Governor will sign Speed Limit legislation

[gtagrip]

One other thing regarding the 150' "space, in many previous posts you had claimed that "your" 150' space had been violated many or all the time. Contradicts what you said in your previous post #199 about "no it isn't, yours is"
Do you have plans to be a politician someday? You'd be good at it.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Chipj29 and Rose: I explained myself as clearly as I know how, but you two just want to argue. I made it extremely clear that that I was only responding to the final question: “So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?” I was not responding to the entire post - I DO have the right to do that you know. How often do others here respond to just one sentence (or just one word) in my posts? I was being totally sincere and totally honest in my reply - so quit judging me.

And I have the right to judge you based on you avoiding the subject of the question posed. I am not going to argue with you on this anymore.

And I agree completely with gtagrip when he states that you have the same 150 ft circle as a boat. Think of yourself as a small island. You may not be able to move, but you still have that same 150 ft circle that all craft travelling faster than headway speed have to avoid.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I was not responding to the entire post - I DO have the right to do that you know.

And I have the right to point out the errors in your argument. You did not answer the question that was asked. If you did that in a courtroom, what do you think the opposing attorney would do? But since you have no desire to listen to anything other than your own opinion, I'm wasting my time.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Now you're just trying to start an argument.

It is perfectly legal for two kayak to paddle inches from each other.

Using paralegal terminology? We're not in the courtroom. This is a website Forum; hence, this is a debate.

Then again, when not winning; it's best to divert the subject at hand.

It is perfectly legal for any two boats to operate inches from each other, at headway speed.

Paddle-power boats may leave marks if the paddlers are using normal length paddles and traveling side-by-side, within inches of each other.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This part is not directed at anyone in particular:

Look, I’ve explained this before, but it just gets dismissed as invalid as well: Due to a severe head injury when I was very young, I have a language problem, which affects my ability to write. Because of this, writing a reply is very difficult for me and it takes me a very long time. I do the best I can, so having every word in my posts dissected as an attempt to discredit me is very unfair. I do not have any hidden agenda at all. I’m extremely honest and literal – I can’t help it. I’m very transparent, and I do my best to answer any comments directed at me as clearly as I can. Yet others here feel that it is ok to constantly insult me, just because I have a different opinion than them.

I find it interesting that Evenstar brings out her communication problem when she is called out on her method of comparing 1 performance boat to 100 family boats (by chip's post #169, a 23' family bowrider)!!! ANYONE reading his post would have known the comparison to be made was with a 23' bowrider and not a kayak!! Evenstar, you very much have an agenda and your honesty goes only as deep as necessary to achieve that agenda, as evidenced by your performance-boat-to-kayak comparison (THAT'S an apples-to-oranges comparison if ever I saw one!)!!


On a separate note, I'm sitting on a deck in Wolfeboro right now watching the comedy of boaters in Wolfeboro Bay!! It's an interesting vantage point to compare the right way and wrong way to boat!

1) I've watched more than one "family" boat motoring through the mooring field in front of me leaving a wake; the only boat I have seen going through the mooring field at no-wake speed was a PERFORMANCE boat!! Go figure!!!

2) I've watched island people (apparently islanders because they only come in to pick up supplies and leave) as they leave the private docks between the Windrifter Yacht Club and WCYC power up when they're not more than 50' from the end of the docks!!!!

3) I just watched a "family" boat (a Boston Whaler with a man, woman, & 3 children on board) refuse to move out of the way of the Mt. Washington as she was backing away from the public dock!! The Mount blew her horn 3 times as she started to back away from the dock, slowed and blew it AGAIN 3 times and this boat SIMPLY REFUSED TO MOVE out of her way!! The Mount had to stop, make a wide swing around the Boston Whaler to complete the turn-around and leave the bay!

4) I am CONSTANTLY seeing boats leaving or arriving at the Wolfeboro town docks, completely OBLIVIOUS to the 150' rule, powering up well within 150' of other boats and/or the mooring field near me!!

5) Strangely, an Eliminator cat-hull performance boat waited until they were more than far enough away from other boats, docks, mooring fields, etc. before they powered up!!

Now, would someone please explain to me how next year's speed limit will prevent all this illegal activity from continuing to happen because I DON'T SEE HOW IT WILL!! These are people that either don't KNOW the laws or choose NOT TO FOLLOW them!!! And if they're not following these laws, what makes you think the lake will be safer by having a speed limit and having MORE of these bonehead boaters on the water?!?!?

[tc_mike]

I really don't mind the speed limit - I really don't see that it solves anything - but I can live with it or I can live without it (just hope it does not cause any significant fruitless tax increase). I have a boat that probably won't do much over 45 if any. I do have a Jetski, but 45 is plenty fast for me. I am not trying to take sides on the speed limit debate. Something that I have noticed in my 7 years on the lake is that I find myself *more* comfortable boating around performance boats than the average family boat. I have more confidence that a performance boat will obey the 150' rule, understand proper navigation rules, and in general maintain a higher level of courtesy and professionalism while boating (I am not talking about noise in any way). I've always attributed it to the fact that making such an investment requires a certain kind of passion and pride that carries over into behavior and attitidue. I'm definately a bit (just a bit) more nervous/cautious approaching a family boat then I am a performance boat. Anyway - this is just my general observation over the years. Yes, I've witnessed many exceptions and yes, my observation is a generalization.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rose

And I have the right to point out the errors in your argument. You did not answer the question that was asked. If you did that in a courtroom, what do you think the opposing attorney would do? But since you have no desire to listen to anything other than your own opinion, I'm wasting my time.

Oh Rose....stop making so much sense!

I mean, geesh, some might find it "insulting"....




Skip

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

One other thing regarding the 150' "space, in many previous posts you had claimed that "your" 150' space had been violated many or all the time. Contradicts what you said in your previous post #199 about "no it isn't, yours is".

You're confusing the 150 foot zone with footprint. I didn't contradict anything that I wrote. As I stated before (as per NH law) only boats exceeding headway speed have to maintain a 150 foot buffer. My 150 foot zone is in reference to that buffer.

If the 150 foot was part of my footprint, as you and others here keep insisting, then I would have to remain 150 feet away from shorelines and from other kayaks. Since I am not required by NH law to do so, you are wrong. When a boat slows down to headway speed, their footprint is also reduced, since they no longer are required to maintain a 150 foot buffer.

Swimmers do not have a 150' footprint - neither do loons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by chipj29

And I have the right to judge you based on you avoiding the subject of the question posed. I am not going to argue with you on this anymore.

I was responding to a single part of your post - just like most others here do - that's why I only quoted that part. You asked how and I post one possible way this could happen. It's as simple as that.

I never suggested that 100 boston whalers have the same footprint as 1 high-performance boat. You need to take that up with the original poster. Please stop trying to make this into an argument.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I find it interesting that Evenstar brings out her communication problem when she is called out on her method of comparing 1 performance boat to 100 family boats (by chip's post #169, a 23' family bowrider)!!! ANYONE reading his post would have known the comparison to be made was with a 23' bowrider and not a kayak!! Evenstar, you very much have an agenda and your honesty goes only as deep as necessary to achieve that agenda, as evidenced by your performance-boat-to-kayak comparison (THAT'S an apples-to-oranges comparison if ever I saw one!)!!

Geez! What is it with some of you people? How many times do I have to explain this? I was NOT responding to the entire post! I was ONLY responding to the FINAL QUESTION. I was MERELY showing how it is POSSIBLE for one large boat to have the same footprint as 100 small boats (and kayaks are small boats) - that's all. As I've stated many times, I don't have any hidden agenda. I do not lie, so it is wrong for you to suggest that I am being dishonest, when I am being totally honest.

