Opposers Thread

jrc · 08-04-2009, 03:38 PM

I'll open this for symmetry.

I think we need to make a convincing argument for letting the law lapse. We need to build this arguement from a position of logical strength. No one will be convinced by a bunch of bullying yahoos.

I'm a little concerned that elchase believes that the board is nearly unanimous and that this because we are all performance boaters. I also concerned that he thinks he is not welcome because he doesn't agree with the majority. You can't have a discussion without to points of view.

We will never convince people to see things from a different light and view things with an open mind if we are perceived as only performance boaters out to protect our turf.

I am not a performance boater, I'm willing to "prove it" if needed. One or two people on the forum make me nervous, so we need to find a "safe" way to do this.

I object to the speed limit mostly on libertarian grounds. Bad laws restrict our freedoms and must be resisted. Bad laws distract our LEO's from dealing with the real problem (dangerous boaters). Bad laws distract the public from seeing the real problem (dangerous boaters) and dealing with it. Bad laws are written when the public and government is too lazy to figure out the real issue and write a good law. Bad laws are driven by a few to punish others.

That's why I think the speed limit is bad law and should expire. We have to work on the real issue. It is too easy to let people conflate fast boaters with dangerous boaters.

chipj29 · 08-05-2009, 06:27 AM

I am an opposer of the speed limit. However, I am also not a performance boater. I do own a PWC with a top speed of around 55 mph, however that speed is nearly impossible on Winni due to the waves.

I oppose the speed limit for one simple reason...I don't think it is needed. I would like the data to speak for itself. The data that was pulled during the test last year, as well as the data from this season. I think that the two different data sets need to be compared to find out what exactly the speed limit accomplishes.

I have never tried to bully anyone from this forum, and I never will. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I doubt my written words are going to change your mind, and I know that your written words will not change mine. Simply said, it isn't worth the argument.

In summary...show me the data.

VtSteve · 08-05-2009, 07:35 AM

Chip pretty much sums up the entire debate. Problems are best solved by getting accurate answers to questions, and sifting through the data to see if the problems can be solved.

We're all well aware of the largest problems on the lake, and most every lake and waterway in the country.

Too Many Drunks
Boats Too Close together
Boaters Not Paying Attention
Boaters going too fast for conditions
ie: Fog, waves, congestion

It's very hard to solve problems, and create a better environment, if all people can focus on is emotions, whether they be fear real or perceived. One real issue struck a cord with me in last year's heated debates. I've been boating since I was a kid in a 12' boat. I wasn't that smart, but common sense told me that rowing in the middle of the lake between Meredith Neck and Stonedam Island was not that smart. I could certainly do it, perfectly legal, but just not that sharp a thing to do.

There are those that firmly believe that waterways have to be rigidly controlled by legislation to make them "feel safer" as they paddle everywhere. Fear is a very real thing if you believe it to be true. I know I would be fearful if I was in the middle of The Broads in a dark colored kayak. And here's where some of the hardliners reside, correct me if I'm wrong here.

My "impression" is this. Over time, they'd like the entire lake to be guaranteed paddle-friendly. The speed limit was just the beginning. Led by a group spurred on by an accident that had little to do with speed, they sought to rid the lake of performance boaters. In theory, if the SL passed, they would all vanish. Other groups that "felt" unsafe, joined in this coalition. Now they can concentrate on making the SL law permanent, and then move on to other areas, like wake zones, larger boats, whatever they feel unsafe about.

As for the Sailors of the lake. Sailboats here on Lake Champlain seem to outnumber powerboaters by a large number. Many large sailing vessels, and the usual array of racing clubs and groups. We all co-exist. Nobody whines about being unsafe and fearful, even though getting out of the big bay can indeed be a trying experience. Kayakers and canoes know full well how silly it would be to paddle in the middle of these crowded areas. The vast majority do not. But everything seems to work well.

As is the case everywhere, the real problems are not dealt with. The Pro SL crowd has absolutely no intention of debating how to deal with the dangerous tubers and boneheads, and only deal with the 150' rule when measuring how long a boat takes to cover the distance at a given speed. OK, we get the speed thing.

