How might the Marine Patrol enforce Speed Limits?

[Airwaves]

That would stand up in court?

There are two obvious ways, radar with certified radar operators and a chase in which the Marine Patrol determines the speed via GPS.

How else? Remember this has to meet the standards of a court of law, not just gathering statistical data.

I doubt they could use the visual of timing a boat as it passes through a measured mile. The angle of observation would be too great to determine the boats position against the start or stop of the measured mile and if the boat deviates from a straight line it will through off the measurement.

Any thoughts?

[Bear Islander]

It doesn't have to be part of a chase, they can match speeds with your boat, then their speed is yours.

I believe a visual estimate by law enforcement is also valid.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

That would stand up in court?

There are two obvious ways, radar with certified radar operators and a chase in which the Marine Patrol determines the speed via GPS.

How else? Remember this has to meet the standards of a court of law, not just gathering statistical data.

They could track up to 24 targets at a time on their Raymarine C80 radar displays. These show bearing and speed accurately, regardless of the angle of incidence. Bet they won't though.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Dave R

They could track up to 24 targets at a time on their Raymarine C80 radar displays. These show bearing and speed accurately, regardless of the angle of incidence. Bet they won't though.

Lots of boats will not have enough signature to show up on those things especially at the higher speeds. Would be interesting to see. We tried to get them to radar us in a different lake and even passing at 15 feet from them (at their request) they could not get a read off the boat of ANY speed from 20 mph up to almost 100. The police were in the cruiser in the second picture.

Please note that we are wearing a lot of safty gear.

[2Blackdogs]

Results from other lakes don't count.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
It doesn't have to be part of a chase, they can match speeds with your boat, then their speed is yours.

I believe a visual estimate by law enforcement is also valid.

I don't believe a visual estimate by law enforcement without supporting data under HB847 would stand up in court. The legal burden of proof is on the Marine Patrol.

Matching speeds/chase, just a play on words, still using GPS chasing a boat.

Originally posted by Dave R
They could track up to 24 targets at a time on their Raymarine C80 radar displays

Yep, that would be radar.

[winnilaker]

The law states it's prima facie.

"...the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:..."

As Skip can probably add value here and this has been discussed elsewhere. if you choose to fight it, MP will have to prove more than just the speed limit was broken and you have the ability to prove that your speed was reasonable and prudent. Going fast in the broads in a boat designed to go fast will probably not get you a ticket. Going fast in Weirs bay probably will. Either way, fighting it will be your best choice to keep it off your driving record.

[Skip]

....Both Winnilaker and Airwaves have correctly interpreted the law in the above posts....no need to reiterate the backgound as Winnilaker points out it has been explained several times before in other threads.

But as always, please feel free to PM me off-line if you would like further supporting information or as always, call the NHMP HQ during regular business hours and have the good folks in Gilford give you the straight dope right from the enforcing officers themselves!

Safe Boating,

Skip

[Airwaves]

Actually the question I posed initially is still unanswered, or maybe it is?

Outside of radar or GPS how can the Marine Patrol enforce HB847 that can successfully be used in a court of law?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

The law states it's prima facie.

"...the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:..."

As Skip can probably add value here and this has been discussed elsewhere. if you choose to fight it, MP will have to prove more than just the speed limit was broken and you have the ability to prove that your speed was reasonable and prudent. Going fast in the broads in a boat designed to go fast will probably not get you a ticket. Going fast in Weirs bay probably will. Either way, fighting it will be your best choice to keep it off your driving record.

Thats not the definition for prima facie in my law books:

"adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment."

What this means is that any speeds above the speed limit are automatically rated as "not reasonable or prudent" and therefore are unlawful ... the burden would be on the defendant to prove otherwise.

I posted this way back on March 1, 2006 in the Collisions and Speed thread

Note that the same prima facie language is used for NH highway speed limits.

[sky_nh]

To find out how the Marine Patrol will determine who is speeding, my advice is that once the law is in effect, that you speed across the Broads as fast as you can in your gas-guzzling power boat and wait until you get caught. At that point, you will no doubt learn how they intend to catch boaters breaking the speed limit. Perhaps when you contest your fine in court, there will be other details that you will learn about.

Similarly, when the Laconia Police department, stops and fines me for speeding on Route 11, I learn a great deal about the methods they use to determine that I was speeding. It is a wonderful, if not expensive, learning experience.

I can't believe you guys are asking these questions! How about not speeding?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by sky_nh

I can't believe you guys are asking these questions! How about not speeding?