This is not the first time that I've admitted to having a learning disability on this forum. Writing is a very difficult and time consuming process to me and I'm very insecure about not being clear enough when I write. I was just hoping for a little understanding on why having my posts picked apart frustrates me so much. Instead my openness and honesty gets used against me.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As I've stated many times, I don't have any hidden agenda. I do not lie, so it is wrong for you to suggest that I am being dishonest, when I am being totally honest.

This is not the first time that I've admitted to having a learning disability on this forum. Writing is a very difficult and time consuming process to me and I'm very insecure about not being clear enough when I write. I was just hoping for a little understanding on why having my posts picked apart frustrates me so much. Instead my openness and honesty gets used against me.

Seven posts to one thread in two days, so far...

This is NH; not Kansas...

[VtSteve]

Wow. It's no wonder common sense isn't common anymore, but litigation is. Nobody really gives a flying crap about the footprint of a kayak. While grownups were debating another really stupid comment, kayaks get interjected for about a mile of posts.

TB likes the idea of having 100 smaller boats versus one GFBL boat. He must be real active on the lake to appreciate that. It's no wonder people get worried when they hear about "groups" getting together for the common good, to pass a law.

WB, I hear ya about the everyday boater being Captain Bonehead. INtentionally or not, they are the problem. One thing this thread prooves in spades, is the real intent. As I stated many moons ago, there are various factions in the pro speed limit crowd that want to limit all kinds of things, except their own activities. They view the lake as theirs and theirs alone. They can freely do as they please to and fro, but not others. Those that break the law, are not mentioned by this group, Unless they are in a GF boat.

These are the very last people on earth that should be creating laws for anyone, but they love the judicial and legislative processes.

[BroadHopper]

Evenstar,

You have not answer my question. How many kayakers does it take to raise $75,000 for charity. I feel the kayakers should replace lost revenue.

[fatlazyless]

Here'd my donation; an unopened box of granola. Granola power!

Hmmm...am trying to think of something that's actually somewhat intelligent to add to this thread.

Speed limits and shoreline protection.....2008....passed with the Democrats in control of the NH house, senate, gov's council, and executive....without that majority it never would have happened. Even with the majority it was not an easy go. Old ways die hard.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Evenstar, You have not answer my question. How many kayakers does it take to raise $75,000 for charity. I feel the kayakers should replace lost revenue.

And you never answered mine - and I asked my question first:
So why do you have to exceed 45 mph to barefoot waterski, when competitions are held where maximium speeds are less than 45 mph?

Here's my answer:

1.) There isn't any loss revenue - you're just projecting that there could be.

2.) If there is actually a future loss of revenue, it's not the fault of kayakers. It would be the fault of your group for not adapting.

You don't have to exceed 45 mph to raise revenue for charity - paddles raise money for charities all the time - at speeds under 6 mph.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Using paralegal terminology? We're not in the courtroom. This is a website Forum; hence, this is a debate. Then again, when not winning; it's best to divert the subject at hand.

This particular forum is for the discussion of a lake speed limit BILL, which is will soon be a LAW - so is more than appropriate to use a world like LEGAL in the debate. BTW: Rose is the one using all the paralegal terminology (look at post #203, the one just before your post - where you accused me of doing this).

How am I diverting the discussion? The people here who are trying to divert the discussion are the ones that always resort to personal attacks, when they are incapable of out debating others.

Paddle-power boats may leave marks if the paddlers are using normal length paddles and traveling side-by-side, within inches of each other.

And the you include a photo of two kayakers, who aren't even paddling as "proof?"

I'm 6 feet tall and use a paddle that is made for someone my size - so it is a "normal length paddle." And I often paddle 20 or less inches from other kayaks - without making contact. 20 inches is inches, not feet. And I have a photo as "proof" as well - only mine shows kayakers who are actually paddling:

I even race sailboats where we are often just inches apart - which is also perfectly legal (according to the Racing Rules of Sailing).

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And you never answered mine - and I asked my question first:
So why do you have to exceed 45 mph to barefoot waterski, when competitions are held where maximium speeds are less than 45 mph?

Here's my answer:

paddles raise money for charities all the time - at speeds under 6 mph.

I told you that I have small feet, Size 5 and big butts! I'm not 'competition' material.

I have talked to a sargeant on the marine patrol over the weekend. He said it shouldn't be a problem barefoot skiing over 45. The law is arbitrary not absolute. If I am skiing at a reasonable speed and is a safe manner, I shouldn't be cited. So I'm all set.

Name me a 'paddle' event on the lake that has raised money for charity. And how much was raised. Then I will believe you.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The two things might not be linked. You are assuming the Poker Run would be canceled because they can't go fast.

It could be that the Poker Run would be canceled because there are fewer boats on the lake to take part in it.

The Easter Seals Poker run includes boats, personal watercraft, motorcycles, trucks, and cars, and is not a race. It is not likely to lose entries, and may even gain the boaters who had been intimidated from participation.

http://www.jetski.com/article.cfm?id=813

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Geez! What is it with some of you people? How many times do I have to explain this? I was NOT responding to the entire post! I was ONLY responding to the FINAL QUESTION. I was MERELY showing how it is POSSIBLE for one large boat to have the same footprint as 100 small boats (and kayaks are small boats) - that's all. As I've stated many times, I don't have any hidden agenda. I do not lie, so it is wrong for you to suggest that I am being dishonest, when I am being totally honest.

You are clearly and intentionally taking his very last question out of the context of the rest of his post. If that question were to stand alone, then your answer could have been considered reasonable, but obviously not within the context with which he presented it. Let me quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

If there are 100 boats on the lake, each with its own 150 ft circle around it...how can that possibly take up more of the "lake footprint" than 1 boat with a single 150 ft circle around it?

Lets make a couple assumptions, then some calculations based on those.

1. A smaller "family" boat is a 23 ft bowrider. Average width might be 8 ft. You could say that the boat occupies 184 square feet (23 ft long x 8 ft wide). Not exactly accurate, but close enough.
2. A larger "fast" boat is a 32 footer. Average with probably about the same 8 ft. You could say that this boat occupies 256 square feet (32 ft long x 8 ft wide).

3. 100 smaller boats, each occupying 184 square feet, occupy 18,400 square feet (100 boats x 184 sf). This does not take into account the 150 ft circle around each. Sorry, that math is too much for me. Let's just pretend they are all rafting.
4. 1 larger fast boat occupies 256 sf, as determined above. Same 150 ft circle too.

Conclusion-The 100 smaller boats occupy 18,144 FEWER square feet than 1 single larger boat...again, not taking the 150 ft circle into consideration (18,400-256).

So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?

You'll see in my first bolded sentence, Chip defined the term "smaller boat" for the purposes of his post. From here on in, the reader should assume the term "smaller boat" to be as defined earlier in the post. Thus, his question truly reads:

So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 23 ft bowriders?

The kayaks were completely irrelevant in that discussion and you know it.

[COWISLAND NH]

Originally Posted by tc_mike

Something that I have noticed in my 7 years on the lake is that I find myself *more* comfortable boating around performance boats than the average family boat. I have more confidence that a performance boat will obey the 150' rule, understand proper navigation rules, and in general maintain a higher level of courtesy and professionalism while boating (I am not talking about noise in any way). I've always attributed it to the fact that making such an investment requires a certain kind of passion and pride that carries over into behavior and attitidue. I'm definately a bit (just a bit) more nervous/cautious approaching a family boat then I am a performance boat.

I believe the same....most performance boaters LOVE THEIR BOATS AND THE LAKE!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

. . . The kayaks were completely irrelevant in that discussion and you know it.