Not even a broad generalization here. I can't remember any posters that are Pro SL getting in a huff about the daily violations that take place, that put us all in danger. Those threads are largely devoid of any of these people. They either don;t want to acknowledge it for fear of diluting their own agendas and focusing attention on the real problems, or they genuinely believe that fast boats are the only problems on the lake. I suspect that people that are active in the legislation areas have gotten the word that they need a voice here. I think that's great. But it would be helpful if they didn't have such a myopic view of life. As evidenced by the various threads on Captain Boneheads, these problems are not going away because of a SL law, permanent or otherwise. The arguments are devoid of facts, and filled with emotion.

That approach will never solve any problems. But as some even admitted after the law passed, they already knew that. At the end of the day, if your only argument is "We Don't Like Them, and We Want Them Off The Lake", you'll not get much support will you?

Forgot to add.

In the spirit of compromise, due to the economic and weather condition this year, I'd like to make this proposal.

Extend the SL period by moving the sunset provision ahead one or two years. I know the pro crowd is worried that people will think that the SL is a solution to a problem that isn't there. They're also worried about what the MP might add to the discussion. So in the interest of fairness, and of course, proving them wrong

Let's do that. For all of 2010 at least, data will be accumulated.

Hopefully, people will start doing pictures and videos of what's going on. Hardly any stories from the Pro SL people, who seem to only boat in the safest parts of the lake, wherever that might be. They know that being called out is the worst thing for their movement. Once the true nature of the problems are known and widespread, they'll look like fools. TV crews could help out immensely in this debate.

Kracken · 08-05-2009, 07:45 AM

I completely oppose the speed limit. I do not own nor have I ever owned a performance boat, I own a “Family Truckster”. I am in one of the groups (for now) that this law is supposed to protect. I believe if laws take liberties away from any group of people, it diminishes us all.

With that being said, I think we have to be realistic. I don’t think unlimited speed on the lake is realistic. While I don’t have a problem with it, I believe the general pubic would. I think we need to come up with a realistic number both sides can live with, and certainly not an arbitrary number like 45. We should use this forum to gather the opinion of all boaters.

So the question is: What is an appropriate limit?

malibu · 08-05-2009, 08:11 AM

I have been opposed to the speed limit from day one and after being out on the water these past few weekends are opposed even more. Before I go any further we own a ski boat, kayaks and two sail boats. We are not go fast boaters, but have nothing against them either.

We still have people coming within fifty feet of us traveling between 35-45 mph. They are not breaking the speed limit just two of the older laws on the books, 150 feet and reckless boating. But the biggest problem is they never get pulled over!!! If the people of NH and the state really want to make the lake safer they should double or triple the MP presence. Wouldn’t you like to see a MP boat in every bay on the weekends actually pulling people over for breaking the laws we already have, to me this would make a lot more sense than trying to catch speeders.

This really comes down to a common sense approach; the speed limit is not addressing the real problem. The lake has actually become less safe, maybe it’s the weather and pent up boaters or people think hey I am not speeding so leave me alone. Whatever it is the speed limit isn’t the fix.

Maybe what the state should do is combine MP with Fish and Game, they could justify more resources being that Fish and Game is in force 12 months a year and has a larger budget.

Malibu

SIKSUKR · 08-05-2009, 08:13 AM

The first few members posting here have hit the nail on the head.I would be willing to guess 75% or more of the opposers do not own go fast boats.I am another one with only a PWC.These people love doing the typical liberal scare tactics and lies about who opposes this speed limit.Why can't people see through this crap?

VtSteve · 08-05-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

The first few members posting here have hit the nail on the head.I would be willing to guess 75% or more of the opposers do not own go fast boats.I am another one with only a PWC.These people love doing the typical liberal scare tactics and lies about who opposes this speed limit.Why can't people see through this crap?

I think most of us DO see through this crap, and have stated so. I have challenged publicly the pro SL crowd to engage in discussions about water safety, enforcement solutions, enforcement problems on the lake, budget problems, you name it. They will not do it, one of the main reasons for two separate threads on the subject. One thread lists the substantive issues, problems, offers up some suggestions for how to deal with the problems. One thread is for the NO crowd. NO Solutions, NO discussion, All feelings and insinuations, no facts or figures.