I bet most of the responders on this thread don't typically travel faster than 30 MPH in boats.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Lots of boats will not have enough signature to show up on those things especially at the higher speeds. Would be interesting to see. We tried to get them to radar us in a different lake and even passing at 15 feet from them (at their request) they could not get a read off the boat of ANY speed from 20 mph up to almost 100. The police were in the cruiser in the second picture.

Please note that we are wearing a lot of safty gear.

I don't see a radar antenna on that cruiser. The Raymarine gear I was referring to is not police speed radar, it's vastly more sophisticated and the newer MP boats have it.



The big white thing on top of the superstructure is a radar antenna with a 24 nautical mile range. It's connected to a display that can show the speed and bearing of boats within 24 nautical miles of the patrol boat. Park that boat in the middle of the broads and they can detect the speed of any boat in the broads.

[jrc]

Realistically, the MP will have to set up radar speed traps just like the land based police do. They will be forced to do this politically, the people that run the MP wil not risk their careers by not visibly enforcing a new law.

Now the MP are not stupid, and what they don't know about the speed traps, they can learn from other NH LEOs. They will set up the traps in spots where they can get a clear radar shot at offending boats and where they will find offending boats. For politcal reasons they will set them up in areas where people complain about fast boats. They don't really care if going fast in that area is dangerous. Look at where land based speed traps are, usually in places where we drivers feel that it's safe to go above the posted speed.

They will give out tickets, they have to. If this Safety boss doesn't his replacement will. Now, will they hold up in court? The MP really doesn't care. As someone said the process is part of the punishment. You have to take time off from work to fight this. At first everyone will fight them and maybe break the system, but eventually a lot of people will just send in the money.

Here is the real question, will they ever see a boat going faster than 45 MPH?

[B R]

Originally Posted by sky_nh

I can't believe you guys are asking these questions! How about not speeding?

I'll be testing the enforceability of this law as soon as possible. I don't believe these tickets have a chance of holding up in court.

One way this thing dies in two years is if it adds too many court costs and it's proven over and over again that the law cannot be enforced. The other is voting out the Senators who voted for this law (See "Payback Time" thread)

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by jrc

At first everyone will fight them and maybe break the system, but eventually a lot of people will just send in the money.

Did you forget the part about points?

Seems some politicans decided to provide a reason to go to court...

[Aquadeziac]

Who says you have to look on the water for speed traps? There were two instances in the recent past where cars were clocked speeding.....one at 135 MPH,,,FROM THE AIR!! If that Cessenna can track the speed of a car at 10,000 ft up and it stands up in court, do you really think it won't work on the water? I can see it now.....you think youre soooo cool, going soooo fast, but the MP is at your destination before you are with a printout of your speed and an 8 X 10 glossy to boot! Then we will watch your dream team flush your wallet with one hand while slapping you on the back with the other telling you "We got'em right where we want them now, you'll be winning any day now, not much longer, we're wearin' 'em down, only a few hundred more dollars"
I just don't understand why some people just refuse to believe the technology is out there. Just because you don't understand it, it must not exist. Thats elementary school mentality.
Just look at some of the technology you do believe in and ask yourself if you would have believed 25 years ago that this would be possible in 25 years.
I personally am looking forward to sitting back and watching the first one that gets nailed next year.

[jrc]

You do realize that airborne speed measurement rely on lines painted in the breakdown lane and stopwatches? not really high tech.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...if the boat deviates from a straight line it will through [throw] off the measurement.

Any thoughts?

Hmmmm. A boat measured at 100mph but yet not going in a straight line? Let's do an example. Suppose the boat was at a 30-degree angle off the "straight line"? Then the actual speed of the boat would be 115mph [100/Cosine(30)], meaning that the measurement would actually be an understatement -- much to your advantage if the MP doesn't compensate for the angle.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by jrc

You do realize that airborne speed measurement rely on lines painted in the breakdown lane and stopwatches? not really high tech.

Saw them painting lines every 1/4 mile the other day. Special paint from 3M sticks to the water.....

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Saw them painting lines every 1/4 mile the other day. Special paint from 3M sticks to the water.....

Only you!

That was the best laugh I've had all day....thanks!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Aquadeziac
Who says you have to look on the water for speed traps? There were two instances in the recent past where cars were clocked speeding.....one at 135 MPH,,,FROM THE AIR!! If that Cessenna can track the speed of a car at 10,000 ft up and it stands up in court, do you really think it won't work on the water?