Look, chipj29 did not start this discussion in his post (#169). That discussion began way back in #139, with Little Bear's post. Here’s the direction of this thread from #139 on:

#139 – Little Bear made the statement: “The problem is that these kayakers seem to think that they are invincible and that they have inalienable rights to be on the lake, any place at any time.”

#140 – Bear Islander replied that kayakers “do have an inalienable right to be on the lake, any place, any time.”

#143 – ITD replied: “They do????? Where is this spelled out?”

#144 - Silver Duck replied that “Kayaks have the exact same rights as any other type of boat. NH law makes it very clear that the public is to have unrestricted access to the larger lakes, and does not differentiate between paddle craft, sail boats, or motor boats in that right to access.”

#145 – I replied that “A kayak falls under the definition of both "boat" and "vessel" in NH law:” and I quote where this was stated in the RSAs.

#149 – bigpasfan ask Bear Islander, “Kayakers and power boaters have co-existed for longer than all of us have been alive so why the kayakers want to make this an us versus them or a David vs. Golith just doesn’t make sense. . . . If the total number of boats do not diminish then by enacting a speed limit you actually lost.”

#151 – Turtle Boy replied: “you have to look at the impact of different kinds of boats on the lake and those who use it. Clearly the 500 plus horsepower boat roaring loudly around the lake at 70 MPH driven by an owner who feels Winnipesaukee is his private speedway has a much greater impact than the Boston Whaler with a family boating to Wolfeboro to get an ice cream cone. I'd take 100 of the latter over 1 of the former.”

#153 – Siksukr replied: “Love this logic.100 times more boats will have less impact?Wow,now there is clear thinking!”

#155 – I replied to Siksukr: “. . . it is what I call your "Lake Footprint." This is based on your boat's size X your average speed on the water X your length of time on the water.”

#162 – chipj29 replied to me: “So 100 "smaller" boats have less of a "lake footprint" than 1 "large, fast moving boat"??? There is no way that you can be serious.”

#164 – I replied to chipj29: “I'm totally serious about my formula, but the exact numbers will depend on the variables. Give me the footprint of a large boat and its average speed and I'll figure out how many of my sea kayaks it equals.”

#169 – chipj29 replied to me: “If there are 100 boats on the lake, each with its own 150 ft circle around it...how can that possibly take up more of the "lake footprint" than 1 boat with a single 150 ft circle around it?” . . . “So tell me again...how does 1 large boat have a larger footprint than 100 smaller boats?”

#170 – I explained how 100 sea kayaks could actually have a larger lake footprint than 1 powerboat.

So kayaks have been a very large part of this discussion. When chip first reply to me, about my "lake footprint formula", I asked him to "Give me the footprint of a large boat and its average speed and I'll figure out how many of my sea kayaks it equals.” Instead, he tried to take kayaks out of the discussion.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So kayaks have been a very large part of this discussion. When chip first reply to me, about my "lake footprint formula", I asked him to "Give me the footprint of a large boat and its average speed and I'll figure out how many of my sea kayaks it equals.” Instead, he tried to take kayaks out of the discussion.

The original discussion of 100 boats was brought up by Turtle Boy, and he was most certainly talking about power boats. Furthermore, your answer with the kayaks, was as you have repeatedly asserted, in response to chip's question. His question, as I proved above, was regarding smaller powerboats. He asked how the impact of 100 smaller power boats could be less than 1 GFBL, you responded with kayaks.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Name me a 'paddle' event on the lake that has raised money for charity. And how much was raised. Then I will believe you.

You never responded to my first two comments at all:

1.) There isn't any loss revenue yet
2.) How would any loss of revenue be the fault of kayakers? It would be the fault of your group for not adapting.

And then you treat me like I am lying. I never stated that there has been a recentent event where paddlers have raised money on the lake. This is mostly because winni has not in recent years been a popular lake for paddlers. My point was that you don't have to travel a high-speeds to raise money for charities.

What I stated was that "paddlers raise money for charities all the time." And that is totally true. But since you don't believe me, here's just a few of the national events that paddlers have raised money for:

Support Strokes: “During the last 8 years, determined and dedicated paddlers have made it possible for Support Strokes to raise over $186,868.00 to fight breast cancer.” http://www.calkayak.com/supportstrokes

America Supports You: Wounded Troops Get Whitewater Fundraising – “Team River Runner (TRR), established in August 2004 by kayakers in the Washington, DC, area, is an all-volunteer organization run by a council of kayakers and overseen by a board of directors. Working in partnership with The Wounded Warrior Project and Disabled Sports USA, TRR helps veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) find health, healing, and new challenges through whitewater boating on the Potomac River. While the focus of TRR's work is on soldiers recuperating at WRAMC, TRR also provides whitewater boating opportunities for family members as well as for other wounded veterans.” http://www.teamriverrunner.org/welcome.php

Breast Cancer Coalition: “Against the Tide is a fund raising swim, walk and kayak to benefit the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition. Against the Tide brings together families and individuals of all ages to fight breast cancer.” http://www.mbcc.org/swim/pledgepage.php?id=2385

Kayak cancer fundraiser grows - Vancouver Sun - Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008 - “Kayakers who want to help find a cure for cancer are preparing for their third annual fundraising paddle Aug. 17 at English Bay. This year, Kayak for a Cure has set its goal for $50,000 and expanded its scope to include events in Victoria, as well as Columbus, Ohio.” http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...5-8a1a2c000eff

Kayakers paddle to fight HIV/AIDS - May 5, 2008 – “Seventeen AIDS service organizations inspired 88 kayakers to raise thousands of dollars Sunday during the third annual “People Paddle” event.” http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpr...fight-hivaids/

Canoe trip to help fight Parkinson's - http://www.bismarcktribune.com/artic...ews/154931.txt
NYCkayaker 2008 Paddle for a Parkinson's Cure ( July 2008) - http://www.rockandwater.net/pipermai...ne/002588.html

2008 Paddle for Families - Go boating and raise money for families impacted by alcoholism and addiction - http://paddleforfamilies.ning.com/

2008 Paddle - SEAPADDLE NYC and THE WHITE WATER EVENING FOR AUTISM take place on August 18th & 16th 2008 respectively. These 2nd annual events will act as the fundraiser to raise money and awareness for autism and SEA’s environmental causes. http://seapaddlenyc.org/node/5

[Audiofn]

Evenstar: I think that the point that was trying to be made about the poker runs is that the High performance boaters raise a LOT of money for charities. When he asked how much have Kayakers raised I think he meant any place not just Winni. The problem for the charrities is that when I look at what poker runs I can go to on any given weekend, and I have a high performance boat, am I going to go to the lake with the speed limit, or am I going to go to the lake with out the speed limit. It does not take much to figure out that they will go to the lake that will allow them to travel at speed, that is after all why they purchase the boats. They adapt just fine, they go to the lake with out the speed limits for poker runs. Kind of what you guys wanted but now the charities have to deal with the unintended conciquences.

[Cal]

Not to mention the fact , the bling , glitz , and glitter of powerful , colorful , highly decorated powerboats attracts a lot more people , money and oooo's and aaaaah's than do lime green or safety orange kayaks. IMHO

[fatlazyless]

Different strokes for different folks. Some like to paddle, and some like to go fast. Thanks to our New Hampshire legislature, boaters can now do both, up to 45mph.....like one big happy family .

45mph is hardly a slow speed, come on, it's a very fast speed for a boat.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Different strokes for different folks. Some like to paddle, and some like to go fast. Thanks to our New Hampshire legislature, boaters can now do both, up to 45mph.....like one big happy family .

45mph is hardly a slow speed, come on, it's a very fast speed for a boat.