Last year and early this was a bad one for the debates. Once facts and figures began to roll, it got nasty. The MP had a statement in the Laconia paper that indicated Speed was not a problem, the thread was pulled. There's a huge difference between having a myopic agenda and pointing out problems and solutions. The Pro SL crowd simply does not care about overall safety on the lake. If they did, they would join in the Captain Bonehead discussions. But since most of those incidents are at speeds way less than their favorite SL, they refrain.

Kracken · 08-05-2009, 09:00 AM

Maybe it’s me, and please corrects me if I am wrong. I thought there was already a law on the books to protect ALL boaters. Reckless boating.

Please indulge me as I use a completely fictitious example.

For a setting lets use the Broads, just east of Rattlesnake. On this particular day the broads are very congested. There a many performance boaters moving at 6 miles per hour or just drifting.

Along comes a high performance yellow and red neon kayak. The music is blasting; I believe it’s the band Phish. This is no ordinary kayak, it’s a Sea Kayak. This baby is doing 90 as it approaches the peaceful performance boats, it does not slow down. Due to the incredible skills of the driver, the sea kayak navigates by every performance boat and manages to stay 150 feet away from every one of them. Unfortunately the defenseless performance boats get tossed around a bit by the wakes, and paddle splashes of the Sea Kayak but nobody is injured.

Now I was under the impression, if something like this happened, the MP could give a ticket to the Kayaker under the reckless boating.

Am I mistaken?

gtagrip · 08-05-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

I completely oppose the speed limit. I do not own nor have I ever owned a performance boat, I own a “Family Truckster”. I am in one of the groups (for now) that this law is supposed to protect. I believe if laws take liberties away from any group of people, it diminishes us all.

With that being said, I think we have to be realistic. I don’t think unlimited speed on the lake is realistic. While I don’t have a problem with it, I believe the general pubic would. I think we need to come up with a realistic number both sides can live with, and certainly not an arbitrary number like 45. We should use this forum to gather the opinion of all boaters.

So the question is: What is an appropriate limit?

I think that 60 during the day is prudent speed especially in the Broads. Maybe other areas of the lake could remain at 45? Not sure on that one. Night speed should be 30-35.

Mee-n-Mac · 08-05-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

So the question is: What is an appropriate limit?

Why I'm so glad you asked.

It can be debated as to whether a SL is needed or not, and if implemented whether it'll do any good. For the moment I'll leave these questions aside and presume that there's a SL (or 2, day, night). I don't see why the general philosphy that's supposed to be used to set road limits isn't applicable here. That is you set a SL so that the reasonably cautious driver is neither unduly slowed nor going so fast as to pose a danger to others on the roadway. The assumption is that the road conditions are good. Breaking this down just a bit it means we don't have a SL set artificially low because that's the speed a 1 eyed, drunk centenarian with narcolepsy can handle safely. Neither do you set a SL so high it takes the skillz that only a M Schumacher posesses to run safely at that speed. Lastly the law demands that the driver recognize when road conditions are less than optimal and adjust his speed accordingly. We don't see the posted speed limit to a speed that's safe for an ice covered roadway in the middle of a blizzard and demand people follow that in the middle of a summer day.

I do believe humans have limitations. Some people are more limited than others. I don't think it's proper to let the bottom feeders set the SL to an artificially low number. I don't think the SL should be set so high than anyone else more limited than M Shumachers boating equivalent (which is all of us), running at the SL, is in danger of mowing down innocent boaters.

The complaint I hear is that people are afraid of getting run over by the "fast" boater. OK, I can understand that and at some high speed I can see the scenario wherein an innocent kayaker sitting in his craft, lying in the path of said boat, gets run over because the boater simply didn't see the kayak in time to avoid the run over. So let's use that as a simple test case. Seems to me that the variables are pretty limited. You have the distance at which we can reasonably expect the kayak to be seen, the perception and reaction time of the driver and the dynamics of the boat wrt to turning and stopping. We can debate the numbers to be input but if we can agree that this simple test case must be satisfied then a step has been taken to move the setting of a SL from having it's basis in emotion and conjecture to having it's basis in science and engineering.

Oh wait, you wanted the number ?

We'll I do have mine, having done the math, but I'd rather lead the horse to water than pour it down his gullet. There's a lot less whining from the horse this way.

jrc · 08-05-2009, 09:39 AM

While it is obvious that speeds must be limited to the conditions, I've always been reluctant to throw out numbers, because the number needs to be based on things like sightlines, weather, and traffic. Plus, It's not practical to put signage for every route, no one wants to see Winni covered with speed limit bouys.

