Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

Possibly, we will never know. If there had been a 45/25 speed limit in place for many years before the accident, Dan might have been operating a bow rider. Or someone on board may have said "hey isn't there a nighttime speed limit?" Or Dan may have said to himself "I need to be careful not to break the speed limit, I don't want them to stop me for speed and find out I have had two glasses of wine tonight and a couple of beers this afternoon!".

[hazelnut]

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this? If the senate doesn't see right through this they may need a vacation. So far it has been a colossal waste of their time when they could have been debating more important real issues. Not too mention we probably set ourselves back years in terms of addressing the real needs of lake winni. It will be a while before they take up any new initiatives I'm sure. So what are we left with? A potential 45/25 law that will have little or no affect on safety on the lake. Then what? Does winnfabs cry wolf again? The legislature will then see the organization for what it is, an organization with an agenda. They will ignore it and those of us that are REALLY concerned with safety will have no voice. Thanks winnfabs, great work!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this? If the senate doesn't see right through this they may need a vacation. So far it has been a colossal waste of their time when they could have been debating more important real issues. Not too mention we probably set ourselves back years in terms of addressing the real needs of lake winni. It will be a while before they take up any new initiatives I'm sure. So what are we left with? A potential 45/25 law that will have little or no affect on safety on the lake. Then what? Does winnfabs cry wolf again? The legislature will then see the organization for what it is, an organization with an agenda. They will ignore it and those of us that are REALLY concerned with safety will have no voice. Thanks winnfabs, great work!

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this?

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.

Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.
Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Not true, we're saying we don't need a speed limit because the stats don't support it.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

Based on the very low number of boats that actually travel over 45MPH the the unusually high number of close calls with these boats you say are traveling over 45MPH I suggest you really don't know what 45MPH looks like as you claim to. I have had my 150' zone violated by idiots before. And that's the real problem, and a speed limit won't fix that. You can't fix stupid. But we can enforce the laws on the books and this is our first full year with mandatory boater certification so I already feel "safer" (not that I felt unsafe).

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

Actually the bill is about fear and perceived safety. The 150' rule addreses your concern about fast moving boats getting along with small, slow boats.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

Squam is small and a totally different lake than Winni, not even a valid comparison.

[Lakegeezer]

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

Thanks for posting that decision, first time I had read it all. To use that case, or any of the others, in relation to a discussion over GF boats or speed limits is quite telling.

It's obvious, not just from the testimony, but from his actions leaving the dock, he was at least somewhat impaired. If he was piloting a 18 foot bowrider, he would be equally impaired. The fact that he was doing 28 mph, is a pretty ludicrous analogy to supporting a 25 mph speed limit at night. Now if you want to state your gut feeling that a Baja boat owner is more likely than an 18' bowrider owner to get involved in such an accident, then by all means, do so.
It's been my experience on this bog lake over here, that the really dangerous boaters tend to be the smaller boats, particularly 18 feet to 24 feet or so. Just a broad observation I know, but many in the $100,000 dollar an up crowd tend to realize what they have. Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good

As for water quality and erosion debates. There can't be a reasonable debate about the size of waves from a cruiser versus the go fast boats can there? The cruiser's wake is pretty large from 10 mph up to higher speeds. The GF boats have a momentary larger wake getting to plane, then it levels out to very normal.

I can understand the unstated intent of the law, or at least, the supporters. I really can. It would have been far more reasonable to attack the alleged problems by first, targeting enforcement of the 150' rule. I note that nobody commented on my post, which specifically mentioned the problem. Wonder why? Enforcement requires funding, step 1. If you want a speed limit to quietly address the fact that you would love to rid the lake of "those boaters", then at least have the common sense to enact a speed limit that doesn't limit the huge percentage of boats that safely can travel at 60 mph. I'll bet many proponents of this new law PO me when their boats go by as well. Go 15mph or so in front of my soon to be rocking boat, and I'll think up some new laws myself.

Rid the waters of violators, and you'll have a safer boating experience.

Disingenuous arguments leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[Airwaves]

It's clear that the supporters of HB847 aren't pushing the measure because of safety issues.

I have proposed, several times, a measure already in place for most of the boating community that would give the Marine Patrol the "tools in their arsenal" that supporters of HB847 say they need without having to spend additional money or divert manpower. No takers!

I have asked several specific questions of supporters that have made strong claims to provide data, they have not.

So now let me ask, why this bill now? Why would they be pushing so hard during this and the prior leglislative session for this speed limit bill?