People should be required to wear helmets 24/7 as well. There are just boatloads of people that shouldn't be operating boats at any speed, much less 45 mph. When I see people slow down 15 mph on the highway when rounding a slight corner, I wish the DMV had the authority to pull them over and begin mandatory testing, or just revoke their license and give them a train pass on the spot.

Unfortunately, there are many scared people out there in many activities that just have no real common sense or skill for doing whatever it is they are doing. Many of these same folks want to dumb everything down so we can all be reduced to their levels. (No, not a personal attack on you, I have no idea what your abilities are). But in general, this feels like the old Double Nickel deal. When speed limits were finally raised back up, we were told death and mayhem would ensue. It didn't. There are people out there everyday going 25 mph in boats, that should never, ever be allowed out on the water.

Who's going to save us from them?

[BroadHopper]

are local Evenstar. They don't count.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

are local Evenstar. They don't count.

Of course they do. If they can do it elsewhere, they can do it on Winni, and when Winni is more attractive for kayakers('09), they most likely will. Charities are very adept at knowing how to raise funds, and when one door closes, another opens.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

People should be required to wear helmets 24/7 as well.

I wasn't too sure on this so I looked it up. Bicyclists under 16, and motorcyclists under 18 are required by NH law to wear helmets. What's next....similar helmet laws for boats, kayaks, pwc's....probably not. I do not think boaters will ever be required to wear helmets or use seatbelts.

As far as I know, only the Coast Guard has a boat, about 40' long, used in the Pacific Ocean off of, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, which is designed to turn 360 degrees under water and right itself, and yes, the Coasties do wear helmets and use seatbelts on that boat. Do not expect to see one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As far as I know, only the Coast Guard has a boat, about 40' long, used in the Pacific Ocean off of, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, which is designed to turn 360 degrees under water and right itself, and yes, the Coasties do wear helmets and use seatbelts on that boat. Do not expect to see one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Sounds like a 40' kayak

Seriously , I saw a video of the boat in a roll over , and back upright. Pretty cool

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by FLL
As far as I know, only the Coast Guard has a boat, about 40' long, used in the Pacific Ocean off of, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, which is designed to turn 360 degrees under water and right itself, and yes, the Coasties do wear helmets and use seatbelts on that boat. Do not expect to see one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

FLL you speak of the USCG 47 foot Motor Life Boat, the latest in a line of MLBs that are self righting and used for heavy weather/surf rescues.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Of course they do. If they can do it elsewhere, they can do it on Winni, and when Winni is more attractive for kayakers('09), they most likely will. Charities are very adept at knowing how to raise funds, and when one door closes, another opens.

So Why aren't the kayakers prevalient on Lake George and Squam Lake?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I wasn't too sure on this so I looked it up. Bicyclists under 16, and motorcyclists under 18 are required by NH law to wear helmets. What's next....similar helmet laws for boats, kayaks, pwc's....probably not. I do not think boaters will ever be required to wear helmets or use seatbelts.

As far as I know, only the Coast Guard has a boat, about 40' long, used in the Pacific Ocean off of, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, which is designed to turn 360 degrees under water and right itself, and yes, the Coasties do wear helmets and use seatbelts on that boat. Do not expect to see one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

It was a joke.....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

are local Evenstar. They don't count.

They only reason that they "don't count" is that they support my point, and not yours.
I stated: "My point was that you don't have to travel a high-speeds to raise money for charities. What I stated was that "paddlers raise money for charities all the time.""

So these charities most certainly do count, and they prove my point. The Easter Seals is a national charity, not a local charity.

And you STILL haven't responded to my two other points:
1.) There isn't any loss revenue yet
2.) How would any loss of revenue be the fault of kayakers? It would be the fault of your group for not adapting.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

So Why aren't the kayakers prevalient on Lake George and Squam Lake?

They are. There are a LOT more kayaks on Squam. I was just on Squam yesterday and saw a large number of other kayaks while I was paddling - way more than I've ever seen on winni in a few just a few hours. And yesterday wasn't even a particularly nice day.

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Evenstar: I think that the point that was trying to be made about the poker runs is that the High performance boaters raise a LOT of money for charities.

And my point was that paddlers also raise a LOT of money for charities. I also showed that races can be run on lakes in NH that have a speed limit - all you need to do is obtain a special permit. So why couldn't an annual race be held to raise money? High performance boats could still go fast at such an event. All it takes is a little adapting.

[sa meredith]

Evenstar...I gotta ask. I read your posts from time to time, and am wondering...Do you like the torture? Every single time someone tries to "bait you", you bite.
You make decent arguments, and your thoughts seem coherent, and I believe most of your statements to be factual...and my guess would be most people can see that.
But they know, if they drop their line in the water, you'll take the bait.
Just my observation.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Evenstar...I gotta ask. I read your posts from time to time, and am wondering...Do you like the torture? Every single time someone tries to "bait you", you bite.
You make decent arguments, and your thoughts seem coherent, and I believe most of your statements to be factual...and my guess would be most people can see that.
But they know, if they drop their line in the water, you'll take the bait.
Just my observation.

No, I don't like torture.

As I've posted a number of times, I have language issues - so when it appears that my points are not understood, I tend to blame myself first, for not being clear in what I posted, so I try my best to explain what I was trying to say the first time - which is really frustrating for me.

I'm just not used to people on a forum being insincere in what they post. None of the other forums that I am a member of allow "baiting" or personal attacks. And they are not permitted on this forum either (according to the FAQ). So why is this being allowed here???

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And my point was that paddlers also raise a LOT of money for charities. I also showed that races can be run on lakes in NH that have a speed limit - all you need to do is obtain a special permit. So why couldn't an annual race be held to raise money? High performance boats could still go fast at such an event. All it takes is a little adapting.

Agreed that padlers also raise money. The dollar amounts being less are not important to me as I think that anyone out there working hard for a charity deserves a pat on the back be it 1 dollar or 100,000. The charities I would however think would disagree. Especially in this economic climate they need all the money that they can get.

Poker runs are NOT races. So they often times can not obtain the permit to allow for the unlimited speeds. I can not say for sure but I beleive that Lake George for example does not remove the speed limits for poker runs. We used to have a race up there. It was a great place to race but the company that sponsored it stopped and the race moved away. Also people that will enter a poker run will not enter a "race" as there is no insurance for a boat in a "race".

Again we can adapt. We will adapt to another location for the poker run that will allow us to run as hard as we want. So the local charities loose.

[Alton Bay Bob]

Again we can adapt. We will adapt to another location for the poker run that will allow us to run as hard as we want. So the local charities loose.
Yesterday 10:43 PM

OK. I am confused.. so is the purpose of these poker runs to raise money for charities or an excuse to go fast? It seems to me if a person has a desire to help a charity he will still do it.. albeit at a slower pace. What am I missing?
To think that all you good folks who work hard for local charities woulld suddenly leave... I guess it makes me wonder about your original motives.
I might be all wrong but I am confused.

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Alton Bay Bob

Again we can adapt. We will adapt to another location for the poker run that will allow us to run as hard as we want. So the local charities loose.
Yesterday 10:43 PM

OK. I am confused.. so is the purpose of these poker runs to raise money for charities or an excuse to go fast? It seems to me if a person has a desire to help a charity he will still do it.. albeit at a slower pace. What am I missing?
To think that all you good folks who work hard for local charities woulld suddenly leave... I guess it makes me wonder about your original motives.
I might be all wrong but I am confused.

We will be raising money for charities at most poker runs that we attend. So there is not change in our motives. Given the option to run in a poker run that allows for running as fast as I want and one that will "pace" me then I will go to the one that will allow me to run my boat the way it was designed to be run. Those will be the runs that will raise the most amount of money as those are the ones that are going to draw the big dollar boats.

