more expert testimony on SB-27

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord: [/CENTER]

3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response.

Our peaceable boaters are not getting empathy.



Our Speed Limit comes with a points system.

#1 your opinion sorry I and I'm sure many others don't share.
#2 his opinion I promise I won't take a fast boat to concord
#3 put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference
#4 by the way I am a passenger on 93 south as I type and wait isn't there a speed limit...... with a point system that must be why everyone is going 55

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

...put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference...

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

......The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanket statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanked statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

I think we should do a poker run with APS and BI's places as waypoints. Maybe even have a swim call/rafting party out there as well!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

[Woodsy]

I think there should be.... get this.... a COMPROMISE!

IMHO, all of the FATAL accidents have occured at NIGHT and ALCOHOL was involved! In EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT there was a violation of the COLREGS! EVERY SINGLE ONE! It can be argued that all accidents are violations of the COLREGS. But in the last 2 accidents, both accidents occured at NIGHT, several of the COLREGS were violated, quite possibly some BWI laws as well. Niether of the last 2 accidents occured over the current night time speed limit of 30 MPH.... however they were both grossly in violation of Rule 6, namely too fast for the conditions at the time of the accident and failure to keep a proper lookout. Add in booze and you have recipe for disaster. No speed limit would have prevented these accidents from occuring!

I personally think a COMPROMISE is in order! I get that there are extremeists on either side, but I think there can be middle ground!

I propose the adoption of the COLREGS, an unlimited DAYTIME limit (when visibility can be measured in MILES) and keep the current night time limit of 30 MPH.

My logic is this, we have had NO hi-speed collisions during the daytime. The reason being visibilty is measured in miles, and we have the 150' rule! That rule does more to prevent accidents than many people realize!

Most of the major accidents occur at night, and usually alcohol is involved. Given the inherent lack of depth perception at night, lower visibilty, and increased possibility of intoxicated skippers... I think the current night time limit of 30 MPH is appropriate!

Woodsy

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.

But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.

And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.

The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

Testimony before a legislative committee, by a professional accident investigator, is not "forum chatter".

For a third time I will point out that it is not by duty to educate the anti-SL side about accident data. You want me to do all the leg work and post it here so you can pick it apart and come up with reasons why it is not relevant.

My point is that you need to educate yourself about the facts BEFORE you start making blanket statements about the history of boat accidents on Winnipesaukee.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.


Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

really I should do my research....... who was decapitated on lake winni and when did related to speed become high speed ......you believe your opinion to be fact and all else as garbage so why don't we stick to winni issues and stop drawing photos and stories from all over the world into this .......... I just want you to give me an example of your claimed many high speed accidents from this lake

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

It's unbelievable how people can equate "high speed accidents" with accidents "attributed to speed".

[fatlazyless]

Here's my 2-cents. After this bill gets voted down in the legislative process, the 'Safe Boaters of New Hampshire' should rename themselves the 'Speedy Boaters of New Hampshire' to be honest.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Here's my 2-cents. After this bill gets voted down in the legislative process, the 'Safe Boaters of New Hampshire' should rename themselves the 'Speedy Boaters of New Hampshire' to be honest.

I'm a member and I don't have a fast boat. I bet I'm in the majority in that regard within SBONH.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I'm a member and I don't have a fast boat. I bet I'm in the majority in that regard within SBONH.

To a casual observer, the SBONH's preliminary efforts just seemed like window dressing that was a lead-up to their #1 true intent of repealing the boat speed limits.

[Woodsy]

Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge!

I have no problem with a nighttime limit because thats when ALL of the accidents cited by WINNFABS have occured!

I have a problem with a daytime limit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA WHATSOEVER to show that its necessary! No accidents! No anything! Just anecdotal stories about how the guy went by me too close and too fast! We all have stories like that! Because I like to putt around the lake, I have stories like that involving every kind of boat!

We need to find a compromise that we can all live with so we can put this issue to rest once and for all! The divisiveness on the lake is acidic!

Woodsy

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge!

I have no problem with a nighttime limit because thats when ALL of the accidents cited by WINNFABS have occured!

I have a problem with a daytime limit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA WHATSOEVER to show that its necessary! No accidents! No anything! Just anecdotal stories about how the guy went by me too close and too fast! We all have stories like that! Because I like to putt around the lake, I have stories like that involving every kind of boat!

We need to find a compromise that we can all live with so we can put this issue to rest once and for all! The divisiveness on the lake is acidic!

Woodsy

Woodsy, my guess is that without a compromise the SL debate and future bills we keep coming up if the isn't compromise. I give credit to the SL propoents in getting it too pass as I'm surprised that a compromise wasn't demanded by the legislature. However, the opposition will continue to be fierce with the current law IMO so compromise now or with a different legislator the results could be drastically different later.

I don't have a dog in the fight for night time limits. As far as day limits, I simply look at the 150 ft rule as already being very agressive. 150 ft is a long way and I encourage anyone to go measure it out on their property and see how far away it is.

