Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And I think people read far to much into the words of speed limit supporters.

Yes, a speed limit will probably make the lake a little safer by lowering the accident rate. That doesn't mean is was the reason for the speed limit. And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit. But it was never the principal reason.

It is the OPPOSITION that zeroed in on the safety issue as if it were the central argument or only reason for a speed limit.

Safety is only one of many reasons, and not the principal reason in my opinion or the opinion of the man the wrote the legislation.

How many times have the opposition argued that Winni's low accident rate proves we don't need a speed limit. It is incredible to me that they were unable to see that the accident rate means nothing because it was never the reason for the speed limit.

Directly from the Winnfabs website. Only the Bold parts are related to safety.

WHY A SPEED LIMIT??
What is the problem and why is HB 847 the solution?

Lakes Region Economic Health
Safety
Equal Access or Management

Lakes Region Economic Health
Speed limits and safety go hand-in-hand with the family-friendly vacation destination image that the Lakes Region and New Hampshire have successfully created, thereby supporting the tourism industry on which this region’s (and State’s) economy depends and thrives.

As Senator Carl Johnson states, "New Hampshire’s tourism industry is essential to the economic growth and stability of our state. Visitor dollars not only benefit New Hampshire’s businesses, but ultimately benefit all of our citizens."

If Lake Winnipesaukee and the Lakes Region are known as a safe and enjoyable place to visit with family and friends, more vacationers will come, they will come more often, and they will spend more recreational dollars on boating, swimming, fishing, shopping, eating meals, staying in lodging, going to local attractions, buying gas for their boats and cars and doing other activities. This will yield the ultimate benefits of vacationers having a wonderful time and the economy being boosted by their spending. Everyone wins.

However, if more and more families and individuals decide that Lake Winnipesaukee is too dangerous and unpleasant to boat or use, their taking their recreational dollars elsewhere could negatively affect the image and economy of the Lake and the Lake’s Region, even that of New Hampshire. It is imperative to prevent this from happening before the problem grows out of control.

New Hampshire has speed limits on its highways, its 7000 miles of State-owned backwoods trails and many of its lakes and ponds. Placing the reasonable, commonsense 45/25 MPH speed limits on its largest lake would be consistent with the State’s protecting users of all of its major natural resources by saying to tourists and residents alike, "We are serious about you and your family’s safety when you use Lake Winnipesaukee--whether you live here or are visiting.

Safety
HB 847 sets reasonable, commonsense 45 MPH daytime and 25 MPH nighttime speed limits on the Lake, which will slow everyone down, allowing more reaction and stopping time. This will, in turn, allow better prevention of boating accidents and close calls for the public safety of all.

Lake Winnipesaukee is a family vacation destination, not a race track. Just as we have speed limits on our highways, the boat congestion on Lake Winnipesaukee and the increasing number of boats traveling at speeds in excess of 45 mph is a cause for alarm.

Boats have no brakes, brake lights, head lights or side mirrors. And Lake Winnipesaukee, unlike our highways, doesn’t have lane markings, traffic signs, traffic lights. What the lake does have is a highly inconsistent surface (bumpy waves), wind and often compromised visibility supporting its varied lake users, frequently children, teens and families in small craft.

Imagine driving a car across a parking lot at highway speed. Imagine a variety of traffic traveling at speeds ranging from 5 - 80+ mph. Imagine no traffic signs, no lane dividers, no turns signals. Now, imagine suddenly running into a series of 3-ft deep potholes. You don’t need to imagine this situation. You need to boat on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Equal Access or Management
Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety.

The 45/25 speed limits will allow a more safe and enjoyable co-existence of many types of Lake pursuits simultaneously. Everyone’s stress levels will be reduced with more safely manageable, controllable boat speeds, as they boat, fish or otherwise enjoy the Lake. The legislative objectives of HB 847 are safety, simple fairness, and equal access, and it treats all boats the same. It does not single out a specific boat brand or model. Just as highway speed limits do not restrict the right of citizens to purchase high performance cars, HB 847 doesn’t restrict the right to own and operate a certain boat. Just as we all own cars that can go faster than the speed limits on the road, people can own boats that can go faster than the 45 MPH and 25 MPH speed limits. However, public safety laws should prevent the use of boats at speeds which place other users of the public waterways at risk and therefore, prevent equal access to the Lake by everyone.

Chase1

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chase1

Directly from the Winnfabs website. Only the Bold parts are related to safety.

Chase1

Actually most of the parts you put in bold are not about safety. They are about fear. If people stay away from the lake because of the PERCEPTION the lake is dangerous, that effects tourism.