M-n-M can do math and figure out the absolute maximum safe speed, I'm too lazy. I'm sure it's a pretty big number, but that speed would only be safe in certain conditions. He could also do the math for worst case conditions, but that number would be impossibly small.

Kracken · 08-05-2009, 10:10 AM

I would say 65 day / 35 night. I believe the general public would go along with that.

These are Max speeds. Conditions may dictate lower speeds.

Mee-n-Mac · 08-05-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

While it is obvious that speeds must be limited to the conditions, I've always been reluctant to throw out numbers, because the number needs to be based on things like sightlines, weather, and traffic. Plus, It's not practical to put signage for every route, no one wants to see Winni covered with speed limit bouys.

M-n-M can do math and figure out the absolute maximum safe speed, I'm too lazy. I'm sure it's a pretty big number, but that speed would only be safe in certain conditions. He could also do the math for worst case conditions, but that number would be impossibly small.

You're correct in that any limit will have to be a compromise. You can have an overall limit, in all places and at all times, or you can do something creative. But if there is to be an overall limit it shouldn't be for the worst case conditions. Just as NH expects you to slow in rain or fog or snow or whatever when on the road, NH should expect you to slow when the lake conditions aren't optimal.

As for being "creative" I've heard the following 2 suggestions. One, the SL in in place on the weekends (and holidays). Apparently this is done in some parts of NJ to limit speeds when high boat traffic and congestion are expected. Two you could expand on the SL concept we've had for years. That would be the NWS within 150' of, well, most things. Expand that to be 60MPH when within X ft of, well, most anything. The distance X falls out of the calculations I've mentioned. The effect is some passages, which don't have sufficient sightlines for "high" speed become speed limited. Shorelines become a more "protected" zone than before so tubers and paddlers and etc are seperated from "high" speed boats. Depending on the speed desired it becomes fairly obvious as to where "high" speed is allowed ... or not.

And yes, the "magic" number is pretty large. Which explains why we haven't had "high" speed boats running over other craft every week, year after year. It isn't due to luck, it's because the "high" speed most GFBL boats can travel at is well within normal human limitations.

Kracken · 08-05-2009, 10:22 AM

You are killing me. M&M.

Please give us the number.

OCDACTIVE · 08-05-2009, 11:29 AM

Hey guys... Most of us have talked this subject to death.... And frankly there is really no further argument to be made in my own opinion.. Most all of you know me from my past posts as being one of the most vocal opposer there is to the limits. I am appalled to think my state: Live free or die... even has to discuss such a ludicris law.

As we all know and have seen there is no data or evidence that a speed limit law is needed. When the pro-speed limit crowd is questioned they continue to bring up Safety issues. When asked where the data is they don't have any. I have read most every thread on here and there a outrageous claims i.e. 80% of NH's population support the law, there are 60% less tickets being issued because the GFB's are no longer on the lake etc etc etc... WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THESE??? I have been wanting to know how many tickets have been issued for speeding and I haven't found that data anywhere..... Where are these %'s coming from? It just goes to show you that people will say anything to support their cause.

I am so frustrated with these mindless debates. The same old people are making the same old arguements with no statistics or evidence to back them up. So Arguing with them won't get us anywhere.....

We lost last time because we all were lulled into a sense of security that it had been brought up and shot down so many times it won't happen.. Well it did and now is our chance to finally rid this once and for all.

I propose we organize and get the word out. Not just on this forum but in general. I remember I used to get emails from someone in the past giving my updates but I have lost those (3 years ago)

Does anyone remember or have that contact info? Also does anyone have a list or names of groups who are opposed to the law? If not lets get one going. I would be happy to help orgainize.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Also, any updates as to the progression of the bill currently?

SADDLE UP!!!!!!!

Seaplane Pilot · 08-05-2009, 12:47 PM

Don't waste your energy and ideas here. Kind of reminds me of the old saying..."Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud, because you'll soon find out the pig enjoys it." This is exactly what the supporters of the speed limit want.

Don't tip your hands here - let's do this in the quiet. I don't believe that the supporters care one bit about speed, but rather, they have a bigger agenda. We need to organize and take action. Infiltrators from the supporter side will be forced to take a 1 hour ride in a GFBL at 100 mph (on Lake Winnisquam, where it is perfectly legal). Kind of ironic, huh!

