"N.H. among worst for boating accidents"

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Islander

Sandy is going to Concord to be at the signing ceremony.



The level of denial shown in this forum is almost beyond imagination! Why have NH boating accidents gone up 16% while Vermont's went down 83% during the same period. Do people fall down in Vermont? Do people fall overboard in Vermont? Do people kayak in Vermont?

Have the boaters born before 1957 caused all the accidents in New Hampshire? Because they are the only ones that didn't need safe boating certificates last summer.

When I read the comparison with Vermont it makes me wonder what they are doing right, and what we are doing wrong. When the opposition reads it they wonder, "how can we explain this away"!

My question is since I do not have a link to the artical: I noticed that you got this from a personal water craft site. I have to assume that the statistics are for personal water craft. I also assume that the number of personal water crafts is on the rise especially in NH. I certainly see a lot more of them on the lake then I used to. So I have to ask is this a 16% increase in ALL boating accidents or just PWC?

Islander: To the best of my knowledge there is not speed limit in the lakes of VT. Taken from the VT safe boating web site

"Speed Limits:

Within 200 feet of shore, dock, swim area, person in water and other vessels or anchorage, speed must be less than 5 miles per hour and must not create a wake."

If this is the case then I guess you just made the agrument for not having the speed limit. After all they don't have a speed limit but accidents dropped off.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

My question is since I do not have a link to the artical: I noticed that you got this from a personal water craft site. I have to assume that the statistics are for personal water craft. I also assume that the number of personal water crafts is on the rise especially in NH. I certainly see a lot more of them on the lake then I used to. So I have to ask is this a 16% increase in ALL boating accidents or just PWC?

The article is from the New Hampshire Business Review, like it says at the end of the piece. And there is a link to it there. They are boating statistics, not PWC statistics.

VtSteve - In what way am I acting like a politician? By posting a relevant article? I guess I don't understand your point.

[Chris Craft]

Thanks for some reason the link was not working for me. I did google it and found it.

There is so many different ways to look at this date however. For example: "according to the U.S. Coast Guard, which defines such incidents as those incurring $2,000 or more in damage, when there has been an injury that requires care beyond first aid, or when there has been an death or a disappearance leading to a presumption of drowning."

Since boats are getting more expensive it also stands to reason that they are more expensive to fix. 2000 dollars does not get you very far for repairs these days...

It also lists the most common causes for accidents as " such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed". Is that the order that they are most caused? Was inexperience the largest cause of accidents?

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Chris Craft
Since boats are getting more expensive it also stands to reason that they are more expensive to fix. 2000 dollars does not get you very far for repairs these days...

If you go to my original post #4 and follow the link to Woodys' PDF file you will see you are correct. A number of the "accidents" reported were at zero MPH or while moored meaning they occurred while rafting or docked etc. as boats bumped into one another.

The bottom line is the article was written via press release. No background or research was apparently conducted by the author into the NH accident statistics or what they actually represent and that is a shame because once again the non-boating public is going to perceive NH as a dangerous place to boat and have a good time.

Something Winnfabs is no doubt proud of!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The article is from the New Hampshire Business Review, like it says at the end of the piece. And there is a link to it there. They are boating statistics, not PWC statistics.

VtSteve - In what way am I acting like a politician? By posting a relevant article? I guess I don't understand your point.

I read the statistics, maybe you did as well. Your comment was that the numbers were yet another reason we needed the speed limits.

Yet, absolutely nothing in the data would lead anyone to that conclusion. Politicians do that, spinning forever the unspinnable. Your statement was BS, and not backed up by the article you posted, nor any of the data.

Sounds like most of the arguments made.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I read the statistics, maybe you did as well. Your comment was that the numbers were yet another reason we needed the speed limits.

Yet, absolutely nothing in the data would lead anyone to that conclusion. Politicians do that, spinning forever the unspinnable. Your statement was BS, and not backed up by the article you posted, nor any of the data.

Sounds like most of the arguments made.

"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander
I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

YES IT IS SPIN, since speed was involved in only 2 accidents on Winnipesaukee, both involving falls, both on PWCs and only one above the proposed speed limit and neither involving another vessel!

I notice you aren't addressing the 6 accidents involving paddle powered vessels.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

YES IT IS SPIN, since speed was involved in only 2 accidents on Winnipesaukee, both involving falls, both on PWCs and only one above the proposed speed limit and neither involving another vessel!