I actually did consider using aircraft as an example of what might stand up in court in my original example, except to my knowledge the NH Marine Patrol does not own either a rotary or fixed wing aircraft and the expense makes it prohibitive so it's not a realistic scenario IMHO.

Originally posted by This'nThat
Hmmmm. A boat measured at 100mph but yet not going in a straight line? Let's do an example. Suppose the boat was at a 30-degree angle off the "straight line"? Then the actual speed of the boat would be 115mph [100/Cosine(30)], meaning that the measurement would actually be an understatement -- much to your advantage if the MP doesn't compensate for the angle.

Much more complex example than I was thinking of, I was just thinking he made a couple of turns, maybe to avoid waves, debris or a marker but the result is the same however we still have the problem about the determination of when the suspect boat enters the start and exits the stop of the measured mile.

So, we have Radar, GPS and Aircraft. All of which will require crews and funding, what else could withstand the burden of proof?

Originally posted by Rattlesnake Guy
Saw them painting lines every 1/4 mile the other day. Special paint from 3M sticks to the water.....

So THAT's what all that yellow is in the water!!!!

[jrc]

You guys are crazy, they will paint the lines on the bottom of the lake. They're just waiting for DES permits.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So, we have Radar, GPS and Aircraft. All of which will require crews and funding, what else could withstand the burden of proof?

You keep forgetting that speed limits are enforced on other lakes in NH. This isn't going to be a problem. Boats will go 5, 10 even 15 over the limit and get away with it. Just like on our highways, and who cares!

If some boat goes around the lake at 75 mph the MP will stop them (with or without Radar) and have a conversation with them. After that conversation the boat will either slow down to a more reasonable speed, or continue to scoff the law. If they continue the second boat stop will be a lot less pleasant. Do you think the MP are going to let someone continue to break the law in an open and in your face manner? Hey, these are cops, you are not going to beat them at their own game! You can piss them off, but in the end, they will win! Plus its not like the highways, you can't disappear or hide, they will find you sooner or later, probably sooner.

And no funding is required. Funding requires an appropriation by the state. The MP budget is not going to be increased because of HB847. An officer taking along a Radar unit while on Patrol and checking a few boat speed is not going to require a major MP shakeup. This just isn't that big a deal.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Island Lover
And no funding is required. Funding requires an appropriation by the state. The MP budget is not going to be increased because of HB847. An officer taking along a Radar unit while on Patrol and checking a few boat speed is not going to require a major MP shakeup. This just isn't that big a deal.

You're right that HB847 does NOT increase funding for the Marine Patrol, but pretty much wrong about everything else.

AN officer isn't just going to throw a radar unit in the boat and check a few boats now and again.

The use of radar requires the operator of the radar unit be certified and the unit calibrated. It also requires a crew of two officers in the boat. Certification costs money, the second officer in the boat costs money, replacing that second officer on another boat costs money, court time costs money. This would be true for every radar post stationed on the lake, one isn't going to do it.

So the first MP boat stops your boat he thinks is going too fast and has a conversation, you continue on your way and run into the second MP boat that was alerted by the first and you're stopped again. Then what? If there was no use of radar, GPS and you were not tracked by aircraft then nothing, that's what. The MP might conduct a safety check looking for violations but as far as a citation for speeding? Not going to happen.

An officer's estimated speed based on what he/she visually observed is not enough for a conviction in a court of law under HB847.

So short of Radar, GPS and Aircraft (all of which will cost additional money) how will the Marine Patrol be able to enforce this law on a 72 square mile lake?

Where speed limits are in force on small lakes it involves prohibiting different types of watercraft and/or limiting horsepower. Not Marine Patrol enforcement.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Where speed limits are in force on small lakes it involves prohibiting different types of watercraft and/or limiting horsepower. Not Marine Patrol enforcement.

Many years ago I was involved with placing a speed limit on a small New Hampshire lake. There were a few violations the first year it was in effect and I called the Marine Patrol. An officer arrived in a car and waited for the boat to return to shore. They didn't speed again.

There is no prohibiting of boat types on smaller lakes. Just speed limits that work.

If someone thinks they are going to operate their boat at 75 mph on Winni and the Marine Patrol will be helpless, then they don't know much about cops.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Many years ago I was involved with placing a speed limit on a small New Hampshire lake. There were a few violations the first year it was in effect and I called the Marine Patrol. An officer arrived in a car and waited for the boat to return to shore. They didn't speed again.