The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking. That kept some people away and caused other to leave. Human being being what they are, a reputation of danger actually becomes more important than the actual statistics. That may not seem fair, but it's very real.

[tis]

I have to say I don't know anyone personally who is afraid to use the lake. If people stay away because of even the perception of the lake being dangerous, they had to get that idea from somewhere. I think BI knows where.

[BroadHopper]

That is what I have been saying all along! They want the lake to be like Masebesic Lake. Limit HP and size! I and others overheard the speed limits proponents talking about it during a legislature hearing. Do a search in the speed limit section. About what one of the bill sponsors have to say about SeaRay boats.

[Silver Duck]

BI

I wasn't going to become involved in this thread again, but I can't let the idea that the lakes region is actually interested in promoting tourism pass un-challenged.

Actions speak louder than words. If the NH and the people of the lakes region truly want to promote tourism:

- Why do some of your Meredith Neck neighbors get away with referring to tourists as "undesirable transients" in Meredith board meetings without being shouted down?

- Why do they get away with using the term "RV Park on the water" as a put-down in connection with marinas without their attitudes being adjusted by town officials?

- Why has the Marine Patrol put cove after cove off limits to rafting by administrative rule (including most of the good sand bars)? This is particularly offensive to a tourist, since merely being anchored too close to another boat in such areas is grounds for being rousted by the MP.

- For that matter, why does the MP put any effort at all into rousting rafters when they could be busting Captain Bonehead for major safety violations?

- Why did NH put a major road block in the way of vacationers bringing boats to the lake (i.e., requiring a proctored exam in connection with the safety certificate, which, by personal experience and a great number of postings, seems to be turning out to be almost useless)?

- Why did NH let the shorefront residents get away with makng Squam all but inaccessible to tourists for a couple of years?

- Why do NH folks go around with insulting bumper stickers (even on boats) with slogans such as "Leave your wallet, but LEAVE" or "It's Tourist Season, so why can't I shoot them"?

- Etc. ad nauseum!

Over the last few years, it's become my considered and dejected opinion that tourists are about as welcome in the lakes region as typhoid carriers!

Silver Duck

[Pineedles]

I don't have a fear of GFB, unless I was riding on board one. My cousin flipped his in 2005 going 90 MPH in the broads. He is a stupid ass anyway and I have no love or sympathy for him and I am glad he will seek other lakes to practice his stupidity in. But my real fear is being swamped by waves. I was entering Meredith Bay last year and my Meredith Marina 21' rental was nearly swamped by the wake of multiple waves as I proceeded at headway speed to avoid the huge waves that were bone shattering at speeds above headway. It's too many boats I guess that is making it a less desirable lake. However, the number of captain boneheads, like my cousin, that will desert the lake will probably not make a difference. Just my opinion.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Actually most of the parts you put in bold are not about safety. They are about fear. If people stay away from the lake because of the PERCEPTION the lake is dangerous, that effects tourism.

Like this one part where they reference fear of there personal safety
"Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety."

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking. That kept some people away and caused other to leave. Human being being what they are, a reputation of danger actually becomes more important than the actual statistics. That may not seem fair, but it's very real.

It does not seem fair however I am aware and accept that life itself is not fair......again I reference your group:

Winnfabs-"The legislative objectives of HB 847 are safety, simple fairness, and equal access, and it treats all boats the same"

Anyone aware that the "reputation of danger" was indeed unfounded according to statistics should have done the right thing and worked to correct that perception. Instead many like yourself actually fueled it. Some in the name of "safety" as promoted by the bill creators, and you for your proclaimed agenda.

Thank you to all who opposed this law.

Chase1

[KonaChick]

Has Winnfabs cut of their nose to spit their face? Will they be believed the next time they try to get legislation passed which apparently is now focused on HP limits? Will the boating population organize against them this time in a more focused way to put them out of business?? Stay tuned.....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chase1

Like this one part where they reference fear of there personal safety
"Right now, many Lake users are afraid of using the Lake at all, or at certain times of the week and at night, due to their fear of the boats driven at excessive speeds. This is not a balanced use of the Lake, as a relative few are using the Lake as their personal racetrack at the expense of the many others who drive smaller, slower motorized boats and non-motorized boats like canoes, kayaks, windsurfers, rowing skuls and rowboats. Anglers and swimmers have also been driven off of the Lake or have been forced to change their Lake usage for fear of their personal safety."