I notice you aren't addressing the 6 accidents involving paddle powered vessels.

I think you left out a few qualifications. That data is only for one year on one lake. Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed.

You really need to post all those qualifications.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander:
I think you left out a few qualifications. That data is only for one year on one lake. Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed.

You really need to post all those qualifications.

I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.

There were reports from all around the country, even some good video footage, that showed PWC's account for an alarming percentage of accidents. Many involved hitting stationary objects, such as docks. They buzz, they weave, that's why we call the Sea Lice.

There were a couple of GF accidents here last summer, involving less than brilliant behavior. All of my issues were with the Captain Bonehead types in smaller craft at much lesser speed. Most of the GFBL skippers here are very experienced and far more cautious than the typical trailer boater dumping his boat in for a day of hoots and giggles.

This year the USCG and BP will be beefed up for the border security, so I don't expect the locals will be benefitting from increased funding. The police boat is slipped just a few docks from my boat, and I'll bet I'm on the water far more than he. But I do use my radio, and you all should assist them as well.

[hazelnut]

Of the states where accidents declined which one has a speed limit?

If they do not what are they doing that we are not doing. Do they have better enforcement of existing rules?

I applaud Bear Islander for posting this. Thank you for opening a valid discussion point.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Islander

"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

Yes, IMHO, your post is spin. Your logic presents one of the issues that the sponsors of the law just don't seem to understand. Excessive speed has to be looked at in the context of conditions. What is reasonable and prudent for the traffic, weather, and location. Speed limits don't take any of that into account. They don't define the speed limit for foggy or crowded days. They only pick a number out a hat and call it safe - when its not always! This is why the speed limit law is so flawed. Instead of restricting safe boaters, the community should be focused on the accidents that DO happen and see what can be done to fix them. Slowing boats to below 45 when it is reasonable and proper to go faster dilutes respect for the law, which could actually cause more accidents than it prevents.

Do you agree that your post was spin? If not, why not?

[gtxrider]

So if I pass the Band Stand in Alton Bay at 5 MPH and strike another boat or dock that is excessive speed! Gee I was under 45MPH but still it is excessive speed since it is a NO WAKE ZONE. How make of the excessive speed incidents happened at over 45MPH or 25 MPH for that matter?

[Kamper]

I havent made up my mind about the speed lmit issue but I know the term "excessive speed" is not the same as "going fast." Seven mph in a No-Wake Zone would be listed as "excessive speed" if there were an accident or citation.

Remember you are talking to your peers, here. We know what these terms mean since they have been discussed ad nauseum already. The panic factor only works for the general population who dont follow a specialty issue like this and will believe whatever they hear first.

[woodswalk]

More boats = more incidents.
Maybe someone can compare boat sales with those stats.
Not to mention how many people see the local marina ads and the behavior in those ads, drop 18 grand, and there you have it!-
Instant captain bonehead!!!

[ITD]

Cindy Kebbee ???? New Hampshire Business Review???????


Give me a break, imagine if the anti-speed limit crowd had tried this, we'd be listening to every conspiracy theory there is, we'd be accused of being present on the grassy knoll.


Too bad we didn't think of this first, we could have made the headline:

"0.078 % of boats involved in some sort of reportable accident" but wait, the stats include boats that don't need to be registered which if you included those in the number of vessels would easily cut the number in half.

I wonder what the comparable number is for cars, I bet it's at least 10X that number.


I wonder if I looked hard enough if I'd find that "reporter's" name on a SL petition?????????

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

I call it spin. Absolutely.
Again...define excessive speed?

What's that...you can't? Why not? Perhaps because excessive speed has absolutely nothing to do with high speeds, and you know it.
10 mph in a NWZ = excessive speed.
40 mph in the broads on a windy or stormy day = excessive speed

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

Here's the report the story was based on:
http://www.pwia.org/news/article/193.aspx

I don't think there's any correlation between speed limits and the statistics in the article.

Islander, Bear Islander and any other speed limit supporters,

Do you you REALLY believe this +16% increase in NH boating accidents proves there's a need for a speed limit on Winnipesaukee?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Do you you REALLY believe this +16% increase in NH boating accidents proves there's a need for a speed limit on Winnipesaukee?