There is no prohibiting of boat types on smaller lakes. Just speed limits that work.

If someone thinks they are going to operate their boat at 75 mph on Winni and the Marine Patrol will be helpless, then they don't know much about cops.

BI did you have a place on that lake? You seem to be the superman of speed limits on lakes around the globe!!!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
There is no prohibiting of boat types on smaller lakes. Just speed limits that work.

As shocking as this may sound, I will have to disagree with you on that statement.
I direct your attention to the Marine Patrol link of Restricted Bodies of Water. You will note that it routinely prohibits types of vessels and types of propulsion.

Why your own Squam Lake that has been touted as a model for Winnipesaukee prohibits certain types of vessels!
The document is 20 pages long!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

BI did you have a place on that lake? You seem to be the superman of speed limits on lakes around the globe!!!

I was the director of a camp for underprivileged children on that lake.

[Airwaves]

Bear Islander, I applaude you for your work as the director of a camp for underprivileged children!

Now, in the context of what we are discussing, what lake are you referencing when you write;

..."Many years ago I was involved with placing a speed limit on a small New Hampshire lake. There were a few violations the first year it was in effect and I called the Marine Patrol. An officer arrived in a car and waited for the boat to return to shore. They didn't speed again.

There is no prohibiting of boat types on smaller lakes. Just speed limits that work."

I would like to see how you were able to eliminate excessive speed (sorry, that doesn't exist without speed limits, right?) without either Marine Patrol support or banning certain types of watercraft?

See my link above to the Marine Patrol Restricted Bodies of Water in NH!

KonaChick seems to know of what lake you speak, so why not share it?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Bear Islander, I applaude you for your work as the director of a camp for underprivileged children!

Now, in the context of what we are discussing, what lake are you referencing when you write;


I would like to see how you were able to eliminate excessive speed (sorry, that doesn't exist without speed limits, right?) without either Marine Patrol support or banning certain types of watercraft?

See my link above to the Marine Patrol Restricted Bodies of Water in NH!

KonaChick seems to know of what lake you speak, so why not share it?

In my political activist youth, Judd Gregg and I petitioned the Department of safety for restrictions on Sunset Lake in Greenfield. There was a hearing, we presented our case, and won the day. I gave up politics but Judd went on the be a Congressman, Governor and Senator.

The speed limit worked. It still works today. The camp has closed, but the other lake residents want to keep the speed limit.

Sorry, but there is nothing about what happened on Sunset lake that argues against HB847, quite the contrary. I have seen boating speed limits work fist hand.

[Airwaves]

So let me get this straight just so I understand it correctly.

You are comparing the success of "speed limits" and the lack of enforcement of those "speed limits" on a 30 acre pond, to that of Lake Winnipesaukee?

Just to make sure we're talking about the same examples:

Sunset Lake (aka Gould Pond) - Greenfield
SAF-C 402.78 - (a) No person shall operate a motorboat on Sunset Lake in Greenfield at a speed exceeding 10 MPH. However, this restriction shall not apply between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs first, on Monday through Saturday, both inclusive, and further provided during the restricted hours, motorboats shall not be operated at a speed exceeding 30 MPH.
(b) All waterskiing on Sunset Lake shall be in a counter-clockwise direction during the unlimited hours.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fish...greenfield.pdf
Sunset Lake, Greenfield. 33 acres, NO PUBLIC ACCESS, Residents only, canoe/cartop launch next to beach.

What happens on Sunday, no boats allowed at all or is that when the GFBL boats show up to ski counter clockwise and create a big flushing whirlpool sound?

http://www.winnipesaukee.org/watershed-facts.htm
Lake Winnipesaukee, Surface Water
Lake Winnipesaukee
44,586 acres

So Sunset Lake (Gould Pond) is the benchmark for Lake Winnipesaukee that you keep talking about as a camp director?

No Public Access and still the waterfont owners had to be forced by you (and Judd Gregg) to slow down to something you thought was reasonable?

Is there even that much surface water (33 acres) in the no wake zone near your camp on Bear Island?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So let me get this straight just so I understand it correctly.

You are comparing the success of "speed limits" and the lack of enforcement of those "speed limits" on a 30 acre pond, to that of Lake Winnipesaukee?

Just to make sure we're talking about the same examples:


What happens on Sunday, no boats allowed at all or is that when the GFBL boats show up to ski counter clockwise and create a big flushing whirlpool sound?