[Airwaves]

Never having been in a poker run personally, here is my observation.

Poker Runs generally attract High Performance boats. There are folks that own these types of boats that travel almost in a circut, poker run to poker run. The runs generally are to raise money and they attract public interest in brightly colored high performance boats that turn up for the runs.

No, speed is not the determining factor in a poker run but if you are going to haul a boat worth several hundred thousand dollars X number of miles just for the fun of participating in a poker run, then yes, they would expect to be able to open the boat up at some point during their visit.

If they can't open her up, and they are only participating for the fun of it, then why go to a lake that has restrictions?

Sure you can have a poker run with any class of boat, but can you raise the same amount of money that a high performance poker run would raise?

Another (un)intended consequence.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Again we can adapt. We will adapt to another location for the poker run that will allow us to run as hard as we want. So the local charities loose.

Winni passed a speed limit so the performance boats are going to take their ball and go home, or at least a lake with no speed limit, YET!

Poker Runs are not a race (ya, right!) However you only want to have them where you can "run hard".

I seriously doubt Poker Runs have been raising the kind of money you suggest. And Easter Seals is not a local charity, so have your charity event in Maine.

You can donate to a charity or not, that is your choice. Using your donations to fight speed limits seems pathetic and desperate.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Islander

Winni passed a speed limit so the performance boats are going to take their ball and go home, or at least a lake with no speed limit, YET!

Poker Runs are not a race (ya, right!) However you only want to have them where you can "run hard".

I seriously doubt Poker Runs have been raising the kind of money you suggest. And Easter Seals is not a local charity, so have your charity event in Maine.

You can donate to a charity or not, that is your choice. Using your donations to fight speed limits seems pathetic and desperate.

Obviously a norrow minded opinion from someone that has flooded this forum with similar opinions.

Let freedom ring!!!

R2B

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Islander

Winni passed a speed limit so the performance boats are going to take their ball and go home, or at least a lake with no speed limit, YET!

Poker Runs are not a race (ya, right!) However you only want to have them where you can "run hard".

I seriously doubt Poker Runs have been raising the kind of money you suggest. And Easter Seals is not a local charity, so have your charity event in Maine.

You can donate to a charity or not, that is your choice. Using your donations to fight speed limits seems pathetic and desperate.

Your first sentence about says it all to me. At leaste if nothing else you are being honest with us there. You now are admitting to the true cause for your passing the law. Rid the lake of the big bad dangerous GFBL boats.... The problem is we will not take our balls and go home, we are just going to go to other lakes for poker runs, them come back...

Poker runs are FAR from a race. I have done both. For one when you see waves coming in a poker run you can slow down, if you want to run with a friend you can, stop and enjoy the sites no problem. Sure some boats like one of my customers did at a recent poker run averaged 105 at a poker run in CT, but when he saw waves coming and on the rougher leg, he backed it off and took it easy at 50. When you are racing this is not an option. When you are racing you are pushing the limits of your boat and crew the entire time you are out there. This is a HUGE difference.

You can doubt all you want about how much high performance power boaters raise for charity, but the reality is that we do more for comunities that you all realize or we get credit for. For example the Emerald Coast Poker run has raised over 1 million for local childrens charities. Scope Poker run has raised hundreds of thousands out in California. I could go on and on. While Easter Seals is not located locally they have local branches and often times the money will stay locally from events that are in that area. Forget even the money side of it for a lot of the poker runs that I have gone on, kids from Make a Wish and other children charities are given rides.

We are not using our donations to fight the speed limit but it is an "unintended consequence" of what you all fought for. Don't shoot the messanger.... But please don't take my word for it, take a look at how happy the kids are in these photos http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slidesho...Uy=pnm0qr&Ux=0

[VtSteve]

I've heard a lot about Shore Dreams For Kids, sounds fantastic. The people that run that program are first rate, first class.

Here's the web site for those that would like to see. Nicely done.
http://www.shoredreamsforkids.org/pictures.html

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

We are not using our donations to fight the speed limit but it is an "unintended consequence" of what you all fought for.

It is only a consequence if the performance boaters chose to turn their backs on the charity, and make it a consequence. As I have pointed out, all it would take is some adapting and a high performance boating event could still be held on a lake that has a speed limit. And rides in performance boats do not have to take place at speeds over 45 mph.

I gave just a few example of paddling events that raise a LOT of money for charity. Sailors also raise a LOT of money for charieties. And there are walk-a-thons, and run-a-thons, bike-a-thons, and hike-a-thon that each raise many hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for charieties. And these are all non-motorized events. So please stop acting like performance boaters raise more money for charities than other groups - because that's just not true.

[B R]

you guys love the water, the beauty and the serenity kayaking brings.

let's say someone who held a charitable kayaking event on winni every year was told the event couldn't be held on the lake for some reason or another. the alternative was to hold the event in a really large pool in someones backyard. sure, you still want to be charitable but it's not a lot of fun paddling in a pool. now think of that kayak costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to own, another $1-200 to bring the boat to the lake and another $2-300 to run it for the day. do you really want to spend the time and money to paddle in a pool.

these guys trailer their boats to these events and when they drop them in the water, they want to have fun with them. and that fun may include going over 45 mph.

is the event coordinator going to spend money on a charitable event to have half the people show up or are they going to hold a more successful event in a more boater friendly lake?

and we haven't even heard from all the fishermen and their events. they may decide to hold those contests somewhere else also.

sometimes, you can't bake your cake and eat it to.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by B R

let's say someone who held a charitable kayaking event on winni every year was told the event couldn't be held on the lake for some reason or another. the alternative was to hold the event in a really large pool in someones backyard.

This is a really poor analogy, since you still get to boat on the exact same lake, and not a smaller body of water - you just have to go a bit slower.

these guys trailer their boats to these events and when they drop them in the water, they want to have fun with them. and that fun may include going over 45 mph.

A much better analogy would be kayaking on a cold, windy, rainy day - which is not nearly as much fun as paddling on a warm, sunny day. If I was truly trying to raise money for a charity, I wouldn't let a little bad weather stop me from paddling if doing so was raising funds. Would it be as much fun? No. But that would not be my main reason paddling.

is the event coordinator going to spend money on a charitable event to have half the people show up or are they going to hold a more successful event in a more boater friendly lake?

So you turn the poker run event into a race and get a permit to hold a race to raise money for the charity. Why is that so difficult?

and we haven't even heard from all the fishermen and their events. they may decide to hold those contests somewhere else also.

The final Bass Fishing event for NH was held at Squam a few years ago. I know because I was kayaking on the lake that day - and it was cold (low 40's) and windy and rainy - yet the guys were still out there competing - on a lake that has a 40 mph speed limit - in their expensive, high-performance bass boats. And the ones I talked to were having a great time.

sometimes, you can't bake your cake and eat it to.

And sometimes you can, if you're willing to adapt a bit.

[sa meredith]

Boy, oh boy, Evenstar...I think you do like the torture. You just keep jumping back in that ring! Do you eventually think you'll all just "agree to disagree" with this issue/issues.
And what makes it worse...you seem to be fighting off three or four foes at a time. Like a four on one. Most of the time, that's just not going to work out...

[fatlazyless]

"So you turn the poker run into a charitable race event and apply to the Marine Patrol for a permit."

That seems pretty reasonable. Why not go that route? Plus, by getting a special permit to go faster than the speed limit, it could draw a big following.

Just like those good old days of summer - 2008.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Boy, oh boy, Evenstar...I think you do like the torture. You just keep jumping back in that ring! Do you eventually think you'll all just "agree to disagree" with this issue/issues.
And what makes it worse...you seem to be fighting off three or four foes at a time. Like a four on one. Most of the time, that's just not going to work out...