It does not seem fair however I am aware and accept that life itself is not fair......again I reference your group:

Winnfabs-"The legislative objectives of HB 847 are safety, simple fairness, and equal access, and it treats all boats the same"

Anyone aware that the "reputation of danger" was indeed unfounded according to statistics should have done the right thing and worked to correct that perception. Instead many like yourself actually fueled it. Some in the name of "safety" as promoted by the bill creators, and you for your proclaimed agenda.

Thank you to all who opposed this law.

Chase1

Once again what I actually said is twisted into what you want it to say.

The accident statistics are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I post that the reputation for danger has more effect on the general public than the actual statistic. And you think that means the lake safe.

The statistics are bad, the reputation is worse.




WinnFABS is not "my group". I take no credit or responsibility for their publications. I represent my own opinions, they are not always the same as WinnFABS.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again what I actually said is twisted into what you want it to say.

The accident statistics are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I post that the reputation for danger has more effect on the general public than the actual statistic. And you think that means the lake safe.

The statistics are bad, the reputation is worse.




WinnFABS is not "my group". I take no credit or responsibility for their publications. I represent my own opinions, they are not always the same as WinnFABS.

Ugh, I hate getting sucked back in this thread...but...

Can you please post the statistics that support the need for a speed limit. You know, all the incidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25.

You know as well as I do that the statistics aren't bad...you just want them to seem like they are, by using the Coast Guard stat that says "excessive speed". Excessive speed. Hmmm, an interesting term, no? What exactly does excessive speed mean? Does it mean a speed over 45/25? Or does it mean a speed that is not reasonable or prudent for the conditions?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Ugh, I hate getting sucked back in this thread...but...

Can you please post the statistics that support the need for a speed limit. You know, all the incidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25.

You know as well as I do that the statistics aren't bad...you just want them to seem like they are, by using the Coast Guard stat that says "excessive speed". Excessive speed. Hmmm, an interesting term, no? What exactly does excessive speed mean? Does it mean a speed over 45/25? Or does it mean a speed that is not reasonable or prudent for the conditions?

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.




If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits. If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

If this is true, why aren't the drivers cited for unreasonable and or unprudent speed?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

If this is true, why aren't the drivers cited for unreasonable and or unprudent speed?

Because there has never been a law or regulation that would allow such a citation. Until HB847 was enacted there has been no law or regulation about "unreasonable and or imprudent speed".

You have probably been told that such a law does exist. IT DOESN'T!!!!

People will regularly post that it exists, when asked to prove it they never come back with an answer.

[chipj29]

OK what speed was the fatal accident this year?
How about the fatal accident last year?
How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents?

You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed?

Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25?

[COWISLAND NH]

I tried to get a log of the accidents that occurred on the lake last year from MP, but was told no such "log" exists. I would like to get some facts as to how many accidents were caused by speeding (I guess that means over 45mph)?? Anyone? I think the real fear most boaters that support the speed limit have is related to an operator’s lack of experience and confidence. As for the fear of the kayakers.....I just don't get why the lake is not big enough to share the water with the type of boats that can go faster than 45. Most of the areas that allow boats to hit speeds in excess of 45 would provide ample room for both to share (boats can’t go every where kayakers can go). I have heard the arguments from some kayakers that their fear is related to getting "buzzed" by power boats, but are the power boats all to blame? Also, BI suggestion that “The lake had a growing reputation for thrill-seeking”…….so what…are we all supposed to have 2 kids, drive a bow rider, and go to bed at 8pm. It’s a big lake and everyone should get to enjoy it the way they like. Plus….how many deaths/accidents occurred on the lake that are not related to speed- PLENTY, being on the water there is always a risk (how about the death of the dad in Barnstead, off his pontoon boat?)

Boaters love boats, kayakers love water, I love having beer on the island!

[Airwaves]

Cowisland NH, I think if you dropped Lt Dunleavey a line asking him for the boating statistics for whatever year and body of water you're looking for, not a log, you'll have better luck.

If you are going to drop him a line ask him if they are posted on any official website in the state. I've searched for them in the past and come up empty...the NH breakout of the USCG Stats don't provide information regarding where accidents may have occurred.

I am a little surprised by Pineedle's statement that her cousin flipped a boat on the broads doing 90MPH in 2005. I would have thought that if that happened it would have been brought up ad naseum by the speed limit crowd during the debate...

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because there has never been a law or regulation that would allow such a citation. Until HB847 was enacted there has been no law or regulation about "unreasonable and or imprudent speed".

You have probably been told that such a law does exist. IT DOESN'T!!!!

