Todays article on SB-27....2/23/11

[ronc4424]

Compromise spurned by boat speed limit supporters

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...893/-1/CITNEWS

[fatlazyless]

Without a speed limit, then what would be the outer limits? There have been some very super-duper, hi-speed, big big money boats roaring around out there in years past.

It just seems like the racing boats have a big following of fans and deserve a venue on the lake.

As I've mentioned before, how about one 10-mile stretch of the lake open to racing every Sunday morning but just from 8-am to noon, for only FOUR HOURS, and that could become a go-to venue for fast boaters and spectators in smaller boats. Most days, the lake is the most calm in the mornings, and that would be the best time suitable for high speed motor-boating.


Just picture this......"Ladies & Gentlemen, the time is now 8-am so it is time to start your engines......budda-boom-boom-boom-rrrrrrrr-zzzzzz......the smell of two-stroke oil.....and the whiney buzz of a two-stroke, turning round & round..... at 6000-rpm ....... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!"




Sounds pretty good when taken in small doses....don't it! Four hours out of the whole week would be a nice compromise.....what the heck....let the lake go speed-noise-crazy on Sunday morning for a FAST FOUR HOURS when most everyone is either asleep or at church or too hung-over and won't even notice it.

If that don't make sense to you, then how's about for just three hours, say, from 9-am to noon? It could be a very fast, fun, three hour go-to venue for racers and spectators. Just imagine sitting off by the side of the track, out on the broads nears Steamboat Island someplace, and watching a blurr of speed, color and noise roar down onto your little area from 8-miles away......way up in Wolfeboro...... rooster tails seen through the 12 x 50 binocs that get closer and closer.......zooooooooooooooom! Big fast boats have been roaring up and down the lake since the 1930's so it's a well established Lake Winni tradition! Setting up a time slot from 8-am to noon....would give it a time, place and home for both the big speed boats and the big speed boat fans......rrrrrrrrrrrrrzzzzzzzz! Lots of folks would probably just like to be spectators, and set out on the water and spectate the fast boats....just like down at the Nascar track.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Without a speed limit, then what would be the outer limits? There have been some very super-duper, hi-speed, big big money boats roaring around out there in years past.

It just seems like the racing boats have a big following of fans and deserve a venue on the lake.

As I've mentioned before, how about one 10-mile stretch of the lake open to racing every Sunday morning but just from 8-am to noon, for only FOUR HOURS, and that could become a go-to venue for fast boaters and spectators in smaller boats. Most days, the lake is the most calm in the mornings, and that would be the best time suitable for high speed motor-boating.


Just picture this......"Ladies & Gentlemen, the time is now 8-am so it is time to start your engines......budda-boom-boom-boom-rrrrrrrr-zzzzzz......the smell of two-stroke oil.....and the whiney buzz of a two-stroke, turning round & round..... at 6000-rpm ....... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!"




Sounds pretty good when taken in small doses....don't it! Four hours out of the whole week would be a nice compromise.....what the heck....let the lake go speed-noise-crazy on Sunday morning for a FAST FOUR HOURS when most everyone is either asleep or at church or too hung-over and won't even notice it.

If that don't make sense to you, then how's about for just three hours, say, from 9-am to noon? It could be a very fast, fun, three hour go-to venue for racers and spectators. Just imagine sitting off by the side of the track, out on the broads nears Steamboat Island someplace, and watching a blurr of speed, color and noise roar down onto your little area from 8-miles away......way up in Wolfeboro...... rooster tails seen through the 12 x 50 binocs that get closer and closer.......zooooooooooooooom! Big fast boats have been roaring up and down the lake since the 1930's so it's a well established Lake Winni tradition! Setting up a time slot from 8-am to noon....would give it a time, place and home for both the big speed boats and the big speed boat fans......rrrrrrrrrrrrrzzzzzzzz! Lots of folks would probably just like to be spectators, and set out on the water and spectate the fast boats....just like down at the Nascar track.

By golly FLL I think you're onto something. No 150 ft rule, no speed limit, just Zoooooooooooooom!!!

Just like this:

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by ronc4424

Compromise spurned by boat speed limit supporters

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...893/-1/CITNEWS

I see compromise as the only way. A blanket 45 MPH speed limit I don't see sticking without an almost annual fight to repeal it. If it's repealed in the Broads the NHMP or the State of NH had better clearly define and mark the "legal" zones.

Warren Hutchins alludes to safety but doesn't offer any data showing that the SL improves safety. If they had even the slightest proof they would be jumping up and down on it.

I have a picture from last July in which I was taking my boat from Center Harbor all the way to Alton. Boat had just been emptied of cooler and everyhing on board as my wife was driving the truck around the lake. With just me on board I was able to go WOT. Awesome morning and lake was like glass. Fastest my boat has ever gone and was using GPS to measure.

Here's an image I shot. Can someone please tell me how "dangerous" this was (hint: sarcasm)?

[Dhuberty24]

For people who have big boats and who want to go really fast, "the ocean's not that far away," said Hutchins

Or how about if you want an "On Golden Pond" look, squam is only half hour away. Plenty of people there to complain with.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Dhuberty24

For people who have big boats and who want to go really fast, "the ocean's not that far away," said Hutchins

Or how about if you want an "On Golden Pond" look, squam is only half hour away. Plenty of people there to complain with.

What if New Hampshire were in the central part of the USA versus on the coast? Then they couldn't use the argument that "the ocean's not that far away". What then?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I see compromise as the only way. A blanket 45 MPH speed limit I don't see sticking without an almost annual fight to repeal it. If it's repealed in the Broads the NHMP or the State of NH had better clearly define and mark the "legal" zones.

Warren Hutchins alludes to safety but doesn't offer any data showing that the SL improves safety. If they had even the slightest proof they would be jumping up and down on it.

I have a picture from last July in which I was taking my boat from Center Harbor all the way to Alton. Boat had just been emptied of cooler and everyhing on board as my wife was driving the truck around the lake. With just me on board I was able to go WOT. Awesome morning and lake was like glass. Fastest my boat has ever gone and was using GPS to measure.

Here's an image I shot. Can someone please tell me how "dangerous" this was (hint: sarcasm)?

Oh come on now! You can't see that GIANT SHIP heading toward you? Oh the horror - you MUST be going too fast! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Oh come on now! You can't see that GIANT SHIP heading toward you? Oh the horror - you MUST be going too fast!

Where has your empathy disappeared to?

It's not the giant ships who are frightened of you...

—it's the little ones!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Where has your empathy disappeared to?

It's not the giant ships who are frightened of you...

—it's the little ones!

Sorry APS. You missed the "Tongue-in-Cheek" subliminal message.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Without a speed limit, then what would be the outer limits?

Please enlighten the Winni.com membership as to which part of this statement that you do not understand:

"every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and with regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

I am willing to assist you with your comprehension skills.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It just seems like the racing boats have a big following of fans and deserve a venue on the lake....Four hours out of the whole week would be a nice compromise.....what the heck....let the lake go speed-noise-crazy on Sunday morning for a FAST FOUR HOURS when most everyone is either asleep or at church or too hung-over and won't even notice it....... rooster tails seen through the 12 x 50 binocs that get closer and closer.......zooooooooooooooom! Big fast boats have been roaring up and down the lake since the 1930's so it's a well established Lake Winni tradition! Setting up a time slot from 8-am to noon....would give it a time, place and home for both the big speed boats and the big speed boat fans......rrrrrrrrrrrrrzzzzzzzz! Lots of folks would probably just like to be spectators, and set out on the water and spectate the fast boats....just like down at the Nascar track.

There's a natural ocean channel along the coastline of France, where wind-surfing records of over 50-MPH are regularly set. It has the triple advantage of:

1) strong winds and

2) relatively shallow water that

3) is shielded from the heavy surf that would ordinarily make it too choppy to set records for any wind-powered vessels.

Windsurfers from around the world try to set their "personal best speeds" in that very channel. (Another similar venue lies in far-away Australia).

Although it's proven extremely deadly to innocents, passengers and "drivers", the fastest boat speeds are recorded in man-made canals. With funds from the NMMA, a man-made canal could be constructed out of "The Witches", then advertise it world-wide for speed attempts.

Extreme boats could launch in Lake Winnipesaukee to set their own personal record—at any time of their choosing. "Extreme" boaters could enter The Witches Canal at a legal speed—and then "let-er-rip".

As before, "Extreme boaters" can carry alcohol on board—but be certain to obey the rule that takes into account your closing speeds of three miles every minute! The only rule would need to be: "One-Way-Only"!

Spectators lining The Witches Canal would bring the usual benefits to the local economy, while such a conversion would enlighten everybody to the boating hazard that was formerly "The Witches".

Another advantage to Lake Winnipesaukee: "Extreme" boaters wouldn't get their boats possibly smudged by having to use them in the open ocean!

Originally Posted by Yankee

Please enlighten the Winni.com membership as to which part of this statement that you do not understand:

"every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and with regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

I've been subjected to all the regulations in "Rule 6"; however, I consider "Rule 5" far more important on a lake with 253 islands. (We forget that deadly Diamond Island borders the Broads).

But to answer your questions, all boaters in compliance with "Rule 6"will be able to avoid the shrimping fleets in the Broads!

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here's an image I shot. Can someone please tell me how "dangerous" this was (hint: sarcasm)?

It's hard to say from that very instant; but with "special-thanks" to Dave R, a few seconds later, it might appear like this...