So Sunset Lake (Gould Pond) is the benchmark for Lake Winnipesaukee that you keep talking about as a camp director?

No Public Access and still the waterfont owners had to be forced by you (and Judd Gregg) to slow down to something you thought was reasonable?

Is there even that much surface water (33 acres) in the no wake zone near your camp on Bear Island?

First. its a lake not a pond, the name it had in antiquity was erroneous. Second. it has public access with two beaches and a launch ramp.

The size of the lake is very small, not a good match for comparison to Winnipesaukee. What can be taken from it is that speed limits can and do work. And that people are, for the most part, law abiding.

The reason I bought it up was to illustrate that even a scofflaw that ignores the limit will change his ways after a law enforcement officer explains the situation to them.

You seem to think the MP will watch impotently while a boat cruises around the lake at 75 mph. That just is not going to happen.

[Hottrucks]

not to be a wise guy or anything but how does a boat that goes 50 mph catch a boat going 75 mph and if they do all I want to know is who is going to get the ticket???? you who may have been ridding in the boat me who may have been driving it or gramma who is on the pourch cooking hot dogs??who may have been out there herself???

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
First. its a lake not a pond, the name it had in antiquity was erroneous. Second. it has public access with two beaches and a launch ramp.

You may classify it as a lake, but to me it's a large swimming hole! You could put 23 of similar size "lakes" onto Bear Island itself!

If there is public access it is apparently news to the New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife folks who make available this map to visitors who want to fish. Note that it clearly says NO PUBLIC ACCESS, RESIDENTS ONLY!

Originally posted by Bear Islander
The size of the lake is very small, not a good match for comparison to Winnipesaukee. What can be taken from it is that speed limits can and do work. And that people are, for the most part, law abiding.

It still leaves a big big question, in a lake that massive...I mean pond that small how is it that you found the NEED to deal with lawmaking rather than just meet with your neighbors and talk it out?

Originally posted by Bear Islander
The reason I bought it up was to illustrate that even a scofflaw that ignores the limit will change his ways after a law enforcement officer explains the situation to them.

Actually you have been very clear that the speed limit bill won't cost money and now we know how you have come to that very erronious conclusion. Didn't cost any money on Gould Pond, right?

Originally posted by Bear Islander
You seem to think the MP will watch impotently while a boat cruises around the lake at 75 mph. That just is not going to happen.

Now to take a quote from any one of a number of posts by Bear Islander. I never said that! What I have said is that the LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF is on the Marine Patrol, and without the expense of radar, GPS or aircraft tracking the Marine Patrol can NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF and if they can I'd like to know how!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

You may classify it as a lake, but to me it's a large swimming hole! You could put 23 of similar size "lakes" onto Bear Island itself!

If there is public access it is apparently news to the New Hampshire Fish and Wildlife folks who make available this map to visitors who want to fish. Note that it clearly says NO PUBLIC ACCESS, RESIDENTS ONLY!


It still leaves a big big question, in a lake that massive...I mean pond that small how is it that you found the NEED to deal with lawmaking rather than just meet with your neighbors and talk it out?


Actually you have been very clear that the speed limit bill won't cost money and now we know how you have come to that very erronious conclusion. Didn't cost any money on Gould Pond, right?


Now to take a quote from any one of a number of posts by Bear Islander. I never said that! What I have said is that the LEGAL BURDEN OF PROOF is on the Marine Patrol, and without the expense of radar, GPS or aircraft tracking the Marine Patrol can NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF and if they can I'd like to know how!

You sure know how to take the long way around the barn to make a useless point!

First there is, and has been, a public ramp on Sunset Lake. It is however limited to Greenfield residents.

Second, we didn't have trouble with the lake residents, they were a great bunch of neighbors. It was people that trailered in that caused the problems. In particular the boat from Camp Winamac that trailered in every day and skied for hours. They didn't like to water ski on their own lake because it screwed up their small boating.

Thirdly, they will do it by matching speeds or some other method. Your "they can't stop me" bravado is laughable!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Thirdly, they will do it by matching speeds or some other method. Your "they can't stop me" bravado is laughable!

In case you missed it, the entire point of this thread is to accertain, without use of Radar, GPS or Aerial observation, HOW THE MARINE PATROL CAN MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF of HB847 IN A COURT OF LAW!

or some other method

What other method? You in particular and a number of speed limit advocates have been saying this bill comes at no cost. I want to see exactly how you think the Marine Patrol will enforce this bill so that it meets the legal burden of proof. Explain what "Some other method" is exactly.

a public ramp on Sunset Lake. It is however limited to Greenfield residents.