People will regularly post that it exists, when asked to prove it they never come back with an answer.

I like to see what Skip has to say about this. Seem to me there has to be some control over unreasonable and unprudent speed in a boat.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I like to see what Skip has to say about this. Seem to me there has to be some control over unreasonable and unprudent speed in a boat.

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?

Nice try, BI, but that's from HB-847! Stop trying to bait people into an argument.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Nice try, BI, but that's from HB-847! Stop trying to bait people into an argument.

Actually the attempt is to end the argument. People keep thinking that there has been a reasonable and prudent law in New Hampshire. They make the claim and will not believe they are wrong. It is possible some of them may have read the reasonable and prudent part of HB847 or HB162 and it stuck in their heads. There must be some reason why so many believe a law exists that doesn't.

Well now there is a reasonable and prudent law in New Hampshire, HB847.

[alsadad]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

BroadHopper

There is a New Hampshire law that references reasonable and prudent speeds. This is it in part.

No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Does this sound familiar? Is this the law you were referring to?

Perhaps the law would have enjoyed more widespread support if it had included the "reasonable and prudent" language, without adding a hard number limit, and added other measures that addressed significant problems on the lake. Some possibilities might be:

• Providing additional funding to promote stronger enforcement of existing boating regulations, including a reasonable and prudent limit.

• Stricter boating education requirements.

• Designating parts of the lake for certain activities and prohibiting others from those areas, not to exclude, but to "provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses."

• A restriction on weekend use of the lake that would permit only boaters over the age of 50 who own "family bow riders" no more than 23 feet long. (Well, okay, that's a long shot.)

I'm sure there are other steps that I haven't thought of that would genuinely address the problems on the lake. I could certainly understand if the MP did not particularly welcome "reasonable and prudent" without an objective limit, simply because it would be more difficult to enforce. And, of course, many if not all of these proposals would have spawned their own special interest opposition.

Judging from their opinions expressed in posts on this forum, some folks seem to believe that the speed limit is the magic bullet to cure all of the lake's problems (one person even predicted an economic windfall). Others favor the speed limit but acknowledge that it falls short of perfection. Still others do not feel strongly one way or the other, while some vehemently oppose the speed limit. But it does seem as though everyone cares about improving conditions at the lake, even if we don't all agree on the best way to do so (please don't cue the guitars for Kumbaya). Perhaps we've all missed an opportunity, but we have 2 years to correct that. I'm not a political activist and I don't know how best to do this. But I hope that the pro-limit people recognize how hard the opponents will fight the renewal of the current law, and that those who oppose the law recognize how hard others will fight to keep it.

Any ideas?

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.

If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

Bear Islander,

If the speed limit is not about safety, and never was, why look at accident statistics. They are in fact low but unless we are discussing safety why look at them at a notional or statewide level. This speed limit is a Lake Winnipesaukee regulation ONLY. I understand that you are one man just voicing his opinion and in no way speak for the group that got this law passed....What is the actual problem you think speed limit supporters are referencing and trying to solve.

Chase1

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chase1

Bear Islander,

If the speed limit is not about safety, and never was, why look at accident statistics. They are in fact low but unless we are discussing safety why look at them at a notional or statewide level. This speed limit is a Lake Winnipesaukee regulation ONLY. I understand that you are one man just voicing his opinion and in no way speak for the group that got this law passed....What is the actual problem you think speed limit supporters are referencing and trying to solve.

Chase1

I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety.

Safety was not the main reason the legislation was written. Representative Pilliod was clear that it was about fear.

In my opinion there are many good reasons for a speed limit. Safety is one of them, but not at the top of the list.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Safety was not the main reason the legislation was written. Representative Pilliod was clear that it was about fear.

Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it. Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are. Next thing you know, we'll be curbing your speech, tapping your phone and watch you browse the internet, just to keep us safe. Oh wait... never mind.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it. Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are. Next thing you know, we'll be curbing your speech, tapping your phone and watch you browse the internet, just to keep us safe. Oh wait... never mind.

Now it's up to us to change the momentum of these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on. These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for. The time is now to start the grass-roots efforts to find representation that will make rational decisions in the best interests of the population at large, not decisions based on fear mongers. Personally, I cannot wait for the next elections. On that subject, we need to vote Shea-Porter and Hodes out as well. "Useless" is one word that comes to mind.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Now it's up to us to change the momentum of these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on. These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for. The time is now to start the grass-roots efforts to find representation that will make rational decisions in the best interests of the population at large, not decisions based on fear mongers. Personally, I cannot wait for the next elections. On that subject, we need to vote Shea-Porter and Hodes out as well. "Useless" is one word that comes to mind.