The 16% increase in boating accidents does not PROVE the need for a speed limit. I never indicated it did.

The increase does PROVE that SOMETHING needs to be done. Especially when most states have seen their accident rates decrease during the same period.

Exactly what needs to be done is open to opinion and interpretation. In my opinion a speed limit is the most viable answer that does not require huge funding and/or many years to get rolling.

Blaming the statistics on people falling in boats or counting the number of accidents over a given speed is not solving the problem. A serious look at what is different in those states is more to the point.

I will go one step further and ask if this states "live free or die" and "no limits" attitude is part of the problem? We know that lakes in other states are being more heavily regulated as time goes on. Is New Hampshire behind the curve? Is that why are numbers are going the wrong way? Difficult questions. The easy answer is to throw the statistics in the trash and scream NO LIMITS!

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander not to be a nag but do you or anyone for that matter have any info with regard to speed limits in these other states?


I'm curious especially with regard to the states where accidents declined. I'd be interested as to what caused this decline. Was it better enforcement or newly enacted sped limits.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Bear Islander not to be a nag but do you or anyone for that matter have any info with regard to speed limits in these other states?


I'm curious especially with regard to the states where accidents declined. I'd be interested as to what caused this decline. Was it better enforcement or newly enacted sped limits.

I really don't know, I wish I did.

However it is not a simple as just asking if a state has a speed limit or not. If HB847 passes New Hampshire will still not have a speed limit. There could be other regulations that have a similar effect. Horsepower limits, maximum speed limits or length limits have much the same effect. And the prohibitions could be by state, local or lake by lake. And obviously there could be factors that have nothing to do with speed.

However ignoring the problem will not make it any better.

A speed limit is something we can try right now. Without a lot of money. That is why it has my support.

[jeffk]

Once again the total of something obscures the valuable information that comprises it.

Numbers for 2002 2004 2006
Capsizing 6 4 9
CO2 x 0 0
Collision Fixed object 11 2 9
Collision floating object 3 0 1
Collision vessel 17 11 8
Departed vessel x 0 2
Ejected from vessel x 1 2
Falls within boat 4 5 6
falls on PWC x 1 7
Falls overboard 3 0 0
Fire fuel 0 0 1
Fire other 0 0 4
Flooding/swamping 2 0 0
grounding 0 3 2
not reported x 0 0
other 1 0 2
sinking 0 0 2
skier mishap 18 1 22
struck by boat 2 2 0
struck by motor 1 2 0
struck submerged object 0 3 2

Total accidents 68 35 79

(Please pardon the compression of the numbers in the table.)

Observations:
The major contributors to increased accidents in 2006 are capsizing, falls on PWCs, fires, and skier mishaps.
The number of collisions with other vessels and being struck by a boat or motor is declining significantly.
The best year for accidents, 2004, was because there were few (2) collisions with fixed objects (Was that the year they took all the rocks out of the lake and bubble wrapped the islands? I forget?), and only 1 skier mishap was reported (Can you believe that? 18 to 1 to 22?)

The fear of high speed boats is that they will HIT other boats. Boat collisions are half of what they were in 2002.

Capsizing is much more common for smaller boats and 2006 was one of the flood years when some "adventurers" unsuccessfully tried going into flood swollen rivers. It happened again this spring on the Merrimack.

Falls on PWCs might be speed related but it's not too hard to get banged up if you hit waves or wake wrong or turn too sharply.

I find it quite a reach to attribute fires and skier mishaps to high boat speed and if you want to limit skier speeds to "protect" them then we can start banning snow skiing, mountain hiking, ice climbing, and a bunch of other activities.

Where's the speed limit beef?

If we want fewer accidents lets ban water skiing, require outrigger pontoons on all canoes and kayaks, and bubble wrap all docks. That should cut the accident numbers in half.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Once again the total of something obscures the valuable information that comprises it.

Numbers for 2002 2004 2006
Capsizing 6 4 9
CO2 x 0 0
Collision Fixed object 11 2 9
Collision floating object 3 0 1
Collision vessel 17 11 8
Departed vessel x 0 2
Ejected from vessel x 1 2
Falls within boat 4 5 6
falls on PWC x 1 7
Falls overboard 3 0 0
Fire fuel 0 0 1
Fire other 0 0 4
Flooding/swamping 2 0 0
grounding 0 3 2
not reported x 0 0
other 1 0 2
sinking 0 0 2
skier mishap 18 1 22
struck by boat 2 2 0
struck by motor 1 2 0
struck submerged object 0 3 2

Total accidents 68 35 79

(Please pardon the compression of the numbers in the table.)