Then that would not make it a "public" ramp would it?

So you didn't like someone from "away" coming onto you pond to waterski? How horrible that must have been!

Kind of interesting how a camp director not necessarily a property owner, got this law passed imposing restrictions on property owners of the pond, then the camp director and the camp left the pond!

A 33 acre pond is Not Lake Winnipesaukee, enforcement needs and COSTS are something that should have been taken into account before this crusade was launched. If there aren't enough Marine Patrol crews to handle the 150 foot rule then cutting those numbers to set up radar posts is going to make things less enforceable all around.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That is how the law works. I had restrictions placed on them many years ago, and now I am having restrictions placed on you.

"I" am having restrictions placed on you.Pretty much sums up the arrogant demeanor behind the actions from some of these supporters.

[Squam Friend]

That single quote by "BearIslander" in siksukr's post above prompted me to join this forum, I was so appalled by the sheer audacity. "That is how the law works," as if whenever someone does something you don't like, you can get a law passed to stop them. Who do you think you are, BearIslander? I see that you must have edited the original post, but not before your true egotism and condescending attitude showed its face. You make it sound like you had a restraining order passed by claiming "I am having restrictions placed on you." I have to ask again, who do you think you are?

Having been a lifetime boater and resident on Squam Lake I would like to see a single piece of evidence that a speed limit "worked" to "solve a problem," and the same goes for the proposed limit on Winnipesaukee. The only actual non-anecdotal data I have seen does not support the need for a limit on speed. I sincerely hope Governor Lynch hears both sides of this issue and makes a reasonable decision, based on facts, on whether to sign this bill into law. That being said, I am not categorically against speed limits on lakes, but I am against legislation that is based on anecdotes, and not a real demonstrated need for a law to make a social change.

[COWISLAND NH]

Originally Posted by Squam Friend

That single quote by "BearIslander" in siksukr's post above prompted me to join this forum, I was so appalled by the sheer audacity. "That is how the law works," as if whenever someone does something you don't like, you can get a law passed to stop them. Who do you think you are, BearIslander? I see that you must have edited the original post, but not before your true egotism and condescending attitude showed its face. You make it sound like you had a restraining order passed by claiming "I am having restrictions placed on you." I have to ask again, who do you think you are?

Having been a lifetime boater and resident on Squam Lake I would like to see a single piece of evidence that a speed limit "worked" to "solve a problem," and the same goes for the proposed limit on Winnipesaukee. The only actual non-anecdotal data I have seen does not support the need for a limit on speed. I sincerely hope Governor Lynch hears both sides of this issue and makes a reasonable decision, based on facts, on whether to sign this bill into law. That being said, I am not categorically against speed limits on lakes, but I am against legislation that is based on anecdotes, and not a real demonstrated need for a law to make a social change.

THANK YOU -THANK YOU -THANK YOU!!!!! I personally don't like all the little blow boats zig zagin around across from our camp causing a traffic jam, but I wouldn't consider a ban on them bc of it.
By the way has any one seen the NH Marine patrol boating accident reports for 2007????

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Squam Friend

That single quote by "BearIslander" in siksukr's post above prompted me to join this forum, I was so appalled by the sheer audacity. "That is how the law works," as if whenever someone does something you don't like, you can get a law passed to stop them. Who do you think you are, BearIslander? I see that you must have edited the original post, but not before your true egotism and condescending attitude showed its face. You make it sound like you had a restraining order passed by claiming "I am having restrictions placed on you." I have to ask again, who do you think you are?

Having been a lifetime boater and resident on Squam Lake I would like to see a single piece of evidence that a speed limit "worked" to "solve a problem," and the same goes for the proposed limit on Winnipesaukee. The only actual non-anecdotal data I have seen does not support the need for a limit on speed. I sincerely hope Governor Lynch hears both sides of this issue and makes a reasonable decision, based on facts, on whether to sign this bill into law. That being said, I am not categorically against speed limits on lakes, but I am against legislation that is based on anecdotes, and not a real demonstrated need for a law to make a social change.

Well... I'm glad you joined the forum.

My post was a joke, and SIKSUKR only posted part of it. When I realized some people would not understand my particular brand of humor, I deleted the entire thing.