I've said it over and over, the speed limit itself won't make any difference on the lake except for a dozen or so who happen to get tickets. Making everyday bowriders into lawbreakers doesn't sit well with me.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge.
Woodsy

Lake Winnipesaukee already has a no-limit speed zone.....and it is named Lake Winnisquam......go figure?

The waters of Lake Winnipesaukee run downstream for about two miles and pour into Lake Winnisquam. Lake Winnisquam is the state's third largest lake and has a lot fewer rocks than Winnipesaukee for boaters to tear up their props. Winnisquam has a no-fee, free to anyone, state boat launch facility complete with a double launch ramp, a big dock, parking for vehicle and trailer, and a toilet. All paid with money from boat registrations, and free to use by anyone. Lake Winnipesaukee does not have a similar state boat launch. It used to have Ames Farm Inn for a popular boat launch, day use spot, but not anymore.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Lake Winnipesaukee already has a no-limit speed zone.....and it is named Lake Winnisquam......go figure?

So maybe this shows that people are more prudent and want to go faster on the states LARGEST lake. Just sayin'

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I eagerly joined SBONH but was never interested in having any involvement with NHRBA. In hindsight, I think I chose well...

NHRBA had two years of safe-boating before "hindsight" went from zero to national headlines.

SBONH has less than one year from which any "hindsight" can be determined.

The Lake holds its breath.

__________________

[fatlazyless]

Today's February 18 www.laconiadailysun.com has a page 5 letter to the editor from the N H Camp Director's Association that strongly supports the 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee and is a well written and intelligent letter.

The local newspapers have had quite a number of speed limits letters of late from a variety of people.

I know that Massachusetts has a state-wide boat speed limit of either 40 or 45, but here in NH the speed limit has been a lake-by-lake decision driven by local people. So, if Lake Winnisquam, the state's 3rd largest lake, wants a speed limit similar to Squam or Winnipesaukee, it would have to be locally putt-putt-putted.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's February 18 www.laconiadailysun.com has a page 5 letter to the editor from the N H Camp Director's Association that strongly supports the 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee and is a well written and intelligent letter.

The local newspapers have had quite a number of speed limits letters of late from a variety of people.

I know that Massachusetts has a state-wide boat speed limit of either 40 or 45, but here in NH the speed limit has been a lake-by-lake decision driven by local people. So, if Lake Winnisquam, the state's 3rd largest lake, wants a speed limit similar to Squam or Winnipesaukee, it would have to be locally putt-putt-putted.

Well written and intelligent? I beg to differ. "Our camps are protective cocoons for their positive skills, experiences and memories." Really? Is it beneficial to keep kids in cocoons instead of letting them experience the real world in a positive light. These camps are using scare tactics to promote support for the speed limit - nothing more. The kids are pawns and the camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash. Keep digging the hole...you'll soon be to China.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Well written and intelligent? I beg to differ. "Our camps are protective cocoons for their positive skills, experiences and memories." Really? Is it beneficial to keep kids in cocoons instead of letting them experience the real world in a positive light. These camps are using scare tactics to promote support for the speed limit - nothing more. The kids are pawns and the camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash. Keep digging the hole...you'll soon be to China.

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.

You take one comment out of context and criticize it. They use their campers as "pawns" and "camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash". Then in the next post you wonder why speed limit supporters are unwilling to talk compromise.

Funny how you never want to talk compromise when you think you have the votes in the legislature.

Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.
....
Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

That's 180 camps in NH, not on Winnipesaukee. I'm also curious how many of those camps aren't even on water. My daughter spent a couple summers at horse camps and the only water was swimming pools. So let's agree that number is not germaine to the issues at hand with a Lake Winnipesaukee speed limit.

How many active summer camps are on Winnipesaukee? The obvious one's I know of. The camp directors are using a blanket statement so what applies to one lake doesn't apply to another.
Most activities I see from the camps are very near where the camps are located which makes sense for safety. The stay close to the camps not because of boats but to allow for greater supervision. Period.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.

You take one comment out of context and criticize it. They use their campers as "pawns" and "camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash". Then in the next post you wonder why speed limit supporters are unwilling to talk compromise.

Funny how you never want to talk compromise when you think you have the votes in the legislature.

Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

Ironic that YOU are complaining about someone taking comments out of context. It is your trademark to do such. You invariably attempt to spin your way around a debate by using the same lame and transparent tactic. You infer that it's a fact that 180 camp directors know what's best for the boating public on Winni then complain that somone else takes a comment or fact out of context and posts it to support their argument?



Your agenda is really becoming transparent.

[lawn psycho]

Yankee, what is disgusting is how BI and other SL supporters are willing to distort and mislead to obtain their objective. We should get collections of signatures at the sand bars and popular swimming holes to start taking back the lake!

I have a good way to combat this but will reveal it only after the testimony is completed.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.

You take one comment out of context and criticize it. They use their campers as "pawns" and "camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash". Then in the next post you wonder why speed limit supporters are unwilling to talk compromise.

