Sound travels at night

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The thing is, autos on the highway don’t have a 150 foot rule (as many of the anti-speed limit group keep bringing up whenever anyone states that speed limits on lakes is no more restrictive to an individual’s right than highway speed limits are).

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake. Yet you are actually suggesting that it’s the same as enacting a speed limit based on the worse possible weather conditions – the two concepts are totally different.

What's not different is that we expect, no ... demand that drivers, be they in cars on in boats, adapt their speed to be proper for the conditions regardless of the posted limits. In other words there's a degree of judgement placed squarely on the shoulders of the operator. We don't post limits on the road that say (for example) 35 mph is the max permissible speed limit on I-93 because that's the limit when it's snowing or foggy or because that's what "we" think is the safe speed for someone who's had too much to drink. The limit posted assumes good conditions and requires the operator to adjust according when the conditons are not. When you introduce sobriety or glare or sun angle into your discussions as to why the speed limit should be so artificially low (IMO) then you open yourself up to the arguement that we don't consider these things when we set speed limits on the road. Why are you including them as factors to set a low speed limit ? Would you be consistent and use then as factor to lower speed limits on our roadways ?

I'd accept your point as being consistent w/HB847 if you stated that it can't be reasonably expected that any boater, even one paying proper attention and not impaired by drugs or alcohol, travelling in excess of 50 mph presents a likely danger of overrruning you if you, in your kayak, were in their path.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have answered points directly on this forum – way better than most of the anti-speed limit crowd – who just ignore the inconvenient points that they are unable to dispute.


For example: If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

I wouldn't necessarily include speed as a factor because there are many thing you can do in complete safety when sober that you can't do when drunk. If a drunk piles his boat into another at 60 mph, I can't conclude from that that it's beyond a reasonable expectation that a sober person would have been able to do 60 mph in the same situation and not hit the other boat ... or have decided that 60 mph was too fast for that situation and not being going that fast too start with. Drunkeness interferes with both your ability to perceive and react to situations and your overall judgement. If drunks routinely ran of the I-93 at 65 mph would the logical conclusion be that we need to reduce the speed limit in order to reduce the number of drunks running off the road or would the more rational conclusion be that since non drunks don't generally run off the road at 65 mph and drunks do, that it's the drunkeness that's the problem and not the speed in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I already did that in my previous reply. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Earlier on I saw you post that you hadn't set a number to "high". I must have missed when you did.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can’t tell WHY those operators didn’t see us before they were practically on top of us. But I do know that, if they were going slower, they would have had more time to see us and to avoid us. Basically they were traveling faster than their ability to see us in time – for whatever reason.

{in reply to why ES can see akayak at a mile but a "speeding" boater can't, ES said}

Mostly because I’m moving at much slower speeds. Slow down any boat to 5 or 6 mph, and anyone with decent vision would be able to see kayaks just as far away as I can.

I going to address this more below but when was the last time you were in a car, doing say 65 mph, and couldn't see a mile down the road because of your speed ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have clearly stated that our 150 foot zone has been intentionally violated at speeds under 45 mph – only at higher speeds has this happened unintentionally. Again, I clearly posted why it was obvious to US (not just me alone) that these particular high-speed boaters didn’t notice we were there until the last minute. You weren’t there – we were – we know what we saw.

Again you question my honesty, when I’ve stated that I never lie. Those other times when we couldn’t tell if they saw us, were other incidents completely.

I now understand why others here have given you a rough time. What utter crap, I have never, NEVER, questioned your honesty nor accused you of lying. I have questioned your judgement and last I checked we were all human and capable of being MISTAKEN or wrong w/o it being a lie. If you can't distinguish between someone questioning your perception of why the event unfolded the way it did vs them saying you're lying then our discusssion is over. You must think you're infallible. I don't doubt you are certain that the events happened for the reason you state, that doesn't make it true.

BTW just how many times has an unintentional violation of your 150' zone happened on Winni ? Are we talking 2,3 5 times over a few years or 30, 40 50 times over a few years ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’m guessing that my team's crew boat is a bit over 18 foot long – and I’ve spent many hours on that boat, while working on all day regattas. And I've spent a fair amount of time on other larger powerboats as well. I honestly have no idea of the number of actual hours. But that is not even relevant here, as I’ve never claimed to have much experience in a power boat and have even clearly stated that I don’t. My experience that is revelant is in paddling a sea kayak on NH lakes and having seen first hand how dangerous high-speed powerboats can be to smaller, slow vessels like kayaks.