Destroying this state for what it stands for? Don't forget many of these so called hacks were voted out of office after the previous speed limit bill was defeated. And Governor Lynch's opponent, Joe Kenney(R), also supported the speed limit. Speed limit proponents vote too, and they'll vote this November.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I think you know about the accidents. Look up a few posts for a high performance boat that flipped in 2005 at 90 mph. Dumb luck nobody was killed. There is a fatal accident this year, a fatal accident last year and a double fatality on a nearby lake.

And that is just local. There is absolutely no reason to ignore national statistics. The New Hampshire accident rate is rising while most states have seen them fall. More than enough evidence for anybody that has an open mind.

Plus, after all that is said, safety is still not the main reason we need speed limits.




If this thread follows the usual routine, we will now be given lame excuses why none of those deaths count.

Originally Posted by chipj29

OK what speed was the fatal accident this year?
How about the fatal accident last year?
How would a speed limit have prevented these 2 accidents?

You can have the one accident on the broads. What was the speed?

Yes, NH's accident rate may be rising. But how many of those accidents have been directly caused by speeds over 45/25?

Hi. Any relevant stats for me yet?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Destroying this state for what it stands for? Don't forget many of these so called hacks were voted out of office after the previous speed limit bill was defeated. And Governor Lynch's opponent, Joe Kenney(R), also supported the speed limit. Speed limit proponents vote too, and they'll vote this November.

That's what makes America so great - you vote your way, I'll vote mine. And hopefully enough people will realize that we have become a nanny state, and get rid of these BUMS! Just like that new bicycle law - what rocket scientist thought of that one? Wait a few months and watch all the head-on collisions caused by people that have to pull over into oncoming traffic to avoid some bone-head that should not be riding on certain secondary highways. (sound familiar - kind of like kayaks that should not be out in the broads. Kayaks can go far more places than powerboats on the lake, yet they insist on exercising their "Rights" to travel anywhere and everywhere.) Then they cry fear and safety, and the nannys in Concord (most of whom probably have never been on the lake) make knee-jerk, emotion based decisions and let "fear" drive their decisions. We'll see who wins this battle in 2 years. People are fed up with these liberal politicians, so I believe the pendulum will swing the other way once again.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Yes, this is a law based on fear, hate and deception, which was why so many were against it.

This law is based on safely and on the common sense. Powerboaters who feel that it is their "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake has made winni dangerous for other boaters. It is as simple as that. There is no conspiracy.

Proponents had no problem in curbing the unalienable right for the pursuit of happiness (going 60 mph in a bass boat) to alleviate the hysterical fear of being run over, hate of the big loud boats and deception about what the lake's real problems are.

Traveling at unlimited speeds on a lake is not an inalienable right. You do not have the right to pursue your own happiness when your actions violate the rights of others. That would be anarchy.

Being nearly run over by a high-speed power boater is not "hysterical fear" - it is fear for your life - and it is very real.

I do not hate any types of boats and I have never tried to deceive anyone. I have never suggested that boats traveling at high speed are the only safety problem on the lake - but is most certainly one of the problems.

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Now it's up to us to change the momentumof these fear mongers; otherwise they'll just keep on keepin' on.

The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.

These spineless, noodleback hacks in Concord (yes, I mean you Governor and you State Reps and Senators that fell for this BS) need to be voted out of office. They are destroying this State and what it stands for.

I talked with many of the Senators and Representatives who voted for the speed limit. I attended and testified at the House Transportation Committee Hearing, and I listened to the entire Senate debate on the bill. In my opinion, the BS was being pushed by those opposed to the bill.

NH law states in RSA 270:1:II:

"In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species."

Most of the member of the Legislature who voted for the bill were doing so base on what this NH law states and because of the testimony of residents. That is their job.

[Alton Bay Bob]

I am fairly new to this subject although I have been reading it with interest the past several weeks. I guess I never really thought about the coexistence of various types of water craft on the lake and everyone's "rights". I paddle my kayak early in the morning before most power boaters are up and about. When it is beautiful and quiet... I use my 21 foot powerboat most of the rest of the day when everyone else is on the water and the wakes come at me from all sides. I stay at my dock on Saturday and most Sunday afternoons when it is crazy out there. I think I just use common sense and stay safe.

The following quote prompted this post..