[fatlazyless]

"Without a speed limit, then what would be the outer limits?" (fatlazyless)

Originally Posted by Yankee

Please enlighten the Winni.com membership as to which part of this statement that you do not understand:

The outer limits I had in mind is a super-duper race boat named the Outer Limits that is pretty much fun to watch from a safe distance when in another boat, and sharing the water, as it roars past your little space. It's size, speed, noise, color, and overall energy is really something to see. WHATTA BOAT......the Outer Limits which used to be docked over at the Naswa.

Some boats like the Outer Limits and the Summa Humma are what one could expect to see in an Arnold Schwarzeneger, action super-hero movie, and it would be a shame to totally legislate these super boats totally off the lake. Hopefully, a small compromise can be made such as Sundays from 8-am to noon for a no-limits, race zone for the go-fasts and their spectator fans.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"Without a speed limit, then what would be the outer limits?" (fatlazyless)



The outer limits I had in mind is a super-duper race boat named the Outer Limits that is pretty much fun to watch from a safe distance when in another boat, and sharing the water, as it roars past your little space. It's size, speed, noise, color, and overall energy is really something to see. WHATTA BOAT......the Outer Limits which used to be docked over at the Naswa.

Some boats like the Outer Limits and the Summa Humma are what one could expect to see in an Arnold Schwarzeneger, action super-hero movie, and it would be a shame to totally legislate these super boats totally off the lake. Hopefully, a small compromise can be made such as Sundays from 8-am to noon for a no-limits, race zone for the go-fasts and their spectator fans.

"The impressive Outerlimits SV 52, had successful sea trials on Lake Winnipesaukee. It's powered by Whipple Supercharged Chief 1200's, has a five-step hull and reportedly hit speeds in the mid-130's on it's first time in the water. The manufacturer says the most impressive characteristic, aside from the acceleration, is the boat's ability to crush the waves. We believe it.

Of course, those kind of speeds from a 50'+ boat are very impressive; apparently this one will not be straying too far from home, the builder indicates the first SV 52 will be spending the summers on Lake Winni in New Hampshire."

I don't see any reason to band this type of boat as long as the driver uses "reasonable and prudent" speed (or something like that).

Just look at this beast...isn't it beautiful:

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Although it's proven extremely deadly to innocents, passengers and "drivers", the fastest boat speeds are recorded in man-made canals. With funds from the NMMA, a man-made canal could be constructed out of "The Witches", then advertise it world-wide for speed attempts.

Extreme boats could launch in Lake Winnipesaukee to set their own personal record—at any time of their choosing. "Extreme" boaters could enter The Witches Canal at a legal speed—and then "let-er-rip".

As before, "Extreme boaters" can carry alcohol on board—but be certain to obey the rule that takes into account your closing speeds of three miles every minute! The only rule would need to be: "One-Way-Only"!

Spectators lining The Witches Canal would bring the usual benefits to the local economy, while such a conversion would enlighten everybody to the boating hazard that was formerly "The Witches".

Another advantage to Lake Winnipesaukee: "Extreme" boaters wouldn't get their boats possibly smudged by having to use them in the open ocean!


I've been subjected to all the regulations in "Rule 6"; however, I consider "Rule 5" far more important on a lake with 253 islands. (We forget that deadly Diamond Island borders the Broads).

But to answer your questions, all boaters in compliance with "Rule 6"will be able to avoid the shrimping fleets in the Broads!

There is no way that you are even being remotely serious with any of this.
Yeah, I am sure the witches are going to be dredged to make a canal. Right.

Oh, and once again I will ask you (although I know you won't answer):
What is wrong, illegal, unethical or morally unacceptable about carrying alcohol on one's boat?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

There is no way that you are even being remotely serious with any of this. Yeah, I am sure the witches are going to be dredged to make a canal. Right.

Nobody mentioned "dredge".

Over the ice, it would be sufficient to truck the necessary boulders and gravel to build it shallow enough for the record speeds that would result. To create a straight course, boulders would require "popping".

Outside of the canal—where it is shallow enough—rafting could be encouraged along both sides. (Where it is deep, a few mooring balls could be installed for spectators).

Sponsored by private donors—in coöperation with the State—think of it as a watery equivalent to the former NHIS.

All the time, money and effort that went into arguing SB27 could've been expended in The Witches Canal venture with all the above rewards to all boaters.

Who could complain?

While there is always great risk with these risk-takers, The Witches Canal could become a Mecca for those seeking extreme speeds without resorting to those other concrete-sided canals where those extreme speeds are sought—with disastrous results to peaceable boaters, the speedsters themselves and even the houses that line those canals.

A single, six-fatality, collision once occurred within such a canal.

Because New Hampshire's peaceable boaters—and our lake's unrepentant speedsters both win—think of this as a "Win-Win" proposal.

Originally Posted by chipj29

Oh, and once again I will ask you (although I know you won't answer): What is wrong, illegal, unethical or morally unacceptable about carrying alcohol on one's boat?

This is a difficult question to answer, but here's an admittedly "oblique try".

1) The transport of three liters of Vodka—plus an unknown quantity of beer—was only discovered in the aftermath of a boat collision with one of Winnipesaukee's 253 islands—an island that was tragically encountered directly in the center of Lake Winnipesaukee.

2) While that "transport" was not technically illegal, every experienced Captain is responsible for their boat, passengers and crew—so, viewed in the bright light of Rule 5—how can it be viewed as otherwise than "wrong, unethical, and morally unacceptable".

How'd I do?

[alsadad]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second;This is a difficult question to answer, but here's an admittedly "[I

oblique [/I]try".

1) The transport of three liters of Vodka—plus an unknown quantity of beer—was only discovered in the aftermath of a boat collision with one of Winnipesaukee's 253 islands—an island that was tragically encountered directly in the center of Lake Winnipesaukee.

2) While that "transport" was not technically illegal, every experienced Captain is responsible for their boat, passengers and crew—so, viewed in the bright light of Rule 5—how can it be viewed as otherwise than "wrong, unethical, and morally unacceptable".

How'd I do?

My wife teases me about drinking my annual Scotch at the company Christmas party. I’ve been known to “blow through” an entire six-pack of Mike’s Hard Lemonade – I buy one on Memorial Day weekend and I might finish it by Labor Day. My wife occasionally drinks one glass of wine. On the rare occasions when she has tried to drink a second glass she has fallen asleep before finishing it. Nonetheless, I have put a few cans of beer in the boat cooler when we have guests who like it. Or at least, we used to. But never again. I had no idea that simply carrying a few cans of beer in the cooler, even if they are not consumed, was wrong, unethical, morally unacceptable and that it rendered me wholly incapable of complying with Rule 5. I hope Big Brother isn’t hacking the Forum database to learn my identity.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Nobody mentioned "dredge".

Over the ice, it would be sufficient to truck the necessary boulders and gravel to build it shallow enough for the record speeds that would result. To create a straight course, boulders would require "popping".

Outside of the canal—where it is shallow enough—rafting could be encouraged along both sides. (Where it is deep, a few mooring balls could be installed for spectators).

Sponsored by private donors—in coöperation with the State—think of it as a watery equivalent to the former NHIS.

All the time, money and effort that went into arguing SB27 could've been expended in The Witches Canal venture with all the above rewards to all boaters.

Who could complain?

While there is always great risk with these risk-takers, The Witches Canal could become a Mecca for those seeking extreme speeds without resorting to those other concrete-sided canals where those extreme speeds are sought—with disastrous results to peaceable boaters, the speedsters themselves and even the houses that line those canals.

A single, six-fatality, collision once occurred within such a canal.

Because New Hampshire's peaceable boaters—and our lake's unrepentant speedsters both win—think of this as a "Win-Win" proposal.


This is a difficult question to answer, but here's an admittedly "oblique try".

1) The transport of three liters of Vodka—plus an unknown quantity of beer—was only discovered in the aftermath of a boat collision with one of Winnipesaukee's 253 islands—an island that was tragically encountered directly in the center of Lake Winnipesaukee.

2) While that "transport" was not technically illegal, every experienced Captain is responsible for their boat, passengers and crew—so, viewed in the bright light of Rule 5—how can it be viewed as otherwise than "wrong, unethical, and morally unacceptable".

How'd I do?

Poorly.
First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal.

Secondly regarding the alcohol. In the example you cited above, the persons were allegedly consuming the alcohol that was being transported. That would be the problem. The transportation of the alcohol has nothing to do with anything. It is the consumption.

I will give you the same example I have given before, again with no response from you.
On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice. Between the store and home, I have a horrible accident. I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died. Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car. *GASP* beer cans!?!? He must have been drunk! Blood is drawn to determine how much I had to drink that day.

Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car. The store receipt in my pocket confirms this. The receipt says I bought an 18 pack. 18 full beer cans are found in my car. It is obvious to the investigators that I was not drinking the beer, I was only transporting it from the store to my house.

What did I do wrong? Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?


BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal.

[jrc]

The Mount Washington always has enough booze on board to get everyone well beyond the legal limit. Does anyone believe this is illegal, immoral or unethical?

Maybe a bad example, given the fact that someone did have too many and fall to his death, but that's not really what we are talking about is it.

APS since the carrying of booze is illegal, immoral or unethical in boats no one on any island can drink in their camps. Unless they build a still or a vineyard.