Mee-n-Mac · 08-05-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

You are killing me. M&M.

Please give us the number.

Hehehe. Sorry for any angst but if we want to be honest about this, let's decide that the scenario is appropriate and then what the input numbers are. Then the results are the results whatever they say. Just as a for instance ....

I'd use a human reaction time somewhere between 1.5 and 1.8 seconds. The boating situation isn't like having your hand poised over a switch waiting for a buzzer to sound and nor is it like reacting to something totally unexpected and unknown.

So at what distance can we expect a boater to see the kayak lying directly in his path ? Well I've come across more than a few over the decades I've been on Winni and I'd just have to put my estimate in. Frankly if you can't see one at 0.5 miles distant you need an eye exam. I can tell you the color of the paddlers PFD from across the bay and that's 1000'. Let's be conservative and say it's 1000 ft before the boater sees the kayak and recognizes it as something to avoid.

So what does the boater do ? Mostly I'd expect a turn and not too abrupt a one as he'll not take the time to trim properly (at first). So how tight a turn is this ? Well in my world it's common to measure a constant radius turn in terms of Gs (I can spew on this if desired). In your car a not felt turn might be 0.25G. A just noticable one is perhaps .33G. Cranking the wheel so you're pulling 0.5G will have your wife telling you to slow down ! What can a boat do ? Actually all trimmed and set for a turn, they'll do really well but remember this is something of an immediate nature. Let's again be conservative and say 0.33G.

Will the Capt then slow as well ? I would though it might take a bit longer to reach the throttle and then I'd be a bit careful not to slam it to zero. Let's say it takes me 2.5 seconds after I see the kayaker to get to the stick(s). What kind of deceleration would I use ? I think 0.25G is pretty mild.

So there's some inputs. So what's the max speed I could be doing and still not break the kayakers 150' "bubble" ? This is the time to debate the numbers above.

SteveA · 08-05-2009, 12:59 PM

My Pontoon can easily go 55 MPH, if I'm towing it behind my Jeep.

Seriously, the real problem is the Captain Boneheads. And, by the way, Capt. Bonehead drives HP Boats and Pontoons.

Any waste of time chasing down GFBL's simply based on the speed they are traveling is a distraction from the real job the MP has stopping the drunks and people who have no idea what they are doing out on the lake. JMHO

PS SIKSUKR I'm liberal.. but I take no offense.

Kracken · 08-05-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Hehehe. Sorry for any angst but if we want to be honest about this, let's decide that the scenario is appropriate and then what the input numbers are. Then the results are the results whatever they say. Just as a for instance ....

So there's some inputs. So what's the max speed I could be doing and still not break the kayakers 150' "bubble" ? This is the time to debate the numbers above.

M&M you are killing me.

Airwaves · 08-05-2009, 11:44 PM

Given that Rep Jim Pilliod R-Belmont is planning to file a bill in a couple of weeks to eliminate the sunset clause of the speed limit law I have a plan.

Opponents of the current law that want to hear it should PM me. I will check your name against the posts on the reopened threads before responding to you.

Mee-n-Mac · 08-06-2009, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

M&M you are killing me.

OK, the Gov called and told me to stop.

Seriously though in any debate it helps not know the "answer" until you've settled on all the facts. To that end I've not put up my "answer" hoping that some of the numbers I've used would be scrutinized. I still invite that. But to save you any more anguish and to perhaps stir some conversation on this topic I present you the following graphs. In them the stationary boat (kayaker, canoe, PWC, whatever) sits at the 0,0 point. I've drawn a redlined quarter circle at 150' around it. The boat comes in along the horizontal line, from right to left, it's position every 0.1 seconds plotted with a blue diamond.

The initial speed of the first boat ... 100 MPH.

Which I think most people would agree is fast. Does this mean it's perfectly safe to do 100 MPH at all times and in all places ? No, certainly not. But it does start to put things in perspective as to what humans can do (or can't) and the kind of sightlines needed to run at truly fast speeds. It also starts to explain why we don't have boats at "high" speeds running over other boats every weekend. A more realistic case is the next graph where it's a 70 MPH boat. FWIW I didn't even have this one touch the throttle.