Observations:
The major contributors to increased accidents in 2006 are capsizing, falls on PWCs, fires, and skier mishaps.
The number of collisions with other vessels and being struck by a boat or motor is declining significantly.
The best year for accidents, 2004, was because there were few (2) collisions with fixed objects (Was that the year they took all the rocks out of the lake and bubble wrapped the islands? I forget?), and only 1 skier mishap was reported (Can you believe that? 18 to 1 to 22?)

The fear of high speed boats is that they will HIT other boats. Boat collisions are half of what they were in 2002.

Capsizing is much more common for smaller boats and 2006 was one of the flood years when some "adventurers" unsuccessfully tried going into flood swollen rivers. It happened again this spring on the Merrimack.

Falls on PWCs might be speed related but it's not too hard to get banged up if you hit waves or wake wrong or turn too sharply.

I find it quite a reach to attribute fires and skier mishaps to high boat speed and if you want to limit skier speeds to "protect" them then we can start banning snow skiing, mountain hiking, ice climbing, and a bunch of other activities.

Where's the speed limit beef?

If we want fewer accidents lets ban water skiing, require outrigger pontoons on all canoes and kayaks, and bubble wrap all docks. That should cut the accident numbers in half.

This is the typical "let's pretend there is no problem" argument. Also known as "but I want to go fast".

However it all revolves around the premise that going fast is just as safe as going slow. An obvious lie!

The Coast Guard considers excessive speed as a major factor in boating accidents, but what do they know! Where's the Beef? Ask the USCG!

The oppositions inability to see the problem is the reason why we won!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Islander

This is the typical "let's pretend there is no problem" argument. Also known as "but I want to go fast".

However it all revolves around the premise that going fast is just as safe as going slow. An obvious lie!

The Coast Guard considers excessive speed as a major factor in boating accidents, but what do they know! Where's the Beef? Ask the USCG!

The oppositions inability to see the problem is the reason why we won!

"We" have always pointed out that on any lake, some problems exist. But just as the MP spokesman said once, "We" fail to see the carnage and catastrophes you alude to.

"We" have pointed out that the rules being broken are already in place, it's the Marine Patrol that is not in place. Skip pointed out that we shouldn't expect more funding for them, he's probably correct.

Not once in the above example, with the Facts being presented in raw form and summary form, did you address them. The Facts clearly point to the majority of problems being attributed to things other than what the speed limits address. I've not seen one report, EVER, anywhere, that points to the primary, or even a Significant portion of accidents being caused by speeding over 45mph.

The above data suggests something entirely different than what you suggest. Your failing to address enforcement of existing laws and regulations pretty much proves that you have only one agenda. The 2007 data will be out next year I suppose. What then?

Just for good, solid backup support.


"
Observations:
The major contributors to increased accidents in 2006 are capsizing, falls on PWCs, fires, and skier mishaps.
The number of collisions with other vessels and being struck by a boat or motor is declining significantly.
The best year for accidents, 2004, was because there were few (2) collisions with fixed objects (Was that the year they took all the rocks out of the lake and bubble wrapped the islands? I forget?), and only 1 skier mishap was reported (Can you believe that? 18 to 1 to 22?)

The fear of high speed boats is that they will HIT other boats. Boat collisions are half of what they were in 2002.

Capsizing is much more common for smaller boats and 2006 was one of the flood years when some "adventurers" unsuccessfully tried going into flood swollen rivers. It happened again this spring on the Merrimack.

Falls on PWCs might be speed related but it's not too hard to get banged up if you hit waves or wake wrong or turn too sharply.

I find it quite a reach to attribute fires and skier mishaps to high boat speed and if you want to limit skier speeds to "protect" them then we can start banning snow skiing, mountain hiking, ice climbing, and a bunch of other activities.

Where's the speed limit beef?

If we want fewer accidents lets ban water skiing, require outrigger pontoons on all canoes and kayaks, and bubble wrap all docks. That should cut the accident numbers in half. "

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

However it all revolves around the premise that going fast is just as safe as going slow. An obvious lie!