I'll put my money on Evenstar, even at 8 to 1. She's the Kung Fu fighter of this forum. The opposition strikes with lightning speed, yet Evenstar handles each attack skillfully and gracefully, never hitting below the belt. Hiiiiiyaaaaa!

[Audiofn]

You must have missed the part that I posted earlier when I said if you are in a race your boat is NOT insured. Not likely that you are going to get many if any to show up and run their boat uninsured in this run you are all planning. A race also includes the need for a sanctioning body (apba, oss, opa). The costs are MUCH higher. Once you make it a race you will also need to take up the resources of the marine patrol and so on.....

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

You must have missed the part that I posted earlier when I said if you are in a race your boat is NOT insured. Not likely that you are going to get many if any to show up and run their boat uninsured in this run you are all planning. A race also includes the need for a sanctioning body (apba, oss, opa). The costs are MUCH higher. Once you make it a race you will also need to take up the resources of the marine patrol and so on.....

"Slow" people don't understand that a "race" puts you in an entirely different ballpark.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

You must have missed the part that I posted earlier when I said if you are in a race your boat is NOT insured. Not likely that you are going to get many if any to show up and run their boat uninsured in this run you are all planning. A race also includes the need for a sanctioning body (apba, oss, opa). The costs are MUCH higher. Once you make it a race you will also need to take up the resources of the marine patrol and so on.....

Again, this just requires your group's being willing to adapt. Races are held by boating groups all the time, so this is indeed possible.

The other choice is that you limit your speed at a poker run - since, according to you "Poker runs are NOT races" - so this is also possible.

Motorcycle groups have poker runs all the time to raise money for charities - while not exceeding road speed limits. They don't seem to feel that they can have a successful poker run only if they are allowed to run their bikes at top speed.

So, if the goal is truly to raise money for a charity, then your group should be more than willing to adapt enough to continue supporting the charity. If your goal is mostly just for your group to have fun - going at top speeds, then stop using the so-called loss of a charity event as an argument against a lake speed limit.

[VtSteve]

I'm not the kind of boater that engages in risky behavior or floating cocktail parties. I'd prefer is there were rational responses and community support to protect boater's rights, and preserve the safety factor. Most of the outcry and support for additional enforcement surprisingly comes from The GF crowd and organizations that sponsor poker runs and the like. I know this will offend some, and amaze others, but it's true. They don't want the bad rep due to some idiots that never seem to get caught.

What I can't seem to adapt to is the new age of reactionaries that don't understand the realities of boating. They rarely mention funding and additional enforcement. The reasoning behind this is their image of sedate waterways filled with (painting old stereotype here) cutesy boaters that take their kayaks off their Volvo wagons to paddle around the middle of the lake. We have enough ignorant fruit and nutters here that try to prevent additional slip space because they can't imagine what a lake with boats would end up like.

This is Al Gore's new boat, I'm sure it's very green. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gore-hi...new-houseboat/

[Audiofn]

Evenstar: Again I will adapt. I will go to other poker runs that will allow me to run my boat the way that I want. I am not particularly fond of anyone else telling me how to run my boat/life. So my solution.... go to another lake for poker runs. I am still raising money for charities, just not local to Winni. I can live with that. The local charities still loose and that is a shame.

Yes races are held by boating groups all the time. Sailboat groups, maybe even paddle groups. Refresh my memory when was the last time a race was run at the local level for offshore boats? You seem to have conveniently skipped over the part were I mentioned that if I am in a RACE then I have no INSURANCE! Now if I had paid 10,000.00 for a kayak (that must be getting up there for the most expensive kayaks) then I would not mind so much if I got some damage to the thing or even a total loss. These boats outdrives can cost over 40,000 each, steering costs 7,000 there is a LOT more to risk for us then some one in a kayak or sailboat. So to expect some one to come up for a fun day with their million dollar investment and tell them that there is going to be no insurance on their boat durring the "race".... not going to happen.

Yes we could limit our speed but then why do I have a boat that is capable of much higher speeds? I have it because I enjoy going fast. When I am in a poker run then I often times will run my boat as fast as it will go. Then I will back off and cruise next to a friend for a while. To be paced at 45... if I know that is going to happen then I will just go to another poker run that is not going to pace me. There are poker runs just about any weekend just pick one. The cost of getting to a place that is farther away is hardly a consideration as that will still be the cheapest part of the trip. Plus I can make it like a little vacations for me and the family.

Comparing motorcycles to offshore power boats is about the same as comparing offshore power boats to kayaks. Different animals all together, different type of owner, financial backgrounds, mind set.....

Today I can not get out to the big lake. Why because some bone head in a kayak got to close to the locks, lost control and went over the falls. Risked peoples lives that had to come save her and now we are all inconvenieced with closed locks for the weekend. So what should our reaction to this be? What new laws should we pass?

http://www.sunjournal.com/story/2774...er_from_locks/

Or how about this poor teacher? More people die in Kayaks each year then offshore power boats yet we are the ones that get regulated?

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...10kayaker.html

I just don't get it. Do you even know some one with a offshore power boat? Even ridden in one? When I say know I mean not some one that you met on a dock, I mean some one that you would call a close friend?

[Turtle Boy]

"I am still raising money for charities, just not local to Winni. I can live with that. The local charities still loose(sic) and that is a shame".

Audiofn...that's ridiculous. As I've said, charities are quite adept at finding ways to raise money, and when one door closes, another opens. And as Winni's reputation is perceived to be more friendly to the smaller boats, all kinds of new opportunities will arise. Glad you have so much money to lavish on a million dollar offshore boat, but that's where it belongs...off shore, and N.H. has some beautiful coastline. Our charities will adapt just fine.
As far as the bonehead kayaker that has ruined your weekend, don't forget that there have been no shortage of accidents caused by the GFBL's here.

[Audiofn]

[QUOTE=Turtle Boy;78640Audiofn...that's ridiculous. As I've said, charities are quite adept at finding ways to raise money, and when one door closes, another opens.QUOTE]

Carities are HURTING for donations this year and last. People that used to make donations can not afford to because they are paying for the increased cost of gas. The ones that are slightly above that fre are trying to pay for other costs that have increased on them so that they can stay in their house (raise in the interest rate on their arm loan...). Most, not all, that have the means to run a performance boat can still make donations. If you can afford to put 1000 dollars in gas into your boat to run it for the day then you can still make a donation. Simple fact. Take a look at the fallowing artical. If you google donations for the last few years you will see a sizable drop off for organizations. These people want to get their money were ever they can and organizations like Make a Wish look heavily to offshore events to raise money for them.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/141161

There have been a small number of accidents involving offshore boats, however, there have been many many many more that do not involve them!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Evenstar: Again I will adapt. I will go to other poker runs that will allow me to run my boat the way that I want. I am not particularly fond of anyone else telling me how to run my boat/life. So my solution.... go to another lake for poker runs. I am still raising money for charities, just not local to Winni. I can live with that. The local charities still loose and that is a shame.

Apparently your goal is your own personal enjoyment – so stop using the Easter Seals as an argument against the speed limit.

Yes races are held by boating groups all the time. Sailboat groups, maybe even paddle groups. Refresh my memory when was the last time a race was run at the local level for offshore boats? You seem to have conveniently skipped over the part were I mentioned that if I am in a RACE then I have no INSURANCE!

So are you trying to say that there are no races for offshore boats? If there are indeed races, then how is this possible, when insurance is not available?

Your unwillingness to be involved in at poker run, where you can’t exceed 45mph just further proves that your own personal enjoyment is more important than raising money for a charity.

Comparing motorcycles to offshore power boats is about the same as comparing offshore power boats to kayaks.