So is it all high speed powerboats or just some (which are dangerous to kayaks). I'm trying to get a simple, straight answer along the lines of what I asked above. I asked how much time you've spent behind the wheel of a power boat, at something above displacement speed, to gage whether you have enough experience to judge what a power boater can or can't see.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My point, which you are again ignoring, was that high speed is a major impairment to a boater’s ability to see smaller boats (like my kayak) in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – for whatever reason. Slowing down the high speed boaters will give them more time to see us.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I'm outright challenging it. Tell me the physical reasons why someone at high speed has diminished ability to see you. You seem to be contending that because some boaters apparently didn't see that all can't. You support this by making the assumption, without supplying any underlying reasons, that speed is somehow responsible. I don't say that slower won't give them more time, I do say that once a person has been given sufficient time enough has been done. Littlefeild had in excess of 30 seconds to ponder what that light was in front of him and still ran of the Hartmans. You can give the inattentive boater more time but it's no guarantee they'll notice you.


Search as I might, I couldn't find any conclusive tests on kayak visibility (not radar related) however it's something that I can envision being emperically determined so unless you can introduce some other evidence I remain unconvinced that your kayak is rendered nearly invisible to an attentive boater, "high" speed or not. I will give some thought as to how the truth can be ascertained.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You can't just exclude the irrisponsible boaters and normal good weather conditions (like sun and spray). As I've posted a number of times: If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - people are not perfect and even experienced boaters still collide with other boats and even with islands (and not just at night).

Your trying to twist what I've been discussing when using the term reasonable into something other that intended. I haven't said nor implied that all people are "reasonable" by any definition of the word. What I have tried to say is the law shouldn't restrict what can be reasonably expected that a normal human (not Super Man) can do. If a normal human, using a reasonable (not superhumanly good nor negligently bad) degree of prudence and vigilence can pilot his/her boat at XX mph without running over a kayak lying in their path I don't see why their should be a speed limit below XX mph. It's that simple. If your problem comes down to people being irresponsible and inattentive, to the point of being negligent then that has to be addressed on it's own. You may think that slowing the negligent boater down will save you but I think that at some point in that boater's career his negligence will catch up with him/her resulting a tragedy. I've found it's best when solving problems to attack the root cause and not apply bandaids. Besides it's the fair thing to do. I don't care to punish person W for person Z's misdeeds.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

There are many things on life I don't "need". Who even says I need to go 45 mph, why not 30 mph ... slower is safer yes ? The Govt should not be in the business of restricting we the people to what it thinks we "need". Restrictions should be the minimum necessary to accomplish what has hopefully been determined to be a truly needed goal. When the Gov't determined that 55 mph was the maximum speed you "needed" to travel at did you agree with it ? If the Gov't dictated that your car or boat's color should be either safety yellow or safety green because it would improve it's visibility and thus safety. Would you agree with it ? Because you don't "need" a car or boat's color, you just want it. I'm challenging what I think is an artificially low number for the speed limit same as I would challenge any other such artificial restriction. It's not about "need".

[Chris Craft]

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats. There are a number of people that read this board that know both people on both boats. They are all good people. It was a tragedy for sure. I am sure a lot more will come out in the trial this fall.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats. There are a number of people that read this board that know both people on both boats. They are all good people. It was a tragedy for sure. I am sure a lot more will come out in the trial this fall.

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

No I would just rather that no one speculate on what happened in that accident. So you know that the boat that was "hit" was not moving? had it's lights on? Operators were sober? That the driver of the other boat was traveling at what speed? None of this information has been published so how are we going to have any way to discuss the accident with any kind of accuracy? It is all pure speculation. Time will bring the trueth forward but only in court. Sorry to Evenstar to point her out.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

I honestly, cannot find anything but agreement in that post. You're absolutely correct on all points BI. I agree with you.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I honestly, cannot find anything but agreement in that post. You're absolutely correct on all points BI. I agree with you.

Here is where I disagree.....from a post yesterday.

BWI trumps speeding any day, boat or car.
Speeding in a car you get a ticket. BWI in a car you get arrested/lose license/court fees etc.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Here is where I disagree.....from a post yesterday.

In the hypothetical. If someone brought a 23' bowrider up to Long Lake, got drunk while driving 43 mph, killed someone, did the speed limit matter? BI is saying that the accident never would have occurred if the go fast boat never came to the lake. Obviously, that is technically true.

But it also has to rely on an inference that people that come up to the lake to go fast also get drunk, or at least more than the general populace. Or, that people with slower boats won't come up to the lake to go boating, speed limit or otherwise. That's a lot of assumptions isn't it? The other accident in M Bay, where the GF boat wasn't going very fast, but the driver was impaired. He killed someone in that accident.

The vast majority of accidents involve drownings, falls, and boats other than the targeted audience. Most of those involve inattention, violations of existing laws, BWI, things other than speed. For BI to make that case, he'd had to infer that the GFBL crowd is a bunch of dangerous drunks, with the speed of their boats being the secondary cause. Some others have come right out and said as much.

It's been my experience that the pardy hardy BWI crowd is "usually" not that crowd. YMMV. I agree with you that BWI trumps speed, anyday. I don't think that's what BI is arguing.