Funny how you never want to talk compromise when you think you have the votes in the legislature.

Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

A typical knee-jerk reaction: "Comments taken out of context". I'm all for compromise but you guys want it your way and only your way. This lake is big enough for everyone to enjoy as they wish, but the camps, kayakers, sailboaters and other bands of elitists have pushed this way over the edge - again, under the auspices of "safety". That's the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

A typical knee-jerk reaction: "Comments taken out of context". I'm all for compromise but you guys want it your way and only your way. This lake is big enough for everyone to enjoy as they wish, but the camps, kayakers, sailboaters and other bands of elitists have pushed this way over the edge - again, under the auspices of "safety". That's the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

I have been pushing for a compromise for years. That was back when the watchword on the anti-SL side was "NO LIMITS". Kind of hard to compromise with that. But I tried, check out this post from more than three years ago. And there are lots more.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62946

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been pushing for a compromise for years. That was back when the watchword on the anti-SL side was "NO LIMITS". Kind of hard to compromise with that. But I tried, check out this post from more than three years ago. And there are lots more.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62946

I'm not for speed limits in the broads, but I do have to side with BI on this one. He was for a compromise back when and "NO LIMITS" was the battle cry! I was going to mention this a while back when the "compromise" conversation came back into play, but decided to stay out this for a while.

[lawn psycho]

Does anyone have the data showing the speeds that tickets were issued by MP for 2010?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge!

I have no problem with a nighttime limit because thats when ALL of the accidents cited by WINNFABS have occured!

I have a problem with a daytime limit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA WHATSOEVER to show that its necessary! No accidents! No anything! Just anecdotal stories about how the guy went by me too close and too fast! We all have stories like that! Because I like to putt around the lake, I have stories like that involving every kind of boat!

We need to find a compromise that we can all live with so we can put this issue to rest once and for all! The divisiveness on the lake is acidic!

Woodsy

Here's a compromise proposal: How about modifying the safe passage law? (You know, the law that's already on the books requiring 150' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc., when said boat is traveling more than headway speed.) Let's modify this law to state that any boat going over 45mph (this seems to be the trigger point according to speed limit supporters) be required to double the current 150' buffer and maintain a 300' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc. This is a distance of a football field and should be a welcome compromise from both sides. What say you speed limit supporters? Are you willing to consider this compromise or is it all or nothing for you? Let's hear it.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Here's a compromise proposal: How about modifying the safe passage law? (You know, the law that's already on the books requiring 150' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc., when said boat is traveling more than headway speed.) Let's modify this law to state that any boat going over 45mph (this seems to be the trigger point according to speed limit supporters) be required to double the current 150' buffer and maintain a 300' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc. This is a distance of a football field and should be a welcome compromise from both sides. What say you speed limit supporters? Are you willing to consider this compromise or is it all or nothing for you? Let's hear it.

I don't want my everyday middle of the road bowrider to be limited to 45 MPH and turn a majority of the boats on the lake into law breakers. 45 MPH is too slow.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

To a casual observer, the SBONH's preliminary efforts just seemed like window dressing that was a lead-up to their #1 true intent of repealing the boat speed limits.

Here's what's on the SBONH home page:

"This group is dedicated to discussing safe power boating and recreational activities on Lake Winnipesaukee and the other inland lakes of the Lakes Region in NH. We work together to help shape legislation that affects our freedoms and enjoyment of the lakes."

Clearly, SBONH is involved in SB-27, I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that.

The casual observer can also note the SBONH has also been involved with US Power Squadron Safety Inspections prior to endorsing SB-27. Those safety inspections have nothing to do with speed limits and amount to more than just "window dressing", IMO.

FWIW, I eagerly joined SBONH but was never interested in having any involvement with NHRBA. In hindsight, I think I chose well...

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I'm a member and I don't have a fast boat. I bet I'm in the majority in that regard within SBONH.

Dave,

I am an officer (VP) of SBONH and own an old Chris Craft bowrider that can maybe break the daytime SL by 1 MPH. Branding us as cowboys makes for better vitriol.

John

[lawn psycho]

Anglers in the Broads? Yeah that's where they all shoot too during the fishing derby's isn't it?

So a SL would have prevented the Blizzard collision?

I'm glad to see the SL supporters are worried. Maybe I should ask to be a part of the WinnFabs team so I can toy with them

[AllAbourdon]

Originally Posted by ronc4424

More and more families, kayakers, rowers, and slower family boaters have been sharing the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee safely, enjoyably and without any high speed accidents!

Why do I keep seeing this being said? What substantiates this claim?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by AllAbourdon

Why do I keep seeing this being said? What substantiates this claim?

Nothing substantiates this claim whatsoever. Just the liberal, self serving, selfish agenda of WinnFabs. Screw everyone else under the phony guise of "safety". Compromise? Hell no. They want it all, their way - period. The broads are for sailboats and kayaks...not powerboats.

Anyway, my signature says it all:

[BroadHopper]

Who are the experts? Names please?

[jarhead0341]

I think this might be a bit of sarcasm