I did not write or sponsor HB847 and can take no credit for it. I have no authority to place restrictions on Airwaves or anyone else.

I'm sorry you got so worked up over the incomplete copy of a misunderstood joke. I will be more careful in the future. My apologies.

I can assure you that the speed limit on Sunset Lake was a god send that solved a very real problem. The underprivileged children from Nashua that attended the camp compliments of the United Fund were unable to go out in boats at all when there was water-skiing on our small lake. And that happened almost every afternoon and some mornings. The speed limit on that lake changed things dramatically and instantly.

That kind of success does not translate well to a large lake like Winnipesaukee. However the problems of the camps lakes are very real, and will be helped by HB847 in my opinion. The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports HB847.

[Squam Friend]

In any case, I did read the entire original post when you first posted it, and was not even going to respond but I felt that another voice of reason would be useful in this forum. While it may have been a joke, it was not only in bad taste but also represents the attitude of some people who are supporters of the speed limit. I simply want to see the lakes be a safe, enjoyable place for all; not to have laws written without good, sound research and a demonstrated need for the government to step in, whether it's on Winnipesaukee, another lake, or in any other area of the public domain. As I said above, anecdotal evidence simply does not demonstrate a need for a law on its own. I would like to know that the camp directors are confident that the boats that are bothering them are traveling at speeds well over the proposed limits and that the enforcement would be serious enough that the law would help these camps safely enjoy the lake. A loud boat traveling by at 31 mph 250 feet away may be intimidating but the proposed speed limit won't change that.

[B R]

Joke or not, it takes an incredible amount of arrogance to write something like that.

[Squam Friend]

B R - well said.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

I predict Bear Island will see a significant increase in boat traffic.

B R, when you posted that was it an actual threat of reprisals due to passage of HB847, or was it a joke in VERY bad taste?

[B R]

First off, what does that statement have to do with the current topic?

Secondly, a lot of people associate Bear Island with the pro-speed limit crowd. certainly, on this forum, residents of bear island have posted 90% of pro speed limit posts.

thirdly, it wasn't a threat and certainly wasn't a joke. i know i've made a few extra trips past the island this year; so what. if you feel threatened by that, you need some help.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

First off, what does that statement have to do with the current topic?

Secondly, a lot of people associate Bear Island with the pro-speed limit crowd. certainly, on this forum, residents of bear island have posted 90% of pro speed limit posts.

thirdly, it wasn't a treat and certainly wasn't a joke. i know i've made a few extra trips past the island this year; so what. if you feel threatened by that, you need some help.

So in retaliation for a few Bear Island residents supporting speed limits you plan to harass the island this summer.

You have made "extra trips past the island" and you are planning to continue this. And you think I need help?

I will keep a copy of this for the Marine Patrol if needed.

Bear Islander apologized for his post, you have done the opposite.

[B R]

Remember the handicap parking in wolfboro thread. you stated you were going to park there anyway as a matter of protest. am i not allowed to protest in my own, marginally petty way?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

Remember the handicap parking in wolfboro thread. you stated you were going to park there anyway as a matter of protest. am i not allowed to protest in my own, marginally petty way?

I don't think "marginally petty" is the correct term. Your telling us about it is threatening in my opinion. Your actually doing it is called harassment or even stalking.

New Hampshire has a stalking law, perhaps you should look it up and see if it might apply. I will tell you your revelation scares me, I have a small child.

What result are you hoping to get from your behavior. To intimidate islanders? Is this payback? If you are not looking to enact punishment then why do it.

[chipj29]

Since when is driving past an island harrassing or even stalking? Public waters, no?
If he maintains a safe distance from shore, how could that be construed as threatening, harrassing or stalking? Fisherman routinely cast their lines under peoples docks. Is that considered stalking?

I think the MPs would laugh at you if you called them to say that a boat is going past your property more times than you think is right. How much is too much, anyway?

[B R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I don't think "marginally petty" is the correct term. Your telling us about it is threatening in my opinion. Your actually doing it is called harassment or even stalking.

New Hampshire has a stalking law, perhaps you should look it up and see if it might apply. I will tell you your revelation scares me, I have a small child.

What result are you hoping to get from your behavior. To intimidate islanders? Is this payback? If you are not looking to enact punishment then why do it.

i find it therapeutic.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...I will tell you your revelation scares me, I have a small child...

This is the silliest thing that I've heard in a long time.

BR has a right to be marginally petty, the hurdle for stalking or harrassment is pretty high.