Ok, so give me one example of a kayak poker run. Motorcycle poker runs are very common – in fact, motorcycles were part of the Land and Lake Poker Run at Lake Winnipesaukee that you are claiming will no longer be able to raise money for the Easter Seals due to the lake speed limit: “Interested in doing something different this summer? Hop in your boat, personal watercraft, motorcycle, truck or car and join Easter Seals NH and the HK Powersports for the region's Land and Lake Poker Run at Lake Winnipesaukee Saturday, July 12.” http://www.jetski.com/article.cfm?id=813

Today I can not get out to the big lake. Why because some bone head in a kayak got to close to the locks, lost control and went over the falls. Risked peoples lives that had to come save her and now we are all inconvenieced with closed locks for the weekend. So what should our reaction to this be?

First of all, get the story straight - The locks were closed due to high water – the kayak accident just showed the danger.
“High Water Causes State to Close Songo Lock to Boaters - Posted on: Friday, 8 August 2008, 15:00 CDT - By Max Mogensen: AUGUSTA - Maine's Department of Conservation announced Thursday it is temporarily closing the Songo River Lock to all boat traffic due to unusually high water and dangerous current. The control gates on the lock, which raises and lowers the water level of the Songo River to allow boaters to go between Brandy Pond and Sebago Lake is being left open temporarily to prevent flooding. The decision comes a day after a vacationing kayaker, Carol Emmons, was rescued from the lock when her kayak tipped her into the cold, swift-moving current. Two deputies pulled her to safety with a rope. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...urce=r_science

More people die in Kayaks each year then offshore power boats yet we are the ones that get regulated?

You are not being singled out. A lake speed limit effects ALL powerboats that are capable of exceeding the speed limit. Kayakers are not a danger to powerboats – yet the opposite is not true.

I have been very open about my limited experience with powerboats – How much experience do you have with sea kayak?

[Audiofn]

I did get the story correct, the papers also said that the water was cold..... Hardly cold in the middle of August, even after the rain. Had she not almost gone over the falls the locks would still be open. The water is not higher today then it is in the spring when the locks are open.

My goal is enjoyment. If the poker runs were no fun then who would want to go? That is why they are so succesfull.

There are races for offshore boats, they are held by sanctioning bodies such as APBA, OPA, OSS. It is extreamly expensive to get them to show up. It would be like trying to get NASCAR to come and run at Oxford Planes, just not going to happen. We did race on the lake for 3 years. The sponsors ran out of money because the costs were so hight, and that was that. There is a big difference between my running a race boat in a race and me running my peasure boat in a race. Safty gear in a race boat is redundent for all people in the boat and on and on. The boat that I used to race is not even close to the expense that most people have in the boats that show up at poker runs.

You are not reading my posts accuratly. I am willing to go on a poker run that is limited to a certain speed, however if there is another poker run at another lake that does not have the speed limit that is were you will find me along with most of the other offshore boaters.

I have at leaste used a kayak to try and see what all the talk was about. I found it to be extreamly boring and not for me. There is nothing that I am doing that is preventing you from doing what you want, when you want on the lake. The speed limit limits my enjoyment. I bet if you ever took a ride then you would realize that all your feers are unfounded. We are not the people that you have to worry about it is the people that do not take boating seriously and don't pay attention when they are underway that are your biggest danger and most are traveling under 45.

I find it interesting that the MP's on most lakes will say that the offshore crowd tends to be the most knowledgable and saftest boaters on the lake as a whole. I have yet to see a offshore go past my dock at anything more then headway speed. I see other boats of all kinds going way over headway speed even almost on plane. We see people with their kids hanging their feet over the bow on the pontoon boat and on and on. Yet again we are being singled out.

At any rate I know that I am not going to change your minds I just wanted to add balance to the debate and this horse is dead.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

I did get the story correct, the papers also said that the water was cold..... Hardly cold in the middle of August, even after the rain. Had she not almost gone over the falls the locks would still be open. The water is not higher today then it is in the spring when the locks are open.

Did you even read the article I pointed to? You are trying to blame a kayaker for causing the situation, when she was apparently a victim of a dangerous condition, which was caused by the high water level.

This is a direct quote from the article: “The hand-operated lock used by thousands of boaters has become dangerous due to "high water levels in the Long Lake/Brandy Pond watershed area," according to the statement by the Department of Conservation.” . . . "Unusually heavy rainfall over the past few weeks" has contributed to "above flood stage water levels" in the lock, according to the report. High water levels have caused a stronger, more dangerous current and colder water. Those elements reportedly played a role in the incident Wednesday involving Emmons. The lock will resume normal operations when the water levels fall below flood level, the state noted.”

I have at leaste used a kayak to try and see what all the talk was about. I found it to be extreamly boring and not for me. There is nothing that I am doing that is preventing you from doing what you want, when you want on the lake. The speed limit limits my enjoyment.

And allowing power boats to travel on NH lakes at unlimited speeds limits the enjoyment of many other boaters. And I have experience in operating a powerboat.

I bet if you ever took a ride then you would realize that all your feers are unfounded.

My fears are based on what I have actually experienced on the lake – when high speed boats have violated my 150 foot zone – because they were traveling at unsafe speeds and did not even see our kayaks until the very last second. That is hardly “unfounded.”

I find it interesting that the MP's on most lakes will say that the offshore crowd tends to be the most knowledgable and saftest boaters on the lake as a whole. . . . Yet again we are being singled out.

Actually sea kayakers have one of the best safety records of all boaters.

How are you being singled out? You are not being discriminated against. ALL powerboats that can exceed 45 mph will be affected by the speed limit.

[BroadHopper]

Evenstar's favorite boater, Mr Family Boater, became a major bonehead Sunday around 3 PM. I was approaching the Hole-in-the-wall from the South watching a jetskier appraoching on my port and a Boston Whaler on my starboard. They were ahead of me so i idle down to allow them to line up in front of me. All of a sudden, Mr Family Boat in a 20' pontoon loaded with people came up from behind. This is a no wake and I was signaling to him to slow down. He ignored me and cut in front of me. He cut off the jetskier and the Boston Whaler. Miss the jetskier within inches. On the North side there were kids swimming and jumping off an inflatable trampoline. Mr Family boater motored by within a couple of feet! Then he took off rocking a nearby canoeist with his wake.

So the lake is safe with Mr Family Boater.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Evenstar's favorite boater, Mr Family Boater, became a major bonehead Sunday around 3 PM. I was approaching the Hole-in-the-wall from the South watching a jetskier appraoching on my port and a Boston Whaler on my starboard. They were ahead of me so i idle down to allow them to line up in front of me. All of a sudden, Mr Family Boat in a 20' pontoon loaded with people came up from behind. This is a no wake and I was signaling to him to slow down. He ignored me and cut in front of me. He cut off the jetskier and the Boston Whaler. Miss the jetskier within inches. On the North side there were kids swimming and jumping off an inflatable trampoline. Mr Family boater motored by within a couple of feet! Then he took off rocking a nearby canoeist with his wake.

So the lake is safe with Mr Family Boater.

NWZ, Multiple Violations

150' rule, Multiple Violations

Video cameras ought to be mandatory for anyone ****. Obviously, the do gooders and feel gooders aren't going to solve anything. I've seen enough dangerous boaters this summer to provide fulltime work for a fleet of MP's. These people need to be stopped, and I guess it's up to us to stop them. Sure, there are some idiots that are either drunk or just brazen idiots out there, some in GF boats as well.