It must be illegal, immoral or unethical in cars and trucks as well given the huge issue with drunk driving. This means that you either don't drink, only drink in bars or are just confused.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by jrc

This means that you either don't drink, only drink in bars or are just confused.

I vote for the latter

[MAXUM]

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

[pm203]

Hutchins and his Winnfabs group should take a vacation to Tripoli .

[Skip]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

I hope not....'cause if I am even foolish enough to attempt to wade through one of his convoluted diatribes it usually entails at least one trip to the liquor cabinet!

Whoa, whoa, whoa everybody....I'm talking about the liquor cabinet in my home here.....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

Hutchins and his Winnfabs group should take a vacation to Tripoli .

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

And now that you are called on it I predict you will say it was only a joke and I should lighten up.

[Colby]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

Follow the money. How many people own liquor stores in NH? Why every citizen is a part owner in NH. The State owns and profits from liquor sales. ANd I think they tax beer and wine sales in other stores. So do you think they will pass laws that result in LESS PROFIT for the Granite State?

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

you would.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

And now that you are called on it I predict you will say it was only a joke and I should lighten up.

Elchase Warren/Clark would stir the pot like this. I didn't think you would. I should add though, that calling for violence against anyone is inappropriate.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

The Mount Washington always has enough booze on board to get everyone well beyond the legal limit. Does anyone believe this is illegal, immoral or unethical? Maybe a bad example, given the fact that someone did have too many and fall to his death, but that's not really what we are talking about is it.

APS since the carrying of booze is illegal, immoral or unethical in boats no one on any island can drink in their camps. Unless they build a still or a vineyard.

It must be illegal, immoral or unethical in cars and trucks as well given the huge issue with drunk driving. This means that you either don't drink, only drink in bars or are just confused.

1) "Head-on" collisions in boating is a rare occurrance. Ejection from boats involved in collisions is not a rare occurrance; therefore, BWI in boating is a far more important consideration than on our roadways.

2) BTW: Your arguments are fine examples of reductio in absurdum. (Found at a thread titled, "1984 Today" )

"The term reductio in absurdum is also often used for arguments where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone will agree it to be false or absurd, or which at least certain persons being argued against will agree is false or absurd. However this is a weak form of reductio, since the final decision to reject the original premise is contingent upon whether the conclusion derived from it really is agreed to be absurd".

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

How else could an SBONH opponent take it? —and why not? They already treat Lake Winnipesaukee's proven cases of Manslaughter like those collisions were "just accidents"! Will somebody from SBONH's Board please tell us that pm203 is not a SBONH member!

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

Like the Isolationism that preceeded WWII, I reject Prohibition: under the Prohibition Amendment, some Americans showed that they will only observe the laws they agree with.

[Rusty]

So we are "hen-pecked old people with nothing better to do"!!!!

I was trying to stay out of this but Mr. Flannery has forced me back into it. Why would he say something like that about well respected people of the Lakes Region?


This article is in today's LDS:

New Lakes Region senator's vote seen as pivotal in fight over boat speed limits on the Broads

By Michael Kitch
Mar 02, 2011 12:00 am

CONCORD —As the Senate Transportation Committee considers a bill to lift the speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, freshman Senator Jim Forsythe (R-Strafford), who represents the waterfront municipalities of Belknap County, finds himself at the center of a dispute that has roiled the Legislature for the past six years.

Last year, after five years of debate, the Legislature enacted legislation limiting speeds to 45 miles per hour in daylight and 30 mph. after dark This year, the controversy was rekindled when, at the request of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire (SBONH) , a bill — Senate Bill 27 — was introduced to replace the specific speed limits with the standard of "reasonable and prudent."

Before the bill reached the committee SBONH agreed to change the proposed legislation to maintain the speed limits everywhere but the Broads, the expanse of open water in the center of the lake, where the "prima facie" limit would be 55 mph. But, when the committee heard the bill last week the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABs) and its allies steadfastly resisted any change to the speed limits.

Last week, following the hearing, Bob Flannery of SBONH e-mailed the group's supporters to inform them they faced two problems. First, he said that they were outnumbered by "the WinnFABs people, who he described as "mostly a bunch of hen-pecked old people with nothing better to do."
Second, he said that the Senate Transportation Committee was deadlocked two-to-two with Senator Jim Rausch (R-Derry), the chairman, and Senator David Boutin (R-Hooksett) is favor of the change and Senators Nancy Stiles (R-Hampton) and Molly Kelly (D-Keene) against, leaving Forsythe the swing vote. "WinnFABs knows this," Flannery said. "They are specifically targeting him RIGHT NOW! I have seen the e-mail!" He called on his supporters to contact Forsythe by e-mail or cell phone and urge him to support SB-27.

Meanwhile, when the Laconia City Council met this week Warren Hutchins, a staunch advocate of speed limits who spoke against SB 27 before the committee, asked the councilors to voice their opposition to the bill and , in particular, to inform Forsythe of their position.

For his part, Forsythe was not showing his hand. He said that he was unable to attend the entire committee hearing and intended to review all the testimony presented. Forsythe, who is aligned with the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, said that he regarded SB-27 as "pro-freedom bill." However, in the next breath, he acknowledged that a significant share of his constituents, favored the speed limits.

Both Senators Jeanie Forrester (R-Meredith) and Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), whose districts border Lake Winnipesaukee, are firmly in favor of retaining the speed limits enacted last year and opposed to SB-27.
.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Elchase Warren/Clark would stir the pot like this. I didn't think you would.

Speaking of stirring the pot Mr. Pineedles......please do not PM me again asking me personal questions about who I might be. I will tell you only that I am a well respected member of the Lakes Region community.

[BroadHopper]

Is the claim that Winfabs represent the vast majority of the property owners on the lake. That is a huge false statement. When the speed limit bill was up for a vote, I presented a petition to Rep. Pilliod signed by over 600 property owners on the lake that opposed the bill. He said, the votes are already in. This petition was only circled among those who live on the Gilford / Alton Broads section of the lake. A small section.

I enjoy using the lake as I see fit within reason. NOBODY is going to tell me otherwise. I seen the lake as a great place to be in the last 60 years. I expect it to be a great place for the rest of my years, my children, and my grandchildren.

I will continue to fight those who come into this area and tell us natives what to do. If this bill is defeated. I will make sure it will come up again and again until there is a compromise.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

For his part, Forsythe was not showing his hand. He said that he was unable to attend the entire committee hearing and intended to review all the testimony presented. Forsythe, who is aligned with the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, said that he regarded SB-27 as "pro-freedom bill." However, in the next breath, he acknowledged that a significant share of his constituents, favored the speed limits.

I hope Mr. Forsythe does not consider the opinions of his contituents when voting. He is not a representative and is not supposed to base his votes on popular opinion or things specific to his district. Being a Senator his job is much more important and he is supposed to vote based on facts and for the good of the entire state, popular or not. It seems like so many Senators (especially at the national level) forget that and are concerned more with doing the popular thing to get re-elected than doing the right thing.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) "Head-on" collisions in boating is a rare occurrance. Ejection from boats involved in collisions is not a rare occurrance; therefore, BWI in boating is a far more important consideration than on our roadways.

I doubt that anyone here will disagree with your opinion that DUI/DWI is bad, no matter what vehicle you are in.

What we are disagreeing with is your constant assertion that carrying alcohol in your vehicle is bad.

[fatlazyless]

In case you were wondering, Center Harbor and Meredith are represented by Senator Jeanie Forrester. Moultonborough, Tuftonboro, and Wolfeboro are represented by Senator Jeb Bradley. Alton, Gilford, and Laconia are represented by Senator Jim Forsythe.


Three cheers.....hut-hut-hut.....go out to Senator Forrester and Senator Bradley for supporting the existing 45-30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.....


If the speed limits gets replaced with a "reasonable & prudent" speed law, then you can expect to see the big, super-duper go-fast boats like the Outer Limits be relettering the boat names on their transoms with names like "Reasonable & Prudent."

How's about "Slow & Steady" for a new name to grace a 27' Skater powered up by twin 300-hp racing Mercs. Some other new names could be: Reasonable & Prudent, Slow & Steady, Implied Safety, Speed is Safe, and Speed Pays!

[lawn psycho]

All I know is 45 MPH won't stand the test of time. It turns a majority of boats into "technical" law breakers. Many boats can cruise at 50 MPH down Alton Bay with plenty of seperation and there is no pandamonium.

The speed limit won't change one thing on the lake.

It's people like me that will drive Warren Hutchins and his ilk crazy as we know how to contact legislators too

Rusty, look at the demographic of the pro-SL crowd. White belts, plaid pants, pocket protectors and reading glasses hanging from their chests, and shoes that have velcro for laces. So, "if the shoe fits" (pun intended)

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Speaking of stirring the pot Mr. Pineedles......please do not PM me again asking me personal questions about who I might be. I will tell you only that I am a well respected member of the Lakes Region community.

I was curious, that's all Rusty. I PM'd you because I didn't want it made public. Other business owners don't make it a secret what businesses they operate, because I imagine they are proud of their businesses. Sheeze it, what a grouch!

BTW, here is the PM I sent you for everyone to see. Real threat here. Yup.

"Are you the owner of Church's Landing? As well as other accomodations in Meredith?"

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

In the example you cited above, the persons were allegedly consuming the alcohol that was being transported. That would be the problem. The transportation of the alcohol has nothing to do with anything. It is the consumption.

I will give you the same example I have given before, again with no response from you.