The danger of kayaking on the main lake while power boaters are allowed to travel at unlimited speeds is very real, no matter how much you try to dismiss it. Most people who have paddled on the main lake (or on any large lake) understand the need for a speed limit. Most of the opponents of the speed limt have never even paddled on the main lake, so they have no idea why we feel that high speeds are unsafe. Months ago I challenged anyone here to join me kayaking on the main lake - yet no one has had the courage to accept my challenge. Yet you all continue to dismiss my close calls on the lake as "unfounded" - put a paddle where your mouth is - and then perhaps you'll understand the danger.


As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic. It would not make sense to me. I would not feel safe with boats "100 mph" this year or 44 mph next year.i would still feel the danger.. I'll paddle when it's quiet.


]

[B R]

The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by B R

The truth is she doesn't even come here often. She refuses to say how often but from previous posts, I'd bet she's paddled on this lake less than 10 times in her life. She simply wants the speed limit and that's it!!!

Here's the REAL TRUTH:

The truth is that I likely spend more time on the water than most people on this forum and I paddle more miles on NH lakes than most of you. The truth also is that I've had close calls every single time that I have paddled on winni - and that it is nearly impossible for me to find someone who is willing to paddle with me on the lake. I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.

Because of a serious injury and needing treatment for cancer this summer, and the numerous thunder storms, I have not been able to paddle as much this summer, but I have still managed to paddle over 250 miles on NH lakes so far.

You are also neglecting the fact that this bill was originally for all NH lakes, but that it has since become amended so that it now only affects winni. I'm still fighting for a speed limit for all NH lakes.

I simply want a speed limit because I have had too many close calls with high-speed powerboats - and I have seen the difference that a lake speed limit actually makes.

It is also the truth that I am a NH resident and a multi-generation native - which is not true of many of the speed limit opponents. Most NH residents also appear to support lake speed limits.

Originally Posted by Alton Bay Bob

As neither an opponent or proponent of speed limits and a fair paddler, I would never take you up on your offer to paddle the main lake either this year..with no speed limit ...or next year when there is a speed limit during a time when there was a lot of boat traffic.

I have to return to my University in just over a week, since my team has to be back on campus before the non-athletes return. So I probably won't be able to join you this summer, as there's just not time. But I would be happy to paddle with you next summer - just as soon as I graduate and return home.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Here's the REAL TRUTH:

The truth is that I likely spend more time on the water than most people on this forum and I paddle more miles on NH lakes than most of you. The truth also is that I've had close calls every single time that I have paddled on winni - and that it is nearly impossible for me to find someone who is willing to paddle with me on the lake. I plan on paddling on winni a lot more often once the speed limit goes into effect.

Sorry you've been held up this summer.

Since the speed limit is ONLY for Lake Winnipesaukee, can you answer a simple question? How many times have you EVER paddled on Lake Winnipesaukee?

[SIKSUKR]

I'll bet "Randy" has only been on Winni less than a dozen times.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by B R

Sorry you've been held up this summer.

Since the speed limit is ONLY for Lake Winnipesaukee, can you answer a simple question? How many times have you EVER paddled on Lake Winnipesaukee?

Personally, THAT is none of your business! I actually have no idea at how many times I have paddled on Winni or on any other NH lake, since I don't keep track of such things. But I've paddled there more times than you have suggested - which you determined how exactly??? Since I've never given a number, how in the world did you come up with "less than 10 times"??? That was obviously just another lame attempt to discredit me.

Why do I have to constantly provide proof on this forum for my qualifications??? Others here like you simple throw out wild accusations and false statements, and then won't even respond when their "facts" are questioned. Yet when someone like me honestly tries to answer questions, their posts get ripped apart and they become a target. So how many hours do all the opponents here have on the lake in recent years???

There are Senators and Representatives who voted against the speed limit who don't even own a boat. And there are even move who have never even been on the lake.

The thing is that I have paddled on winni enough to know that high-speed boaters are dangerous to paddlers.

And I'm a NH resident (unlike many of the opponents here) - which I feel is actually more important. And I actually took the time to attend hearings and to testify. Plus I actually know most of the Senators and many of the Representatives - and I know the NH Legislative process better than most here, because I internered at the State House last year.

It really doesn't matter if I have paddled on winni 25 times or 1000 times - because I'm still one of the only people on this forum who has actually paddled across the broads and I've done that many times. So get off my case.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

- because I'm still one of the only people on this forum who has actually paddled across the broads and I've done that many times. So get off my case.

Hang on now...when I was younger I "paddled" across a broad or two and I......oh wait, you meant the lake, didn't you?