Might be a lie, might not be, based on data for NH lakes, speed does not seem to be a major factor

The Coast Guard considers excessive speed as a major factor in boating accidents, but what do they know! Where's the Beef? Ask the USCG!

The oppositions inability to see the problem is the reason why we won!

Funny, I don't ever recall seeing a USCG boat on Winni.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I really don't know, I wish I did.

However it is not a simple as just asking if a state has a speed limit or not. If HB847 passes New Hampshire will still not have a speed limit. There could be other regulations that have a similar effect. Horsepower limits, maximum speed limits or length limits have much the same effect. And the prohibitions could be by state, local or lake by lake. And obviously there could be factors that have nothing to do with speed.

However ignoring the problem will not make it any better.

A speed limit is something we can try right now. Without a lot of money. That is why it has my support.

I know that you have supported it for the reasons you state above. It would be nice if it were the silver bullet fix all. I just don't think it will be. I think we all have our hearts in the right place. We just disagree on what the solution may be. I'd like to see what laws the states that have that have had declines in accidents. Anyway, all things considered I wish you well and I know that you stand behind your convictions. Keep up the good work with the bear cam.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I really don't know, I wish I did.

However it is not a simple as just asking if a state has a speed limit or not. If HB847 passes New Hampshire will still not have a speed limit. There could be other regulations that have a similar effect. Horsepower limits, maximum speed limits or length limits have much the same effect. And the prohibitions could be by state, local or lake by lake. And obviously there could be factors that have nothing to do with speed.

However ignoring the problem will not make it any better.

A speed limit is something we can try right now. Without a lot of money. That is why it has my support.

Let's do something quick, that doesn't require money or much thought. Why not get rid of all displacement hulls? Cruisers with huge wakes? Maybe take your meds and settle down?

[Airwaves]

Originally popsted by Islander
This is the typical "let's pretend there is no problem" argument. Also known as "but I want to go fast".

However it all revolves around the premise that going fast is just as safe as going slow. An obvious lie!

The Coast Guard considers excessive speed as a major factor in boating accidents, but what do they know! Where's the Beef? Ask the USCG!

The oppositions inability to see the problem is the reason why we won!

Islander, you make claims and fear monger and yet when called on it the silence is deafening!

Posted by Islander
"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

Then:

Originally posted by Islander:
I think you left out a few qualifications. That data is only for one year on one lake. Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed.

You really need to post all those qualifications.

I responded:
I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.

What you continue to fail to do, or ignore, is any statistic, report or fact to back up your claim!
Again I ask, ISLANDER, YOU CLAIM

"Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed"

SHOW ME WHERE!
I have shown you my statistics, my references and my links. All you do is say NO NO NO. Prove it!

[flyry49]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Islander, you make claims and fear monger and yet when called on it the silence is deafening!



Then:




What you continue to fail to do, or ignore, is any statistic, report or fact to back up your claim!
Again I ask, ISLANDER, YOU CLAIM SHOW ME WHERE!
I have shown you my statistics, my references and my links. All you do is say NO NO NO. Prove it!

this is ridiculous, maybe we could use a speed limit for the night time because it is hard to see out there even on clear nights. but why during the day? there is absolutely no need for one unless its only restricted to certain areas of the lake that get real crowded on weekends/ but the truth of the matter is no one speeds through crowded areas anyways because they know better. can anyone tell me the last time SPEED was linked to a boating accident on winnipesaukee during the day? I would really like to know because since ive been around there hasn't been ANY. I have lived on the lake my whole life and have never witnessed a close call or anything of that nature due to someone going fast. this lake is the 6th biggest in the US not including the great lakes. If you want to slow ppl down go somewhere else. NH used to be the live free or die state. what happened?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

However it is not a simple as just asking if a state has a speed limit or not. If HB847 passes New Hampshire will still not have a speed limit. There could be other regulations that have a similar effect. Horsepower limits, maximum speed limits or length limits have much the same effect. And the prohibitions could be by state, local or lake by lake. And obviously there could be factors that have nothing to do with speed.

There are talks among the speed limit proponents of introducing another bill to declare Lake Winnipesaukee a public water supply. This will ban motorboats including the MS Mt Washington. Can you imagine what this will do to the economy? Give them an inch and they will go the mile.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

There are talks among the speed limit proponents of introducing another bill to declare Lake Winnipesaukee a public water supply. This will ban motorboats including the MS Mt Washington. Can you imagine what this will do to the economy? Give them an inch and they will go the mile.