On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice. Between the store and home, I have a horrible accident. I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died. Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car. *GASP* beer cans!?!? He must have been drunk! Blood is drawn to determine how much I had to drink that day.

Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car. The store receipt in my pocket confirms this. The receipt says I bought an 18 pack. 18 full beer cans are found in my car. It is obvious to the investigators that I was not drinking the beer, I was only transporting it from the store to my house.

What did I do wrong?

Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?

1) There is much information omitted. These sound like the arguments I used when I was a teenager:

"Your Honor, I couldn't have been going 60-MPH!

I saw the officer when I was accelerating in 2nd gear!!!"

2) "On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice."

You can buy beer cold but my experience has shown that must have one heck of a commute! Make the ice in your cooler slushy with water, and any beverage will cool much faster.

3) "I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died."

You couldn't have drowned!

Just as "45 is a very fast speed on the water", BWI is a much-more serious form of abusing alcohol than DWI.

I had a telephone pole in my front yard sheared-off by a Mazda RX-7's impact—after hitting it sideways! Driving faster is probably safer!

What a great argument for SBONH!

4) "Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car."

Were they in the front seat's footwell? Were they prior "empties" or the 18-pack you spoke of? Besides Erica, who stores "empty beer cans" inside their vehicle?

Somebody else must have dropped them in there.

(Please, SBONH, don't all you "safe boaters" race to support the storage of empty beer cans inside the passenger compartment of your boat!)

5) "Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car."

If your BAC was .03, you were somewhat impaired upon your collision. Why was your BAC omitted from the above account?

6) "BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal".

Texting while driving indicates a "judgment problem"—just as what follows upon taking that first sip of alcohol.

7) "Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?"

Your texting definitely put you off to a bad start! Since you admit that texting is illegal, will you also continue to ignore other NH laws that you don't like?

I'd previously stated, "This isn't an easy question to answer." But ask the question enough times—it won't get ignored!

8) "First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal."

The Witches Canal was merely expanding on a prior suggestion of FLL's: The State could:

• placate the Lake's scariest thrill-seekers,

• expand on viewing-options and locations for any speedsters who don't care to take in the Lake's scenic views at sane speeds,

• to keep over-sized boats from terrorizing any other boaters transiting the Broads,

• to transform a "problem area" into a revenue-creating area—other than sending revenue for new propellers—to Maine.

Are you denying that powerboats will speed-up within the confines of a canal?

BTW: Are you reading that SB27 is described as "A Dead Man Walking" ?

[lawn psycho]

Thanks, I know where to never spend my money! What other locations is he the owner? Please tell me I have never partronized his business(es)

I know the marina I bought my boat and the marina where I slip don't mind the money I spend on my menacing bad mo-fo 320 hp, rooster-tail making Four Winns bowrider!

Look at how the SL crowd has to use exaggeration and mistruths when they testify. Every boat with a propeller is a renegade to that pro-SL crowd.

[AllAbourdon]

I'd take fast boats over an over-developed shoreline anyday... but who am i to judge.

I like everything about the lake and the state of NH and the freedom people have to make choices. I like having "live free or die" on our license plate. I just want it to mean something.

[chipj29]

Please see my responses in red bold below. Yes, I edited out some of your text in an attempt to keep this short.
BTW, in case you didn't know, most of my story is ficticious. I was not texting while driving. I did not crash my car into a telephone pole and almost die.
I did however stop at the store and buy an 18 pack of beer. I made it home safely.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) There is much information omitted. These sound like the arguments I used when I was a teenager:

Are you saying that you doubt my story? Which part did I omit? And what were you doing as a teenager that you had to omit information from your "stories"?
2) "On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice."

You can buy beer cold but my experience has shown that must have one heck of a commute! Make the ice in your cooler slushy with water, and any beverage will cool much faster.
Yes, I realize I can buy cold beer, and yes I have a long commute. But I like my beer ice cold. But what does that have to do with anything?

3) "I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died."

You couldn't have drowned!
Of course I could have. What if my car had hit a telephone pole and slid into a river. But does the manner in which I died really matter?
Just as "45 is a very fast speed on the water", BWI is a much-more serious form of abusing alcohol than DWI.
BWI/BUI has NOTHING to do with you assertion that "45 is a very fast speed on the water". Whether Boating or Driving a car while intoxicated are serious violations of the law, and both can similarly end in tragedy.

I had a telephone pole in my front yard sheared-off by a Mazda RX-7's impact—after hitting it sideways! Driving faster is probably safer!

What a great argument for SBONH!
What does an accident on the road have to do with a group called Safe BOATERS of NH? And where has SBONH ever stated that "driving faster is safer"?

4) "Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car."

Were they in the front seat's footwell? Were they prior "empties" or the 18-pack you spoke of? Besides Erica, who stores "empty beer cans" inside their vehicle?

Somebody else must have dropped them in there.
No, this post is not about Erica. It is solely about transporting alcohol in a vehicle. It has nothing to do with consumption. Remember, in my accident, no empties were found.
(Please, SBONH, don't all you "safe boaters" race to support the storage of empty beer cans inside the passenger compartment of your boat!)
Again, what does this have to do with SBONH? As I stated, there were no empties found IN MY CAR. I was merely transporting alcohol, which you are against.
5) "Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car."

If your BAC was .03, you were somewhat impaired upon your collision. Why was your BAC omitted from the above account?
Um what? Which part of "blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car" did you not understand?
6) "BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal".

Texting while driving indicates a "judgment problem"—just as what follows upon taking that first sip of alcohol.
Again, I was not drinking, I had not had a "sip" of alcohol. My judgement problem being solely that I was texting while driving.
7) "Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?"

Your texting definitely put you off to a bad start! Since you admit that texting is illegal, will you also continue to ignore other NH laws that you don't like?
No, the only law that I broke was texting while driving. How can that possibly imply that I ignored any other laws, nevermind "continue to ignore" any other laws. Which laws do you think that I have ignored in the past, based on the information in my post?
8) "First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal."

The Witches Canal was merely expanding on a prior suggestion of FLL's: The State could:

• placate the Lake's scariest thrill-seekers,

• expand on viewing-options and locations for any speedsters who don't care to take in the Lake's scenic views at sane speeds,

• to keep over-sized boats from terrorizing any other boaters transiting the Broads,

• to transform a "problem area" into a revenue-creating area—other than sending revenue for new propellers—to Maine.
As always, FLLs suggestion is pretty far-fetched and incredibly unlikely. It is not even worthy of a rational discussion.

Are you denying that powerboats will speed-up within the confines of a canal?
When the canal was dredged, was a law put into place to restrict power boats from speeding up? I am sure that a majority of power boaters are law-abiding citizens. However, as always, there are certain "scofflaws" who would ignore any law that might exist about that particular canal.
BTW: Are you reading that SB27 is described as "A Dead Man Walking" ?
No I have not read that.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Thanks, I know where to never spend my money! What other locations is he the owner? Please tell me I have never partronized his business(es)

I know the marina I bought my boat and the marina where I slip don't mind the money I spend on my menacing bad mo-fo 320 hp, rooster-tail making Four Winns bowrider!

Look at how the SL crowd has to use exaggeration and mistruths when they testify. Every boat with a propeller is a renegade to that pro-SL crowd.

And also those of Alex Ray (both professed speed limit supporters):

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ons#post149710

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I hope Mr. Forsythe does not consider the opinions of his contituents when voting. He is not a representative and is not supposed to base his votes on popular opinion or things specific to his district. Being a Senator his job is much more important and he is supposed to vote based on facts and for the good of the entire state, popular or not. It seems like so many Senators (especially at the national level) forget that and are concerned more with doing the popular thing to get re-elected than doing the right thing.

http://jimforsythe.com/about-jim/

12-years active duty in the Air Force......anybody know what rank he achieved....captain or major....just guessing?

It sure seems like his vote is the swing vote what with two for, and two against within the senate transportation committee. Hey, there's no rule that the full senate cannot decide to overlook the recommendation of a committee and not go along with its' recommendation.

So's locally, the two state senators with towns that border Lake Winnipesaukee, Senators Bradley and Forrester both say they support the speed limit. Have to wonder which way the third local state senator, Senator Forsythe, will be voting?

[TiltonBB]

Enough Crap!

I have been boating on Winnipesaukee for over 40 years and I own both residential and commercial property on the lake in two different towns.

Anyone (really anyone) who tells you that the speed limit is either needed or has made one bit of difference is delusional.

Every summer I am out in my my boat at least 5 days a week from May 1st until sometime in October. The only change that I have seen while boating on the lake is that for the last two years there has been reduced traffic because of the economy. The proof of that is that marinas have many slip vacancies and the gas consumption on the lake is down substantially. Ask the marina owners.

There is no credible evidence that the speed limit accomplishes a thing except to waste the time of legislators, marine patrol, and citizens and taxpayers!

The clowns that keep pushing this should find a new hobby!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I hope Mr. Forsythe does not consider the opinions of his contituents when voting. He is not a representative and is not supposed to base his votes on popular opinion or things specific to his district. Being a Senator his job is much more important and he is supposed to vote based on facts and for the good of the entire state, popular or not. It seems like so many Senators (especially at the national level) forget that and are concerned more with doing the popular thing to get re-elected than doing the right thing.

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the role politicians play, as we do live in a representative republic. Our elected representatives are just that, supposed to represent the best interest of their constituents. Therefore I would expect that they would take under consideration what the people they represent have to say and vote accordingly, even if it happens to be in direct conflict with their own personal position.