[B R]

Actually, i do think it is my business. you are one of the few very vocal proponents of the law and it's my guess you don't even come here; or have on a very few occasions.

you said yourself you have paddled 250 miles on NH lakes. why then do you have to push your agenda on a lake you don't even visit very often?

a few years ago, there were some posters coming from the OSO forum who got shot down because they didn't boat often enough for the proponents of the law. I'd like to use their argument to say you shouldn't have a say in this fight since you don't even boat here regularly. I think it is a relevant question and one you have refused to answer. You not having an answer should be answer enough for most of us.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So how many hours do all the opponents here have on the lake in recent years???

I've averaged 150 hours logged on my boat per year over the past 7 years (does not include hours under anchor). hitting 220 hours one year and as low as 100 hours two years ago. 90 hours so far this year (gas prices).

I have come up every single weekend since mid-june with a few weekends before that.

See, that wasn't so hard.

[B R]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1709 post 36 you wrote:


Why just Winni?
I'm just wondering why Lake Winnipesaukee is being singled out for a bill to impose a limit on speed. Why not a state speed limit for all lakes? After all, aren't high speeds likely to be even more dangerous on smaller lakes?

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."


So, on April 2005 you state you've never boated on winni. And because of circumstances not under your control, you haven't paddled on winni this year. so that leaves 05, 06, 07 and 08. I just have a gut feeling you haven't boated on the lake more than 10 times. it can't be that hard to remember since you've had SO many close calls on the lake. if that were me, I think i'd remember all those life threatening times spent on the lake.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Personally, THAT is none of your business! I actually have no idea at how many times I have paddled on Winni or on any other NH lake, since I don't keep track of such things.

Evenstar,

Boaters ofter discuss how much time they spend on the water in conversation. Kind of like the way salesmen point out how many miles they drive or fly.

I like you can not provide any detail as to my excursions and time spent paddling. Although I think (not confirmed in any way) the same would be true for the majority of power boaters most power boats have hr meters, so at the very least owners know how many hrs were spent underway.

I was under the impression that you kept a Juornal or Log.

Chase1

[COWISLAND NH]

And I'm a NH resident (unlike many of the opponents here) - which I feel is actually more important. And I actually took the time to attend hearings and to testify. Plus I actually know most of the Senators and many of the Representatives - and I know the NH Legislative process better than most here, because I internered at the State House last year.

Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group!

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Like my parents said it's who ya know.....now we all know who was whining about all the dangerous boats on the lake to all those reps. What we really need to ask is how many of those people who voted acually have been on the lake and had such scary experiences.....or have they just heard the scary speed boat stories from a small "in" house group! [/COLOR][/COLOR]

yeah right...like no one who was against the speed limit was there, like the big GFBL lobby and NHRBA(with their $) all saying:" there's no speed problem, we just need to enforce existing laws". Get real.

[Airwaves]

I'd be interested to hear the answer to this one as well.

I did google performace boat accident, 2005, NH and got nothing except a discussion on this forum about a PWC ramming the side of a Formula near Christmas Island, and a Laconia Citizen writer admitting that his editors insisted that anything over headway speed be written as "high speed".

I couldn't find the accident Pineedles described, anyone else?

Originally posted by Chipj29

Hi. Any relevant stats for me yet?

[VtSteve]

From the statics posted, it would seem if you ban drownings, PWC's, and people falling down, boating accidents would be about nil.

I know there have been a ton of GFBL accidents. there was a 37' cruiser that hit the island, everyone's up to speed on that one.

There was the merideth bay incident, when a Baja ran up on a smaller boat from behind, driver was slightly influenced by something other than night air. He was supposedly doing 28 mph, I'll give you 30 if you must.

The accident in Maine has been brought up several times. Plus, I mentioned one from eons ago.

It should be pretty easy to come up with lists each time this question is asked, since there are some that thinks it's an epidemic.

[Airwaves]

I know about those accidents VTSteve, it just seems to me that if an accident such as the one Pineedles described, A High Performance boat, flipped on The Broads of Lake Winnipesaukee doing 90 Miles an Hour in 2005 during the heat of the debate of HB162, then I'd have no problem at all finding information about it? Ya think?

There would have been debris, a rescue, Marine Patrol boats, WinnFabs all over the place, Media coverage and APS would have posted a million pics of the accident on the forum!

[alsadad]

Boy, am I glad the weather's improving and we can all get out and enjoy the lake. Yesterday I was flipping through the channels and hit the local access cable channel just in time to see the following:

Host: "And now for today's Point/Counterpoint segment on the reasons for a lake speed limit. Take it away..."