Could it be that because safe boating certificates are now mandatory and it has been shown conclusively that boater education reduces boating accidents and that in all likelihood the lake will become an even safer place to enjoy? That fact will make it more difficult for them to perpetuate the lies that the lake isn't safe in order to get a bill like this passed later!

Not a single supporter of HB847 that claims that this is about safety has even commented on the suggestion that the language of HB847 be replaced with the language of Nav Rule 6.

Since the proposed compromise has been out there for a while without comment from those claiming that this is about safety I now submit to you that even those supporters who claim that this is about safety realize that everyone is finally aware that HB847 is nothing more than an effort to ban a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

Almost every recreational activity has some amount of deaths associated with it. Do not take this to mean that the world needs more laws...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

That is not true. I have presented many arguments. You reject them.

There is a difference between not presenting arguments, and not presenting arguments that you like.

[KonaChick]

From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!


http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/.../fulltext.html

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!


http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/.../fulltext.html

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

I think the point being that camp directors, counselors and kids at the camps on BI seem pretty happy and safe even though we have no speed limit. It's a great article btw and I'm happy to see you read it!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I think the point being that camp directors, counselors and kids at the camps on BI seem pretty happy and safe even though we have no speed limit. It's a great article btw and I'm happy to see you read it!!

I was there is 2001 when the National Geographic reporter and photographer were at the Island. Of course this was years before the speed limit talk started. They took pictures of the Sophie at the Mail Dock and several cabins, but it was the camps that got the coverage.

We all purchased several copies when it was in National Geographic the next year.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I was there is 2001 when the National Geographic reporter and photographer were at the Island. Of course this was years before the speed limit talk started. They took pictures of the Sophie at the Mail Dock and several cabins, but it was the camps that got the coverage.

We all purchased several copies when it was in National Geographic the next year.

I wonder if 7 years later the talk wouldn't be of boy/girl dances, toasting marshmallows over an open fire or the tranquility the lake has to offer but of the unsafe conditions facing these campers on a daily basis as they wander into the waters of Winnipesaukee...it would be interesting to compare.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good..."

How about professional athlete Cedric Benson arrested yesterday—drunk—"driving" his 30' CIGARETTE BOAT?

I mention this as the following appears today at Yahoo!

"He should be kicked out of Chicago, but it has nothing to do with this. Seriously, driving a boat drunk isn't serious at all. I know its a crime and all, but come on...no one driving a boat is sober, its just a fact...obviously you've never been on a boat."

('Not going to link to a site that allows foul language—Google "Bearsfan", "NY Guy".)

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...IF the MP cannot enforce the exiting laws, they need to be given the means to do so..."

Your laws on Lake Champlain are undoubtedly enforced by full-time officers. You may not know that Lake Winnipesaukee has a Marine Patrol composed of part-timers employed seasonally.

BTW, have you voted in our newest poll yet?

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...BWI was indeed part of the conviction..."

Once again, he was acquitted of the count of BWI—otherwise he'd still be in jail. Concord mandated a brand new law after the lake's most experienced and most educated performance boater had his "incident".

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

"...It is difficult for even the most pig-headed person to argue against a well organized list of sold statistics..."

"Sold"?

I think the MP statistical survey was sold —during two months of an announced "Temporary Speed Limit".

The survey was conducted during a Temporary Speed Limit, that was in effect. THAT is a published FACT.

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

"...However, reality shows that speeding is not really an overall issue on Winnipesaukee..."

Time for a Reality-Check?


Erosion is not an issue,
Pollution is not an issue,
Hartman is not an issue,
Speeding is not an issue,
Unlimited speed is not an issue,
Education is no longer an issue,
Inappropriate boats are not an issue,
Drunks in 4½-tons boats are not an issue,
There is "No Problem" on Lake Winnipesaukee,
Long Lake and other states' tragedies are not an issue,
and Woodsy says, radar doesn't work on water.

How's this summary so far?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is not true. I have presented many arguments. You reject them.

There is a difference between not presenting arguments, and not presenting arguments that you like.

Technically your arguments have been more discredited than rejected.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Technically your arguments have been more discredited than rejected.

In your opinion

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In your opinion

And I don't think I am alone in that opinion.

You've presented some insightful opinions on how a speed limit law might have a positive impact on the lake. However, it's been just that, opinions and emotions.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

Yes, it does. I-93 is not safe. No highway is safe. The lake is not safe and it never will be.


With respect the last summers accident. You posted "there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now" A fatal accident is evidence the lake is not safe no matter what the cause.

We can never make the lake safe. We can make it safer!