Of course facts need to weigh into any decision as well but you can't just completely disregard public opinion either. The problem is politicians spend their time pandering to special interests, fall prey to media scrutiny, or even worse take the "party line" all because they stand to personally gain from such positions. That's where we the voters have to pay close attention to who is in public office, these reps are NOT sent into office to do what's best for them or their political careers, they are there to represent the folks that put them there in the first place.

I fully expect that any elected official who may hold a position that is contrary to popular opinion would have the fortitude to go out and explain themselves to those that put them into office, if they are on the correct side of the issue they will successfully win the hearts and minds of the voters.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

And now that you are called on it I predict you will say it was only a joke and I should lighten up.

Of course it was joke. Your reaction is sad, just like your views of the lake. Unlike Winnfarts, I am willing to share the lake with everyone and would never wish anyone any ill-will. What your group is doing is un-American, thus the Tripoli remark.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the role politicians play, as we do live in a representative republic. Our elected representatives are just that, supposed to represent the best interest of their constituents. Therefore I would expect that they would take under consideration what the people they represent have to say and vote accordingly, even if it happens to be in direct conflict with their own personal position.

Mr. Forsythe is not a Representative, he's a Senator. I agree that he's supposed to work in our best interest, but I disagree that he is supposed to vote for whatever is popular with his constituents, that's the job of Representatives.

[Sandy Beach]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Enough Crap!

I have been boating on Winnipesaukee for over 40 years and I own both residential and commercial property on the lake in two different towns.

Anyone (really anyone) who tells you that the speed limit is either needed or has made one bit of difference is delusional.

Every summer I am out in my my boat at least 5 days a week from May 1st until sometime in October. The only change that I have seen while boating on the lake is that for the last two years there has been reduced traffic because of the economy. The proof of that is that marinas have many slip vacancies and the gas consumption on the lake is down substantially. Ask the marina owners.

There is no credible evidence that the speed limit accomplishes a thing except to waste the time of legislators, marine patrol, and citizens and taxpayers!

The clowns that keep pushing this should find a new hobby!

Everyone has a right to be wrong but the speed limit rhetoric is over the top. Your concise comments TiltonBB sum it up so well. Too bad there are no "studies" to demonstrate how true this is.

Some people would rather the MP spend hours and hours playing speed laser tag with a very few fast boats instead of watching for safe passage and right of way violations and safety issues.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Enough Crap!

I have been boating on Winnipesaukee for over 40 years and I own both residential and commercial property on the lake in two different towns.

Anyone (really anyone) who tells you that the speed limit is either needed or has made one bit of difference is delusional.

Every summer I am out in my my boat at least 5 days a week from May 1st until sometime in October. The only change that I have seen while boating on the lake is that for the last two years there has been reduced traffic because of the economy. The proof of that is that marinas have many slip vacancies and the gas consumption on the lake is down substantially. Ask the marina owners.

There is no credible evidence that the speed limit accomplishes a thing except to waste the time of legislators, marine patrol, and citizens and taxpayers!

The clowns that keep pushing this should find a new hobby!

How much reduced traffic was there, i.e., 100 less boats or maybe 1000 less boats? It’s easy to say you saw less boats, but how many? Certainly if you know for a fact that there were less boats then you must have a count from prior years to compare it to.

Evidently you went to each marina on the Lake and asked each of them about how many slip vacancies they have compared to prior years…..could you share that number with us? Maybe you took pictures from prior years and then went around and compared them to what you see now. Please share that with us also.

Gas consumption is down substantially….how much down compared to prior years? You must have that number so why not share it with us. There is no sense in all of us going around and bothering the marinas when you have already done that.

Thank you for all your research and I will be waiting for this very important data.

[lawn psycho]

Rusty, over the winter Melvin Village Marina sends out the holiday reminders and little tidbits about whats going on at the dealership/marina. Sorta reminds you that you even own a boat when there's snow drifts outside

Matt, the new president even wrote in the letter that it was a tough year for sales.

Not many years ago, you had to get on a waiting list for most marinas on the lake. Now I'm almost certain for a boat under 25-30 ft you can get a slip with ease if you decide to switch to another marina or boat sizes.

I'm willing to bet if someone invested time in putting the data together that you asked for (possibly tongue and cheek), that it would show reduced gas purchases and slips rentals for the last two years.

I'm been able to make reservations at places last minute on prime days with EASE whereas in the past I would have required to place them well in advance.

And if gas prices keep climbing and stay high we can all hang on to our hats for another hit to the economy. The stock market is practically waiting for an excuse to have a correction right now.....

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Rusty

How much reduced traffic was there, i.e., 100 less boats or maybe 1000 less boats? It’s easy to say you saw less boats, but how many? Certainly if you know for a fact that there were less boats then you must have a count from prior years to compare it to.

Evidently you went to each marina on the Lake and asked each of them about how many slip vacancies they have compared to prior years…..could you share that number with us? Maybe you took pictures from prior years and then went around and compared them to what you see now. Please share that with us also.

Gas consumption is down substantially….how much down compared to prior years? You must have that number so why not share it with us. There is no sense in all of us going around and bothering the marinas when you have already done that.

Thank you for all your research and I will be waiting for this very important data.

Without breaking the confidence entrusted to me by many business owners that I am personal friends with I will tell you this: Gas sales at marinas on the lake have been down for the last three years. In 2010 the amount of the decrease I heard from owners I talked to was in the 25% to 30% range.

In addition to the commercial and residential property on the lake that I own I also own a slip at Mountain View Yacht Club the largest marina on the lake. That slip has been rented to a tenant for many years.

MVYC has 284 slips about 50% of which are used by owners and the other half are rented out. Until 2008 there was always a waiting list to get a slip there. In 2010 there were over 50 slips (at just this one marina) whose owners wished to rent them out but could not find tenants so the slips remained vacant.

Across the United States last spring and into summer, boat sales were running about 35 percent down and in April they were 20 percent down. The sterndrive/jet boat segment sales were down about 28 percent, the personal watercraft segment was down about 13 percent. In addition, the ski boat segment was down about 25 percent. The information is based on new U.S. boat registrations in geographically dispersed states representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market.

Is with this information combined with my personal observations (involving an extensive amount of common sense) that I have come to the obvious conclusion that the boat traffic on Winnipesaukee is down substantially. I have formed my opinions based on fact, not speculation.

I hope I have provided the facts you were looking for.

Enforcement of the existing laws without a speed limit is all that we need.

Again, the people trying to push legislation that we do not need should go find a new hobby.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Without breaking the confidence entrusted to me by many business owners that I am personal friends with I will tell you this: Gas sales at marinas on the lake have been down for the last three years. In 2010 the amount of the decrease I heard from owners I talked to was in the 25% to 30% range.

In addition to the commercial and residential property on the lake that I own I also own a slip at Mountain View Yacht Club the largest marina on the lake. That slip has been rented to a tenant for many years.

MVYC has 284 slips about 50% of which are used by owners and the other half are rented out. Until 2008 there was always a waiting list to get a slip there. In 2010 there were over 50 slips (at just this one marina) whose owners wished to rent them out but could not find tenants so the slips remained vacant.

Across the United States last spring and into summer, boat sales were running about 35 percent down and in April they were 20 percent down. The sterndrive/jet boat segment sales were down about 28 percent, the personal watercraft segment was down about 13 percent. In addition, the ski boat segment was down about 25 percent. The information is based on new U.S. boat registrations in geographically dispersed states representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market.

Is with this information combined with my personal observations (involving an extensive amount of common sense) that I have come to the obvious conclusion that the boat traffic on Winnipesaukee is down substantially. I have formed my opinions based on fact, not speculation.

I hope I have provided the facts you were looking for.

Enforcement of the existing laws without a speed limit is all that we need.

Again, the people trying to push legislation that we do not need should go find a new hobby.

Those personal facts might be good enough for you but they sure aren’t what I would call accurate statistical analysis data.

“25% to 30% range”……. “about 50%”……”over 50 slips”, “running about 35 percent down”, “ski boat segment was down about 25 percent”, “representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market” ??????

Come-on TiltonBB, you can’t just throw figures like that around without having backup data. Spend some more time getting realistic figures and then let us know what you come up with.

Maybe as a hobby you should take a class in statistical analysis.

[jarhead0341]

* 2 on tilton''s post I to am at mvyc and rent up until the last few years I was concerned about having a slip the last two years no worry there have been tons of open slips and have been driving around a lot less

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Those personal facts might be good enough for you but they sure aren’t what I would call accurate statistical analysis data.

“25% to 30% range”……. “about 50%”……”over 50 slips”, “running about 35 percent down”, “ski boat segment was down about 25 percent”, “representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market” ??????

Come-on TiltonBB, you can’t just throw figures like that around without having backup data. Spend some more time getting realistic figures and then let us know what you come up with.

Maybe as a hobby you should take a class in statistical analysis.

and your facts are posted where?

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Those personal facts might be good enough for you but they sure aren’t what I would call accurate statistical analysis data.

“25% to 30% range”……. “about 50%”……”over 50 slips”, “running about 35 percent down”, “ski boat segment was down about 25 percent”, “representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market” ??????

Come-on TiltonBB, you can’t just throw figures like that around without having backup data. Spend some more time getting realistic figures and then let us know what you come up with.

Maybe as a hobby you should take a class in statistical analysis.

