"N.H. among worst for boating accidents"

[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.