I wonder how all the island property owners would get to their vacation homes if something like that were passed? Oh wait, let me guess, they'll be granted an exception from that law!! So then they will have succeeded in making Lake Winnipesaukee theirs!!

If that's the case, maybe they should be taxed, not just on their "land" property but now, on the "water" property also. Imagine that, 71 square miles of untapped property tax revenue!! THAT should solve our school funding problem!!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I wonder how all the island property owners would get to their vacation homes if something like that were passed? Oh wait, let me guess, they'll be granted an exception from that law!! So then they will have succeeded in making Lake Winnipesaukee theirs!!

If that's the case, maybe they should be taxed, not just on their "land" property but now, on the "water" property also. Imagine that, 71 square miles of untapped property tax revenue!! THAT should solve our school funding problem!!

Not all island property owners supported the speed limit. I know several (including myself) that fought hard against it. I also know plenty of mainland property owners who supported it. I will also fight hard against any bill that imposes any more restrictions on any use of Winnipesaukee. Please don't paint with such a broad brush - not all of us want to be associated with the speed limit crowd.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Not all island property owners supported the speed limit. I know several (including myself) that fought hard against it. I also know plenty of mainland property owners who supported it. I will also fight hard against any bill that imposes any more restrictions on any use of Winnipesaukee. Please don't paint with such a broad brush - not all of us want to be associated with the speed limit crowd.

I apologize, Seaplane Pilot, I do realize that not all of the island property owners support HB-847 just as not all mainland property owners argued against it. I wrote that tongue-in-cheek, hence the laughing face after my comment. It was not my intent to anger anyone, I just thought I'd poke some fun at the situation.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I wonder how all the island property owners would get to their vacation homes if something like that were passed? Oh wait, let me guess, they'll be granted an exception from that law!! So then they will have succeeded in making Lake Winnipesaukee theirs!!

If that's the case, maybe they should be taxed, not just on their "land" property but now, on the "water" property also. Imagine that, 71 square miles of untapped property tax revenue!! THAT should solve our school funding problem!!

Don't group all island property owners together as supporting the law. I for one do not support it and personally have made hundreds of posts debating it over the last few years, most likely many more than you. Hazelnut is another. There are dozens of us on here debating it daily, however the bulk of the islanders supporting it are from one island, and probably in particular one end of that island.

The whole taxation bit is another issue already debated. My taxes are ridiculous and for what??? I get to dump my trash at Glendale and MAY be supported by the fire boat if in fact it could make it to me before my log home burned flat. I don't use the schools and all roads leading to my slip are state maintained. What do I pay $9k in taxes a year for, for a seasonal property???

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Don't group all island property owners together as supporting the law. I for one do not support it and personally have made hundreds of posts debating it over the last few years, most likely many more than you. Hazelnut is another. There are dozens of us on here debating it daily, however the bulk of the islanders supporting it are from one island, and probably in particular one end of that island.

The whole taxation bit is another issue already debated. My taxes are ridiculous and for what??? I get to dump my trash at Glendale and MAY be supported by the fire boat if in fact it could make it to me before my log home burned flat. I don't use the schools and all roads leading to my slip are state maintained. What do I pay $9k in taxes a year for, for a seasonal property???

I don't know if you remember what it was like before the seasonal property owners were r@p%d, but I do. The schools weren't that perty, and nothing much was there in many towns. Not just NH, it was a meal ticket for many areas,.

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

There are talks among the speed limit proponents of introducing another bill to declare Lake Winnipesaukee a public water supply. This will ban motorboats including the MS Mt Washington. Can you imagine what this will do to the economy? Give them an inch and they will go the mile.

Lake Winnipesaukee is already a public water supply, so your assumption does not follow. Secondly, why would anyone using the Lake for boating be in favor of prohibiting it? The rumor is just not realistic. Nice try.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

Your basic reading comprehension skills are beyond horrible. You take a very generic statement from an article that is light on data, and somehow this justifies the need for a speed limit?

When you break down the actual data behind the statistics, as was done above, you see that "speed" is not a primary (or even secondary or tertiary, etc.) factor in these accidents. Yet you continue to prattle on about how a speed limit will somehow make the the lake safer and better.