I can assure you that the majority of people reading my previous post will find it factual and informative. The only readers that will not agree are those with blinders on and a pre-disposition to an illogical conclusion. Those people who are aware of what is happening on the lake will agree with the facts presented. Sorry that it appears that you are not in that group.

Rather than ask me to do your homework perhaps you could provide some facts of your own.

You can try this web address for more information. There are weekly reports generally prepared for people involved in the boating industry:

http://www.boating-industry.com/

The facts regarding boat registrations that I presented are outlined there.

The problem with the pro speed limit crowd is, to paraphrase Ronald Regan's words: It isn't that they don't know anything it is just that so much of what they know is wrong!

[Seaplane Pilot]

I don't care how much factual data gets presented - it will never matter to the speed limit crowd. Why let facts get in the way of a great soap opera? Half of these people ought to receive an Oscar for their performances.

[ronc4424]

Rusty, I don't know whether you boat on wknds, but when ever I put my jet boat ( it goes 59 mph, but I keep it at 39 so I don't break any laws ) in Center Harbor, and put put down to Alton Bay, one only has to use ones eyes to notice how much traffic there isn't.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Those personal facts might be good enough for you but they sure aren’t what I would call accurate statistical analysis data.

“25% to 30% range”……. “about 50%”……”over 50 slips”, “running about 35 percent down”, “ski boat segment was down about 25 percent”, “representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market” ??????

Come-on TiltonBB, you can’t just throw figures like that around without having backup data. Spend some more time getting realistic figures and then let us know what you come up with.

Maybe as a hobby you should take a class in statistical analysis.

What accurate statistcal data was analyzed by the pro-speed limit folks when they pushed to have the sunset provision ended a year early?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Those personal facts might be good enough for you but they sure aren’t what I would call accurate statistical analysis data.

“25% to 30% range”……. “about 50%”……”over 50 slips”, “running about 35 percent down”, “ski boat segment was down about 25 percent”, “representing roughly half of the U.S. boat market” ??????

Come-on TiltonBB, you can’t just throw figures like that around without having backup data. Spend some more time getting realistic figures and then let us know what you come up with.

Maybe as a hobby you should take a class in statistical analysis.

Hey Rusty/Elchase/Warren or however you might be, Get A Grip!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Hey Rusty/Elchase/Warren or however you might be, Get A Grip!

"however"???? do you mean whoever?

I would say you have a mild case of "Dysgraphia"

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Rusty

"however"???? do you mean whoever?

I would say you have a mild case of "Dysgraphia"

Thanks for correcting my typo! When one works fulltime for a living, I'm typing quickly. Obviously, you knew what I meant!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Thanks for correcting my typo! When one works fulltime for a living, I'm typing quickly. Obviously, you knew what I meant!

No problem.

Have a good day!

[jarhead0341]

Still waiting

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

and your facts are posted where?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

Still waiting

Open the lid and look inside. You'll find the facts there for sure!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Yes, I edited out some of your text in an attempt to keep this short...most of my story is fictitious. I was not texting while driving. I did not crash my car into a telephone pole and almost die.

...and...

Originally Posted by pm203

Of course it was joke. Your reaction is sad, just like your views of the lake. Unlike Winnfarts, I am willing to share the lake with everyone and would never wish anyone any ill-will. What your group is doing is un-American, thus the Tripoli remark.

...and...

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Sorry APS. You missed the "Tongue-in-Cheek" subliminal message.

Who was reassured by any of the explanations above?

This is "making stuff up". IMHO

Originally Posted by chipj29

Are you saying that you doubt my story?

You now admit your story was bogus.

Originally Posted by chipj29

Which part of "blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car" did you not understand?

How can you truthfully defend any level of alcohol abuse from a blood test that you now admit was never taken?

Originally Posted by chipj29

Boating or Driving a car while intoxicated are serious violations of the law, and both can similarly end in tragedy.

They are not similar at all: the realities of ejection and drowning within seconds make BWI far more serious. Night-rescue—especially of multiple unconscious victims—is problematical.

Excess speed doesn't improve the chances of survival at night, even when 45-MPH—through the darkness—appears "Reasonable and Prudent" to a Captain.

Originally Posted by chipj29

What if my car had hit a telephone pole and slid into a river. But does the manner in which I died really matter?

1) Boating fatalities (and BWI) nearly always occur on water.

2) Roadway fatalities (and DWI) nearly always occur on land.

3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.

4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.

5) After one sip of alcohol, who would trust any boater's judgment while using their "personal-best" Reason and Prudence.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Who was reassured by any of the explanations above?
This is "making stuff up". IMHO
You now admit your story was bogus.
Yes, of course it is making stuff up. I said that most of my story was ficticious. Obviously you think that I am *GASP* lying. But I am not. I am merely providing an example. I am still trying to get my head around the fact that you believe that having alcohol in ones vehicle should be illegal.

Oh BTW, at the end of this post I will reveal which part of my story was true.

How can you truthfully defend any level of alcohol abuse from a blood test that you now admit was never taken?
Uh what? In the first post I said that blood tests confirmed that I was not drinking. Where was the alcohol abuse? I had alcohol in my car. I never drank any before I crashed.

They are not similar at all: the realities of ejection and drowning within seconds make BWI far more serious. Night-rescue—especially of multiple unconscious victims—is problematical.

Excess speed doesn't improve the chances of survival at night, even when 45-MPH—through the darkness—appears "Reasonable and Prudent" to a Captain.
Again, does the manner in which I died really matter? If I hit a telephone pole in my car at 45 MPH head on, chances of my survival are slim. If I hit a dock at 45 MPH in my boat, my chances of survival are thin.
And does time of day really matter? Either way I will need help from rescue people, and obviously it is harder to work in the dark than it is in the day time. But again, that has nothing to do with my post.

1) Boating fatalities (and BWI) nearly always occur on water.
2) Roadway fatalities (and DWI) nearly always occur on land.
Wow, that is quite an astute observation. But what does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with the fact that I had alcohol in my car, but was not drinking?
3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.
Now this I can agree with. The root cause of both the Blizzard and Littlefield accidents would certainly appear to be directly related to intoxication. Thank you for making my point.
4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.
Why don't those headlines prompt WinnFLABS to support a "no open containers" law? No, I won't hold my breath either.
5) After one sip of alcohol, who would trust any boater's judgment while using their "personal-best" Reason and Prudence.
One sip of alcohol affects a persons judgement? Oh, OK. I would love to see the facts on that one. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh, and BTW APS, when I said that most of my story was ficticious, I was being sincere. Most of my story really is ficticious.
This is what really happened:

I was driving home from work and stopped at the store and bought some beer. I made it home safely and drank some of the beer that I bought. Then, I read some of your posts on here and I had the sudden urge to drink more.

[gtagrip]

[QUOTE=Acres per Second;151943]

...and...



...and...

3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.

4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.



APS, as Chip mentioned, why hasn't WinniFlabbs pushed for a no open container law on boats. They are such a staunch group in the name of "safety", I would have thought this would be their #2 issue.

I don't think I'm holding my breath either on this one!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

APS, as Chip mentioned, why hasn't WinniFlabbs pushed for a no open container law on boats. They are such a staunch group in the name of "safety", I would have thought this would be their #2 issue.

I don't think I'm holding my breath either on this one!

WinnFABS was not created to champion various boating and safety issues. It has only one purpose, and that is to fight for speed limits.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS was not created to champion various boating and safety issues. It has only one purpose, and that is to fight for speed limits.

There is something to be proud of........ who cares about safety

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

There is something to be proud of........ who cares about safety

Me thinks they speak with forked tongue.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS was not created to champion various boating and safety issues. It has only one purpose, and that is to fight for speed limits.

Here is the first sentence WinnFabs uses to explain their purpose:
"WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations."

Only after this sentence does the words "speed limit" enter their mission statement.

I think you're missing the point. If WinnFabs is really concerned about safety then they would be going after enhanced BUI enforcement long before a speed limit. Of all the points we debate I don't believe anyone doubts that BUI is a common theme in the winni fatalities.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...and...



...and...

Who was reassured by any of the explanations above?

This is "making stuff up". IMHO


You now admit your story was bogus.


How can you truthfully defend any level of alcohol abuse from a blood test that you now admit was never taken?


They are not similar at all: the realities of ejection and drowning within seconds make BWI far more serious. Night-rescue—especially of multiple unconscious victims—is problematical.

Excess speed doesn't improve the chances of survival at night, even when 45-MPH—through the darkness—appears "Reasonable and Prudent" to a Captain.


1) Boating fatalities (and BWI) nearly always occur on water.

2) Roadway fatalities (and DWI) nearly always occur on land.

3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.

4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.

5) After one sip of alcohol, who would trust any boater's judgment while using their "personal-best" Reason and Prudence.

APS, you might want to set your sights on space travel now. It appears that someone is working on a beer that can be consumed in space. Imagine...an open container on Virgin Galactic? The horror!!


http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-r...beer?GT1=47001

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here is the first sentence WinnFabs uses to explain their purpose:
"WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations."

Only after this sentence does the words "speed limit" enter their mission statement.

I think you're missing the point. If WinnFabs is really concerned about safety then they would be going after enhanced BUI enforcement long before a speed limit. Of all the points we debate I don't believe anyone doubts that BUI is a common theme in the winni fatalities.

OK let’s work on changing “ RSA 265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages”. Do we want to add boating to this law? I’m all for it, how about everyone else?