BTW I usually take all my guests by the BI PO and to see the "bear" on bear island. If I also point out the guy who hiked to both poles, spent $200K for a "space" ride, and then said "That is how the law works. I had restrictions placed on them many years ago, and now I am having restrictions placed on you", am I being petty?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

This is the silliest thing that I've heard in a long time.

BR has a right to be marginally petty, the hurdle for stalking or harrassment is pretty high.

BTW I usually take all my guests by the BI PO and to see the "bear" on bear island. If I also point out the guy who hiked to both poles, spent $200K for a "space" ride, and then said "That is how the law works. I had restrictions placed on them many years ago, and now I am having restrictions placed on you", am I being petty?

Not if you wave.




The Bears name is Phillip.

Phillip T. Bear

[SIKSUKR]

This is nonsense.Look,I totally respect BI and yes even IL right to debate these issues even though I totally disagree.There is nothing wrong with disagreeing.The world would be quite a place if we all said ok to everything the other guy thought.But give this dramatic post about being scared and calling the MP about stalking a rest.This kind of rheteric is exactly what the opposition of the speed limit bill has crooned against.All scare with no substance.You continue to make our point.
And by the way BI,I saw Phillip on Saturday and he is a great mascot for the island.

[John A. Birdsall]

Rattlesnake guy, your mistaken, that was pollen floating in the water not paint. I know it can be misleading.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

So in retaliation for a few Bear Island residents supporting speed limits you plan to harass the island this summer.

You have made "extra trips past the island" and you are planning to continue this. And you think I need help?

I will keep a copy of this for the Marine Patrol if needed.

Bear Islander apologized for his post, you have done the opposite.

Island Lover...

You really should be careful what you wish for...

I have traditionally gone around the long way (around Welch Is) from my slip in the Weirs to Braun Bay or Center Harbor or other points North just because @ 55-60 MPH its faster and alot less aggravating than cutting between Bear Is and Meredith Neck due to the large amount of boat traffic and the two bottlenecks.

However, given the outrageous price of fuel and the impending speed limit. I will be taking the shortest route possible between two points. Unfortunately for you, this means yet another boat adding to the congestion in that stretch of water...

But dont worry, my 26' Donzi cruises just fine @ 45 MPH... just a little bigger wake thats all... and @ 25 MPH its ALOT bigger wake...

I know more than few people that have changed thier driving habits accordingly due to the high price of gas and the impending speed limit. I might just find it easier to trade the Donzi in on a "cruiser" type boat. I am not a big fan of them, but no sense in having an "impractical" speedboat that might attract unwanted attention. I can fit more friends on a cruiser, and they can help defray the cost of fuel. I wonder what type of wake that 27 Rinker with the small motor will make? No doubt ALOT bigger than my Donzi does...

Woodsy

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I don't think "marginally petty" is the correct term. Your telling us about it is threatening in my opinion. Your actually doing it is called harassment or even stalking.

New Hampshire has a stalking law, perhaps you should look it up and see if it might apply. I will tell you your revelation scares me, I have a small child.

What result are you hoping to get from your behavior. To intimidate islanders? Is this payback? If you are not looking to enact punishment then why do it.

Oh gosh...riding by BI is stalking? So what if someone decides to ride around BI 100 times in a row, as long as they obey boating laws how is that stalking? I go by BI ten times a day and to think this whole time I've been stalking..who woulda thunk.

[jrc]

We always wave.

And I would never let jawing on the internet over politics, spill into my real life. So have no fear, island people, no need to lock up the children.

My only response to this law will be at the ballot box and where I spend my money. That is if someone would stop buying me Common man gift certificates.

[Resident 2B]

I also boat out of the Weirs and until this year have been taking the longer, but faster way to Braun. But, with the cost of fuel, I too will be making many more trips through the Bear Island area. I do not see this as breaking the law, but maybe there are people on the Great Republic of Bear Island that do see it as breaking the law.

Please call the MP and all your political folk on me. I thought this was a free country, but I guess I was wrong. I did not realize you folks owned the lake or at least think you own the lake!

So, what are you folks planning to do next with New Hampshire's lake?

R2B

[Chris Craft]

What law are they going to make next to cover up the problems that they are now seeing the speed limit has caused.......

[2Blackdogs]

Holy Cow! This has taken a sinister turn.

Can't you go back to the good old days when calling each other LIARS???

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Can't you go back to the good old days when calling each other LIARS???

Naw, this is a lot more fun to follow.