Throughout ALL of these speed limit threads you have presented nothing beyond pure emotion and hype to back up your claims.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

You are so dedicated to standing behind the proposed law that you aren't even willing to be objective anymore. Excessive speed is not over 45 MPH. It is traveling at any rate of speed greater than whatever the current situation may deem safe or prudent. No speed limit in the world can account for excessive speed, that is purely common sense. So I for one cannot "see" that a speed limit will do anything to reduce the number of accidents that are the result of no common sense.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

You are so dedicated to standing behind the proposed law that you aren't even willing to be objective anymore. Excessive speed is not over 45 MPH. It is traveling at any rate of speed greater than whatever the current situation may deem safe or prudent. No speed limit in the world can account for excessive speed, that is purely common sense. So I for one cannot "see" that a speed limit will do anything to reduce the number of accidents that are the result of no common sense.

We all agree that excessive speed can be any speed, depending on the circumstances. In circumstances where anything over 10 mph is "excessive" a 45 mph speed limit will make little difference.

In a circumstance where any speed over 60 mph is "excessive" a 45 mph speed limit may prevent a tragedy. Or allow the Marine Patrol to get things under control. Or even prevent the offending boat from being on the lake in the first place.

If the speed limit reduces congestion or makes Capt. Bonehead go elsewhere, then once again, a tragedy may be averted.

The only down side to a speed limit is that you will not be able to travel at insane speeds. Wait a minute.... That's not a downside!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Islander

We all agree that excessive speed can be any speed, depending on the circumstances. In circumstances where anything over 10 mph is "excessive" a 45 mph speed limit will make little difference.

In a circumstance where any speed over 60 mph is "excessive" a 45 mph speed limit may prevent a tragedy. Or allow the Marine Patrol to get things under control. Or even prevent the offending boat from being on the lake in the first place.

If the speed limit reduces congestion or makes Capt. Bonehead go elsewhere, then once again, a tragedy may be averted.

The only down side to a speed limit is that you will not be able to travel at insane speeds. Wait a minute.... That's not a downside!

This is the result of frustration over lack of enforcement. But we are all generally in agreement over the ter Excessive Speed.

However, most captain boneheads are not in your target boats. They are in PWC's, little bowriders, some are big cruisers that are doing 15mph producing an enormous wake near small craft.

There are hot dogs doing whatever speed, weaving, making sharp turns, not paying attention. These are the targets, or should be.

As for your comment about "The only down side to a speed limit is that you will not be able to travel at insane speeds". Most every report, if not all, do not list this as a problem. You might believe it's a problem regardless of the lack of accidents. But that's your issue, not most people. The Perception is a problem with many, the reality is that it just isn't.

I don't even believe that the comment above will be of any use, since it's been stated many times by BI that the MP isn't enforcing the NWZ now.

I know where you're coming from, and I sympathize with your feelings. I want a pleasant experience out there as much as anyone. I've witnessed first hand, as have others, stupid boaters doing stupid things. They will keep doing stupid things as long as they are allowed to. If you have no more GFBL boats on the lake, I'm sure you'd love it. But the real problems will remain.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I don't even believe that the comment above will be of any use, since it's been stated many times by BI that the MP isn't enforcing the NWZ now.

You keep referring to my comments about the NWZ, and doing so inaccurately.

The Marine Patrol visit the NWZ on a regular basis and do many boat stops. They have even tied up at my dock to be less conspicuous while they wait.

At least 99% of the boats obey the rules. I don't see how this has any relation to a speed limit.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You keep referring to my comments about the NWZ, and doing so inaccurately.

The Marine Patrol visit the NWZ on a regular basis and do many boat stops. They have even tied up at my dock to be less conspicuous while they wait.

At least 99% of the boats obey the rules. I don't see how this has any relation to a speed limit.

I don't know. I seem to remember comments about the NWZ being violated quite a bit, am I wrong? I've been discussing enforcement for some time, that would be a good time to bring it up. I never saw the relationship between the speed limit and NWZ either.

The camp issues seem to be fairly easy to address also, which I know is another beef over there. You once addressed big wake problems with a horsepower limit. I had no idea what this did to reduce wake sizes, but I learn something new everyday. I think what's happened is you've mentioned so many things that tick you off, and usually end with speed limit support comments, perhaps I get them all confused.