Bear Island residents, especially those on the northwest side, greatly. The support of speed limits, HP limits, and displacement limits by Bear Islander, clearly indicates his desire to reduce the number of boats on the lake. His motives are extremely self-serving.

I can empathize, but I cannot support a law aimed squarely at reducing boats when everyone in NH should be able to enjoy the lake in a safe and reasonable manner, not just those with lakefront homes near busy areas.

Most of the speed limit opponents are family boaters, like me, who do not have fast boats, and probably never will. We won't be affected by a speed limit, but we are not naive enough to think it's really about safety. It's not, it's pure, selfish, snobbery.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

So, now we are to believe the Senate members have Old Timer's (Alzheimer’s) and must constantly be reminder that the Lake is unsafe and a Speed Limit is a panacea for its ills.

Finally, some rationale for the constant ranting...

And here I thought it was the old adage, tell yourself a lie often enough and you will believe it to be the truth...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

Littlefield

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

Littlefield

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

That's not what the jury determined.

[VtSteve]

It seems that one of the most obvious things lacking in this argument is enforcement. The 150' law is not being enforced, they are not able to enforce it effectively, or it's the perception of many that it's not the law that's important, but the speed.

Fact is, the 150' law has always been a good one. If the marine patrol was able to enforce it diligently, it would deter unsafe boating practices. If they can't enforce that, how's the speed limit going to be enforced? In addition, any and all information available for the lake suggests that the vast majority of all lake boating accidents occurs at speeds lower than the speed limit set. It's pretty obvious what the intended result of the limit is.

My boat is only 22', yet can go 55 mph or faster. Many of today's boats can in fact exceed the speed limit. Speed clearly isn't the issue. Common sense and respect is. I'd be in favor of a 200' distance limit frankly. Maybe it would be easier for people to estimate. But then again, I've kept a safe distance and close lookout on boats for my entire life. There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave.

It's fairly obvious that many are disturbed by these large, and many times, noisy boats. That's obvious. Many will still be disturbed by them whether they are traveling at 30 mph or 60 mph. They simply want them to leave. They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by. I understand how hard it would be to pass a law that states "We Want Those Boats Gone."



USCG Rule 6, dealing with Safe Speed, is a universal standard that deals with common sense. Someone pointed this law out, but no responses. As always, it's usually the enforcement of existing laws that is lacking. BWI and reckless behavior are the two most prevalent causes of boating accidents. There are laws against them, but they continue to be the highest contributing factor.

The speed limit advocates should at least be honest. If the law passes, they should immediately start concocting excuses and spins designed to explain the accidents in the future. If history is a guide, the accidents, close calls, and fearful feelings will continue.

It's really very simple.

1) When in congested waters, be alert, slow down, be careful as heck.

2) When pulling a skier/tuber/wakeboarder. Do so safely, you don't own the lake either. Have some common sense. If not born with it, buy some.

3) PFC's. Come on already, buy a clue.

4) Unpowered vessels. It was not safe 50 years ago to be where some of you venture now, and nothing's changed.

5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

[jrc]

Great first post, Vtsteve!

[Dave R]

Welcome VTSteve. Perhaps I'll drop in ya on Champlain this Summer.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave....

...They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by...


5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

Thanks VtSteve, for pointing out that large cruisers and GFBLs are create big destructive wakes and dangerous situations.

I don't think we can get them to comply so I think we should "get them to leave" as you suggest.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

Littlefield

Originally Posted by EricP

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

Originally Posted by Islander

That's not what the jury determined.

You cannot be serious...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

You cannot be serious...

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

The fact is the jury found him guilty of not keeping a proper lookout while operating a boat.

No mention of his operating a boat at an unreasonable speed.

To quote you:

Originally Posted by Islander

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back

What effect are you going for here? Is this the "kitchen sink" effect?