Originally Posted by Chris333

We live on a small cove on the lake and have watched, over a period of 40 years, the change in attitudes and boating styles in the cove. Once people were careful and kept the wakes down. Now no one seems to care, they speed around in the cove pulling children on rafts and tubes and the wakes are destroying the shoreline at many of the cottages. The waves lap against the shore all day and we have lost our beach land even though we put up a rock wall to lessen the erosion. Further, there used to be canoers and kayakers and small sailboats in the cove; but they get swamped by the large boats. Should there be a "low wake zone" in the small coves where the erosion effect of the waves is so great???????

People that do that kind of thing in small coves are weenies, afraid of every ripple in the water, unless it's their own wake. I'll just bet most of them do it in someone else's cove, but go absolutely hooppy if people do it in front of their places.

As long as their are people masquerading around as do gooders that sit on their legislator's doorstep to lobby against a group they don't like, nothing will get done. Common sense in not to be expected. Right of way means nothing today, you have to assume everyone is an idiot and act accordingly.

People need to take matters into their own hands. No, I don't mean hostile confrontations on the water. Videos, interviews with TV crews. Take the TV crews out in your boat, have Captain Bonehead on the Nightly News. Show the world how silly and selfish groups tied up legislators with their silly speed limits and such, while daily danger exists, and is rarely mentioned. This is the approach I'm going to take.

It's time we stopped paying attention to people with kayak math, taking up time debating what the meaning of Too Fast is, and actually get people involved. Front and center on the TV could show Mr. idiot pontoon boater, PWC, and best of all, Mr. dangerous tuber. Perhaps we could get some shots of dark kayaks in the middle of the lake, and Mr. idiot stargazer in the middle of the lake with no lights, my personal favorite.

If the people want to be Truly Informed, let's do it to it.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Yet another GSBS (Go Slow, Be Stupid) in the news. Endangering the lives of several rescuers that had to get this idiot out of a jam. I hope he gets fined and gets his kayak taken away for good.

http://www.wmur.com/news/17152256/detail.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

All of a sudden, Mr Family Boat in a 20' pontoon loaded with people came up from behind. This is a no wake and I was signaling to him to slow down. He ignored me and cut in front of me. He cut off the jetskier and the Boston Whaler. Miss the jetskier within inches. On the North side there were kids swimming and jumping off an inflatable trampoline. Mr Family boater motored by within a couple of feet! Then he took off rocking a nearby canoeist with his wake.

So the lake is safe with Mr Family Boater.

BH, how fast was "Mr Family Boater" going? Blasting past everyone at the blistering speed of, oh, 25 mph??? I'm only asking because I was wondering if the upcoming speed limit would have made any difference! My initial guess is, no, it wouldn't!

So much for performance boats being the big problem on the lake!!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Evenstar's favorite boater, Mr Family Boater,

When did I ever state that this was my "favorite boater"???? My favorite boaters are obviously paddlers and sailers - NOT power boaters.

The speed limit will not solve all problems, because it only addresses speeds above 45 mph (daytime) and above 25 mph at night. But it will make the lake safer, by slowing down the fastest boats.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

When did I ever state that this was my "favorite boater"???? My favorite boaters are obviously paddlers and sailers - NOT power boaters.

The speed limit will not solve all problems, because it only addresses speeds above 45 mph (daytime) and above 25 mph at night. But it will make the lake safer, by slowing down the fastest boats.

The lake could easily be made safer, as could all waterways, by addressing the day to day reality of boating, especially on weekends. If people like you, that have apparently spent a great deal of time with the speed limit issue, could see the end of your noses, safety would be addressed. Pragmatic behavior is not the strong suit of the speed limit crowd. But in their defense, I can see how their false message of safety lured in the naive, while their true agenda went unnoticed. They're happy for now, and the lemmings continue to follow on the same course.

If you guys spent half the time promoting increased enforcement of existing laws, promoted additional funding, etc..., you'd have some credibility. Day in and day out, real boaters (including the GFBL boating groups), have actively promoted enforcement to no avail. While every couch potato idiot in every state cries for speed limit laws after every accident, the one thing that becomes abundantly clear is they don't know safety from a ham sandwich.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The lake could easily be made safer, as could all waterways, by addressing the day to day reality of boating, especially on weekends. If people like you, that have apparently spent a great deal of time with the speed limit issue, could see the end of your noses, safety would be addressed. Pragmatic behavior is not the strong suit of the speed limit crowd. But in their defense, I can see how their false message of safety lured in the naive, while their true agenda went unnoticed. They're happy for now, and the lemmings continue to follow on the same course.

If you guys spent half the time promoting increased enforcement of existing laws, promoted additional funding, etc..., you'd have some credibility. Day in and day out, real boaters (including the GFBL boating groups), have actively promoted enforcement to no avail. While every couch potato idiot in every state cries for speed limit laws after every accident, the one thing that becomes abundantly clear is they don't know safety from a ham sandwich.

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!"

[VtSteve]

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!"

No BI, I think we're well aware of that by now I think I addressed that subtly in my Lemmings comment. Perhaps the media should publish an article about The Speed Limit, Their Real Intentions., just to make the lemmings feel pretty silly (assuming they even get it).

The joke's on them not you BI.

I assume that the next paddler run over by a pontoon boat going 20 mph will have an enraged public promoting a lowering of the daytime speed limit to 15 mph. Those people clearly don't get it BI. I understand your concerns, and respect them, as I think I pointed out some time ago. I should figure out a way to properly target the intended audience. Tactfully, of course

[Rose]

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.

Who is "We?"

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The speed limit will not solve all problems, because it only addresses speeds above 45 mph (daytime) and above 25 mph at night. But it will make the lake safer, by slowing down the fastest boats.

Obviously, to some of you, it is about safety. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what some of your fellow speed limit proponents are saying.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Rose

Who is "We?"



Obviously, to some of you, it is about safety. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what some of your fellow speed limit proponents are saying.

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.

[Pineedles]

BI,
I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

[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

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

What are people supposed to think when one of the largest groups who lobbied for passage of this bill contains the word "safety" in their acronym?

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

BI,
I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

Or at least pass legislation that in their heads will keep this unwanted element off their lake. Because "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." (WINNFABS website) They don't like GFBL boats and want them gone. And if their plan works then they will move on to the next undesirable boat Cruisers, and then PWC, and then the Mount Washington, Sophie C, and Doris E. And then all motorized boats. Soon their will only be sail boats, canoes, rowboats, swimmers, and kayaks. After that they will have to limit sailboats because some of those are too big, and catamarans are too fast. Then we will have quiet lake, and everyone will be happy and not so stressed.

[KonaChick]

With the smokescreen of "safety for families" on the lake will anyone believe or support Winfabbs once they propose and support more legislation to get rid of boats with a certain HP? Have they bitten off their noses to spite their faces? These questions will be answered soon enough apparently.

[Resident 2B]

Parrothead,

You nailed it!

That is what they are all about.

Safety was the smoke screen. The lake will not be measureably safer with this law.

They had no intention of dealing with the real issues directly related to safety.

Their actions are un-American in my eyes, using false information and planning a false effort to interfere with the rights of others. But, they bought a study/survey and they lobbied better than the opposition.

Cruisers are next on their hit list, then HP limits.

Wake up (no pun intended) cruiser folks . You are next on their list.

R2B

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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...

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

BI,
I don't kayak and don't have a boat that goes over 45 nor do I go out at night in a boat but what is the reason for the speed limit?

Perhaps if you did kayak out on the main lake, you would better understand why a speed limit is necessary. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats.

Originally Posted by 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 know and have met many paddlers who are afraid to paddle on Winni. And all the paddlers I know, who feel that the lake is dangerous for paddlers, arrived at this conclusion based on their own personal experience on the lake (based on my conservations with them). For all these people, a lake speed limit is a safety issue. And I thingk that the majority of NH residents who support the lake speed limit, see it as only a safety issue.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.