Who wants to step-up to the plate and get a petition going to add boating to this RSA??? Winnfabs got the Speed Limit taken care of so why doesn't someone from the SBONH get this thing going? Or maybe someone from Maine would like to take this challange on.

Below is the RSA for transporting Alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles:



265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages. –
I. The words "liquor'' and "beverage'' as used in this section shall have the same meanings as defined in RSA 175:1.
II. Except as provided in paragraph V, no driver shall transport, carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within the passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages shall be stored and transported in the trunk of the motor vehicle. If the motor vehicle does not have a trunk, such containers shall be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
III. Except as provided in paragraph V, no passenger shall carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within any passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way or in an area principally used for public parking in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages may be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
IV. A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be subject to a fine of $150. In addition, a person who violates paragraph II of this section may have his or her drivers' license, if a resident, or driving privilege, if a nonresident, suspended 60 days for a first offense and up to one year for a second or subsequent offense.
V. This section shall not apply to persons transporting, carrying, possessing, or having any liquor or beverage in a chartered bus, in a taxi, or in a limousine for hire; provided, however, that the driver of any of said vehicles is prohibited from having any liquor or beverage in or about the driver's area.
VI. For the purposes of this section only:
(a) "Passenger area of any motor vehicle'' shall not include any section of a motor vehicle which has been designed or modified for the overnight accommodation of persons or as living quarters.
(b) "Way'' shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park, or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use or any such way which has been used for public travel for 20 years.

[jrc]

Does anyone really believe the drinking problem on boats or cars for that matter, is meaningfully related to having an open container while the boat is moving?

The problem is driving a boat after they drank too much. Some people sit at the sand bar, anchorage, a party, a dock and drink too much, then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't. Some people go to a restaurant or bar and drink too much then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't.

Go after the real problem, not some side issue that make you feel good.

Everyone knows if the MP put 3 or 4 boats at the mouth of Braun Bay on weekends around dusk, and do the same with the town docks in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call, this would make a huge dent in the problem.

[TiltonBB]

We have enough laws. Let's continue to live by the state motto and stop creating needless "feel good" laws.

As has been said so many times before: Enforcement of all of the existing boating laws (and getting rid of one needless law) will result in a safer lake for everyone. That remains true today.

Let's not waste time and effort adding excessive regulation and stress to peoples lives.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

Does anyone really believe the drinking problem on boats or cars for that matter, is meaningfully related to having an open container while the boat is moving?

The problem is driving a boat after they drank too much. Some people sit at the sand bar, anchorage, a party, a dock and drink too much, then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't. Some people go to a restaurant or bar and drink too much then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't.

Go after the real problem, not some side issue that make you feel good.

Everyone knows if the MP put 3 or 4 boats at the mouth of Braun Bay on weekends around dusk, and do the same with the town docks in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call, this would make a huge dent in the problem.

I’m not familiar with the problem at “Braun Bay”, can you enlighten me a little on that. I see people having fun and consuming beverages there but I didn’t know that when they left the Bay to go somewhere else that the captains of these boats were intoxicated beyond the .08 level. Maybe having checkpoints in that area when boats are leaving would be a good idea then.

I am also not familiar with the problems at “the town dock in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call”. Is this something that you have witnessed and know for a fact that a lot of boaters are piloting there boats while over the .08 level?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time, it’s just that I didn’t know that we need up to 12 MP personnel and boats to fix this problem in those areas of the Lake.

[Rusty]

I would like to thank the Laconia City Council for stating that they favored retaining the speed limits....NICE JOB!!!!!!

This article was in yesterday's LDS:

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here is the first sentence WinnFabs uses to explain their purpose:
"WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations."

Only after this sentence does the words "speed limit" enter their mission statement.

I think you're missing the point. If WinnFabs is really concerned about safety then they would be going after enhanced BUI enforcement long before a speed limit. Of all the points we debate I don't believe anyone doubts that BUI is a common theme in the winni fatalities.

You must have missed this sentence in "About WinnFABS"

The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of Boating Speed Limit bills which provide for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH.

WinnFABS was created for one purpose. It raised funds telling people the money was for that one purpose. To expend that money elsewhere would be wrong.

It is not for you to determine what the alliance's goals should be. You are free to start your own organization and have whatever goals you wish.

Some people try to build, while other only try to tear down.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I would like to thank the Laconia City Council for stating that they favored retaining the speed limits....NICE JOB!!!!!!

This article was in yesterday's LDS:

Why should the Laconia City Council have any influence over the speed limit? I suppose as individuals they are entitled to their personal opinions, but who are they to take a particular side on an issue that has not been voted on by the citzens/taxpayers of Laconia? I personally think that they have overstepped their bounds and if I were a resident of Laconia I would be sending a strong letter to the Council chair and the Mayor to state my feelings on this matter. I may send one anyway.

In addition, if they feel it's ok to state their support, then my organization (the Flying Pig Preservation Society of Gilford) will hereby state its support for SB 27.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Why should the Laconia City Council have any influence over the speed limit? I suppose as individuals they are entitled to their personal opinions, but who are they to take a particular side on an issue that has not been voted on by the citzens/taxpayers of Laconia? I personally think that they have overstepped their bounds and if I were a resident of Laconia I would be sending a strong letter to the Council chair and the Mayor to state my feelings on this matter. I may send one anyway.

In addition, if they feel it's ok to state their support, then my organization (the Flying Pig Preservation Society of Gilford) will hereby state its support for SB 27.

Tell them you are mad as hell and you're not going to take this anymore!

Would Ya let us all know what their response is please!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

OK let’s work on changing “ RSA 265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages”. Do we want to add boating to this law? I’m all for it, how about everyone else?

Who wants to step-up to the plate and get a petition going to add boating to this RSA??? Winnfabs got the Speed Limit taken care of so why doesn't someone from the SBONH get this thing going? Or maybe someone from Maine would like to take this challange on.

Below is the RSA for transporting Alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles:



265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages. –
I. The words "liquor'' and "beverage'' as used in this section shall have the same meanings as defined in RSA 175:1.
II. Except as provided in paragraph V, no driver shall transport, carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within the passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages shall be stored and transported in the trunk of the motor vehicle. If the motor vehicle does not have a trunk, such containers shall be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
III. Except as provided in paragraph V, no passenger shall carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within any passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way or in an area principally used for public parking in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages may be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
IV. A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be subject to a fine of $150. In addition, a person who violates paragraph II of this section may have his or her drivers' license, if a resident, or driving privilege, if a nonresident, suspended 60 days for a first offense and up to one year for a second or subsequent offense.
V. This section shall not apply to persons transporting, carrying, possessing, or having any liquor or beverage in a chartered bus, in a taxi, or in a limousine for hire; provided, however, that the driver of any of said vehicles is prohibited from having any liquor or beverage in or about the driver's area.
VI. For the purposes of this section only:
(a) "Passenger area of any motor vehicle'' shall not include any section of a motor vehicle which has been designed or modified for the overnight accommodation of persons or as living quarters.
(b) "Way'' shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park, or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use or any such way which has been used for public travel for 20 years.

Hey Rusty, I don't see NH asking my residence when I spend literally thousands of dollars per year in at the lake with boating, eating out, and overnight stays. I also have significant ties to NH and will be a resident again so go bark up another tree.

I'm too busy fighting a stupid law to spend time adding a new one

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You must have missed this sentence in "About WinnFABS"

The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of Boating Speed Limit bills which provide for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH.

WinnFABS was created for one purpose. It raised funds telling people the money was for that one purpose. To expend that money elsewhere would be wrong.

It is not for you to determine what the alliance's goals should be. You are free to start your own organization and have whatever goals you wish.

Some people try to build, while other only try to tear down.

BI, if the concern is safety and accidents and the compelling data shows that alcohol is the primary concern it just demonstrates that WinnFabs has motives beyond curtailing the speed of boats IMO. Some of us are intelligent enough to have LONG-TERM thinking.

Every time Warren Hutchins continues his diarrea of the mouth, he talks about the size and quantity of boats. That's going beyond safety and don't try and say otherwise.

[Pineedles]

WinnFabs' motives for promoting the speed limits were selfish. They wanted Winnipesaukee to be like it was in the 19th Century, before there were any motorized boating. They illustrated imagianary encounters with small children in Kayaks and canoes. They think that all motorized boating is bad. The only boats THEY think should be on the lake are non-motorized. Progress moves on, despite their wishes. Bear Islander thinks horsepower should be limited on the lake, and yet he has no problem shooting off into space on a rocketship which could endanger thousands of lives if something goes wrong! Ask him. He won't deny it! Talk about, do as I say, not as I do!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Tell them you are mad as hell and you're not going to take this anymore!

Would Ya let us all know what their response is please!

I'd be happy to! Thanks for the show of support!

[Dhuberty24]

What ever happend to"live free or die". Whats next you can't operate a boat if know some one who has consumed an adult beverage in the past month. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of what some people want to do to this lake. If you like the peace and tranquility so much why don't you sell your lake house, and buy a house over looking a pond. Then you can make you own rules. meanwhile leave the lake the way it has been for the last hundred years. Sorry for the grammar.

[Rusty]

At the January 24, 2011 Laconia City Council Meeting they had a discussion with Laconia State Representatives regarding the State budget .

For some reason they got on the topic of the SB-27 speed limit Bill. Too bad that there wasn’t someone there who knew a little about the Bill. IMHO they were all clueless. It really is funny to read so I thought I would post it.