"It's not about safety. "

"I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety."

"It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now."

"And yes, safety was certainly one of the arguments for having a speed limit."

Host: "Thank you for that perspective, Bear Islander, and thank you for that other perspective...ah... Bear Islander. Okay, well, be sure to tune in tomorrow for a panel discussion featuring representatives from manufacturers of Formula, Cigarette, and Norstar boats entitled 'Instilling fear: getting weenies off your lake before it's too late.' And on Friday, Rose and Evenstar will offer a scintillating debate on the topic "I Bet Mine is Bigger Than Yours: Lake Footprint vs. The 150 Foot Zone.' Please tune in."

[Pineedles]

Remember, I am not an advocate of the speed limit, as my earlier post on missing seeing the boats cover the mile from Center Harbor's docks to Little One Mile. But I too could not find the reference to my cousin's accident. But I firmly can state that it did occur. The boat was towed out, and there was damage but not enough to sink it. I believe they hit some debris and it flipped the boat corkscrew wise.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Remember, I am not an advocate of the speed limit, as my earlier post on missing seeing the boats cover the mile from Center Harbor's docks to Little One Mile. But I too could not find the reference to my cousin's accident. But I firmly can state that it did occur. The boat was towed out, and there was damage but not enough to sink it. I believe they hit some debris and it flipped the boat corkscrew wise.

Could this be it?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...php?photo=3030

[ApS]

Since the subforum has nearly outlived its main benefit (keeping the word speed out of the rest of the topics), its time was running out anyway: there are only two topics in the sub-forum remaining unlocked.

I thought I'd enter the debate now only to show my most overlooked argument here—and the last image I'd sent to the Governor's website while he sought comments.

The below message, sent just prior to the Diamond Island incident, had an unintended, but favorable consequence for proponents of the measure:

[twoplustwo]

...out of respect for the webmaster, and my agreement that this should be shut down.

The state is the one responsible for the limited access on Squam – and this is a problem on many NH lakes. The state owned public across from the Science Center in Holderness was actually donated to the state by the Squam Lake Association – and became the first public access on the lake.

Nice spin doctoring, but an enormous pile of hooey. The SLA took credit for helping to broker the donation of less than a half acre of land, a boat ramp, four boat slips, and a beat up old boathouse for the public launch. They did not donate it, some of their members did, and only as a last resort. The SLA and wealthy Squam owners were responsible from day one for every attempt to limit access to Squam, and only threats by the state to take property by eminent domain to force public access caused the pittance of access now referred to as the public boat launch on Squam. When the State attempted to purchase a 6 acre parcel on Squam for a launch, the money men hopped in and snatched it up without a thought to the extra 50 grand they threw over the state's offer. Eminent domain caused the donation to which you refer, and it was not donated by the SLA.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I didn't say the speed limit is not about safety.

Safety was not the main reason the legislation was written. Representative Pilliod was clear that it was about fear.

In my opinion there are many good reasons for a speed limit. Safety is one of them, but not at the top of the list.

perhaps this is why you at times think people are twisting your words.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

If you guys spent half the time listening that you do pontificating perhaps you would realize that.

And almost every time I post that its not about safety, someone will post something like "AHA! now we know the real reason for the speed limit!"

Chase1

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again what I actually said is twisted into what you want it to say.

The accident statistics are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I post that the reputation for danger has more effect on the general public than the actual statistic. And you think that means the lake safe.

The statistics are bad, the reputation is worse.


WinnFABS is not "my group". I take no credit or responsibility for their publications. I represent my own opinions, they are not always the same as WinnFABS.

Bear Islander,

I am sorry for linking you to the speed limit supporters. I do not want anything to do with them, myself. I was not trying to make a point of connecting you with them.

Statements like this create a preception that you are representing more than our own opinion.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's not about safety. It never was about safety. We have been saying that from day one until now.

Perhaps you shoudl correct your post to read (I have been saying). Speed limit proponents such as Winnfabs have clearly used safety in their campaign which many have pointed out.

I disagree with your own opinions that accident statistics are bad that they justify a speed limit. I do agree with your opinion about the reputation being worse than reality.

I do personally feel the lake is safe however I never made comment to that in my last post. I commented that - anyone aware that the "reputation of danger" was indeed unfounded according to statistics should have done the right thing and worked to correct that perception. Instead many like yourself actually fueled it. Some in the name of "safety" as promoted by the bill creators, and you for your proclaimed agenda.


Chase1