The following State Representatives were present for this discussion:
Alida Millham, Don Flanders, Robert Luther, Frank Tilton and Harry Accornero. Also in attendance State Senator Jim Forsythe, County Commissioner Philpot and County Administrator Debra Shackett.

Here it is:

"Councilor Hamel asked if there is a Bill in the process to change the speed limits on the lakes to “what is reasonable”. Senator Forsythe stated this is his most e-mailed topic; this is called SB-27 and is based on a Coast Guard law and enumerates factors such as weather and keeps the 150/50 foot rule. Councilor Hamel noted that this is being brought forward by Senator D’Alessandro, who is not even from a waterfront community and doesn’t understand the issues with this. Senator Forsythe did not comment. Representative Flanders noted that some time ago there was a conversation relative to Lake Winnipesaukee being part of Coast Guard jurisdiction and it was determined it is not; this is a Coast Guard rule and is designed for the ocean and everything connected to it not Lake Winnipesaukee. The speed limit law has worked for Lake Winnipesaukee and should not be changed."

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

At the January 24, 2011 Laconia City Council Meeting they had a discussion with Laconia State Representatives regarding the State budget .

For some reason they got on the topic of the SB-27 speed limit Bill. Too bad that there wasn’t someone there who knew a little about the Bill. IMHO they were all clueless. It really is funny to read so I thought I would post it.

The following State Representatives were present for this discussion:
Alida Millham, Don Flanders, Robert Luther, Frank Tilton and Harry Accornero. Also in attendance State Senator Jim Forsythe, County Commissioner Philpot and County Administrator Debra Shackett.

Here it is:

"Councilor Hamel asked if there is a Bill in the process to change the speed limits on the lakes to “what is reasonable”. Senator Forsythe stated this is his most e-mailed topic; this is called SB-27 and is based on a Coast Guard law and enumerates factors such as weather and keeps the 150/50 foot rule. Councilor Hamel noted that this is being brought forward by Senator D’Alessandro, who is not even from a waterfront community and doesn’t understand the issues with this. Senator Forsythe did not comment. Representative Flanders noted that some time ago there was a conversation relative to Lake Winnipesaukee being part of Coast Guard jurisdiction and it was determined it is not; this is a Coast Guard rule and is designed for the ocean and everything connected to it not Lake Winnipesaukee. The speed limit law has worked for Lake Winnipesaukee and should not be changed."

Right - "Not even from a waterfront community".... I suppose it was all OK though when WINNFABS was in Nashua asking people to sign the petition. Oh, that's right, Nashua has the Nashua River. I suppose the fact that Councilor Hamel resides in a community that borders the lake makes him a defacto expert on the subject? Furthermore, remember Ms. Martha "Full-of-it" Clark, the esteemed Senator from Portsmouth? She's also about 1-hour from Winnipesaukee (and was also clueless I might add). She spearheaded the effort to kill the sunset provision rather than let Marine Patrol (the "experts" on boating) finish their 2-year study to see if there really was a problem (which of course, there wasn't). Clark and her ilk had to make sure that they made the law permanent at the behest of her elitist friends before the 2-year study was completed. Why? Because the facts DO NOT LIE - there was NO PROBLEM!!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I’m not familiar with the problem at “Braun Bay”, can you enlighten me a little on that. I see people having fun and consuming beverages there but I didn’t know that when they left the Bay to go somewhere else that the captains of these boats were intoxicated beyond the .08 level. Maybe having checkpoints in that area when boats are leaving would be a good idea then.

I am also not familiar with the problems at “the town dock in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call”. Is this something that you have witnessed and know for a fact that a lot of boaters are piloting there boats while over the .08 level?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time, it’s just that I didn’t know that we need up to 12 MP personnel and boats to fix this problem in those areas of the Lake.

You're kidding right?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

You're kidding right?

I sent your original post to Daivd Barrett (Director of the Division of Safety Services) to see what he thinks about the problem in those areas. I referenced the speed limit law and said that a lot of people who use the Lake want to fix the BUI problem. I’ll let you know if I receive a response from him.

I’m all for fixing the BUI problem on the Lake and maybe this will help.

I sent this section of your post (along with a few comments of my own):

“The problem is driving a boat after they drank too much. Some people sit at the sand bar, anchorage, a party, a dock and drink too much, then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't. Some people go to a restaurant or bar and drink too much then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't.

Go after the real problem, not some side issue that make you feel good.

Everyone knows if the MP put 3 or 4 boats at the mouth of Braun Bay on weekends around dusk, and do the same with the town docks in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call, this would make a huge dent in the problem.”

[jrc]

While it can't hurt to send my email to Director Barrett, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know about people drinking then driving their boats on the lake.


My point was more about the "open container" law, you suggested. Imagine two hypothetical scenarios: a man, let's call him Smallmeadow, has too much to drink at a lakeside bar and on the way home in his boat he runs over another boat killing someone; a women let's call her Snowstorm, has too much to drink at a lakeside bar and on the way home runs into an island killing a passenger. Now does it really matter if they had open containers on board? How many hypothetical scenarios can you relate where an open container may have contributed to a fatal accident on the lake?

The problem is not drinking, it's drunks behind the wheel.

[nhhick]

I think its time people start reviewing their safe boating books that they had to read to get their license. There is no legal limit on drinking while driving a boat, its the point of imparment as detimined by MP. You can blow a .04 and still get a DWI. The only no tolerance activity in this state is snowmobileing. As far as a speed limit, there are more dangerous things going on on the lake than that, like not knowing navigational markers. I watched someone last summer cut 2 black tops because he thought those and our mouring field markers were chanel markers, his words not me guessing. he did hit a rock and damaged his lower unit, and if he was just a little farther in he would have hit a bigger rock that would have surely injured his passengers. That to me is more dangerous than someone doing 60 across the broads. Education and experience should be the focus, not more restrictions that are going to be laughed at by those who need to feed their egoes.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by nhhick

...I think its time people start reviewing their safe boating books that they had to read to get their license. There is no legal limit on drinking while driving a boat, its the point of imparment as detimined by MP. You can blow a .04 and still get a DWI. The only no tolerance activity in this state is snowmobileing...

That is incorrect. The same statute that pertains to motor vehicles also pertains to boating (as well as snowmobiling & ATVs). A blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more is presumed intoxication. If you are under 21 that concentration falls to .02%.

Please review the applicable statutes under Chapter 265-A to get the correct information.

While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Skip

That is incorrect. The same statute that pertains to motor vehicles also pertains to boating (as well as snowmobiling & ATVs). A blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more is presumed intoxication. If you are under 21 that concentration falls to .02%.

Please review the applicable statutes under Chapter 265-A to get the correct information.

While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

Thanks Skip,

I'm glad you beat me to the punch because I could not have said it as nicely as you did. IMHO it's folks like "nhhick" that need to be educated in the boating laws of NH.

[nhhick]

I stand corrected, I do not have time or patience enough to look up RSAs therefor go by what our local law enforcment agencies tell me. Last summer I got my commercial boating license, after having my private for 10 years, and all of marine patrols material covers alcohol consumption repeatadly and that is where I got my information, one video from MP always came back to alcohol and/or PFDs. We also had a Q&A with a fish & game afficer at a club meeting winter and he made it very clear there was a zero tolerance on snowmobiles. The RSA make me happy in many ways, I enjoy a cold one with an order of wings and good friends while im out on the trails and it makes a solid case on the lake instead of just MPs judgement. maybe a little more education is due for all. continued education is required for many licenses, maybe others should need to be kept up as well with the way laws are changing these days.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Skip

While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

As I have posted before, I was jailed and found guilty of DUI twice, even though my breathalyzer was 0%. I am profound hard of hearing. I can't speak well and I can't walk a straight line. The LEOs had reason to believe I was under the influence. Both LEOs failed to appear an appeals court and I was found innocent, my records were cleaned. It was the humiliation, the hiring of a lawyer and the suspension of my license that did not make it fair. So it is possible to be wrongfully accused of DUI.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Skip

A blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more is presumed intoxication. If you are under 21 that concentration falls to .02%.
While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

While trying to remember how many died in an inland Poker Run a few years ago, I stumbled on this Mastercraft forum post which followed the description of a collision that took the lives of FIVE boaters.

"Not to judge or throw stones, but while I agree that it doesn't make you a threat, I believe that consuming an amount of alcohol that provides you with the desired effect (a nice buzz) does impair your abilities to some extent, regardless of whether you think it does or not.

It might not make you a threat, but it does lessen your abilities to pilot your boat. Not to mention the fact that for many people, maybe not you, the ability to know when to say "when" diminishes when alcohol starts to be consumed.

I just don't trust myself to be able to operate my boat to the highest ability under the influence, so I never drink when I'm driving the boat. And trust me, I love a beer a lot more than the next guy. I just save it for the after ski activities.

While I think it's a knee jerk reaction to assume "drunk" anytime you hear boat accident, I understand that statistics indicate that alcohol is a factor in a very high percentage of boating accidents, particularly as compared to other motor vehicles. So I can at least understand why people feel the way they do. Plus, if you've ever seen the damage that drunks can do, it hits even closer to home.

With a significant percentage of Winnipesaukee boaters dismissing the presence of alcohol aboard boats, the above writer has just echoed my assertion that whatever is "Reasonable" and "Prudent" will change with every sip of alcohol.