OCDACTIVE · 08-06-2009, 07:56 AM

There you go MnM, using actual statistics and data to prove the case.... The supports are not going to be happy with this because you haven't incooperated skewed polls from non-boaters, fear, or false statements of safety and the pile of accidents that haven't occured due to speeding...

I implore the supports to show us similar data that proves their points..... Oh thats right, there isn't any.....

Kracken · 08-06-2009, 07:57 AM

I think I see your logic; maybe a graph at 45MPH and 120MPH would be good as a reference. So you are stating these charts as maximum speeds under ideal conditions? Obviously factors such as wind speed & direction, currents and visibility would be factors that would increase reaction time as well as physical condition of both boat and driver.

SIKSUKR · 08-06-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveA

PS SIKSUKR I'm liberal.. but I take no offense.

Sorry Steve,thats not a personel dig just a general thought process of who is responsible for what.And I dont hold that against you either

.You might be more conservative than you think.But don't hold that against me.

Mee-n-Mac · 08-06-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

I think I see your logic; maybe a graph at 45MPH and 120MPH would be good as a reference. So you are stating these charts as maximum speeds under ideal conditions? Obviously factors such as wind speed & direction, currents and visibility would be factors that would increase reaction time as well as physical condition of both boat and driver.

I wouldn't say they represent some proof of maximum speed allowed, just that such high speeds aren't beyond human or boat abilities. Certainly the other factors you cite will affect the ability of the boat and/or driver to perform to the level (relatively low IMO) I've presented. For instance - the sun in your eyes might reduce visibility to below the 1000' I used but then it's pretty commonsense that when that happens you don't go bombing along at 100 MPH. Same thing with sea (lake) state or a number of other variables. But just as the State expects the car driver to recognize and apapt to the road conditions, it should expect the same from the boat pilot.

For that matter while I'm pretty sure the numbers I've used for sightline and reaction time are conservative (ie - WinFabs used a perception & reaction time of 1.5 secs), the numbers for "cornering ability", 0.33G, may be wildly conservative. Race boats, when trimmed properly, routinely pull 3-5 Gs, as good as the best race cars. More mundane performance boats can exceed 1G but the question is how much time is needed to put the boat in the proper state to do that. Could well be that an avoidance manuver starts just like I've outlined but a couple of seconds later the boat settles and pulls 0.8G. I may be underestimating what might typically be done. To that end I'd like to do actual testing with a number of boats and have real life numbers to back up the theoretical. And of course the examples I've presented are very simplistic but perhaps it gets people to start thinking about more complicated situations.

In any case what I hope to do is begin to put some numbers and facts out there. People "fear" being run down. The boat speeds quoted by the supporters of the SL have ratcheted up as they read the latest high speed test done someplace. 100 MPH, 130 MPH, 160 MPH, 200 MPH, as if these are typical speeds we'll see almost every day here on Winni. I might well be concerned about a 200 MPH boat, if it did that speed very often. I'm not too concerned about a 100 MPH boat, provided the capt exercises a modicum of care and diligence. Why ? Because it doesn't take mad boat skilz to avoid running over another boat at even that high speed. And I'd bet that speed is at the outer 0.001 % of speeds you'd ever see here on Winni.

Of more concern, at least pertaining to speed, is whether the capt uses good judgement in how fast he/she goes when in traffic. There are plenty of occasions where 45 MPH is too fast. I'd rather see a method to address that than a blanket speed limit.

Waaaay back when I stated that while I didn't see the need for any SLs, I wouldn't be opposed to some rational limits. 25 MPH is too low IMO, but even just a bump to 30 MPH would make it more tolerable. 45 MPH is way too low and overly, and unnecessarily, restrictive. If people wanted to compromise then leave the Broads open (or restricted to 120 MPH, same thing) and make the other parts of the lake limited to 45 (?) MPH. It kinda like what your parents did when you kids squabbled. Each got sent to their own room.

Or it's like what we do on the roads, we have "high" (ha !) limits on the highways and lower ones around town.

Kracken · 08-06-2009, 01:16 PM

And your thoughts on Universal Healthcare?

Mee-n-Mac

You should run for office.

onlywinni · 08-06-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

I would say 65 day / 35 night. I believe the general public would go along with that.

These are Max speeds. Conditions may dictate lower speeds.

I could not agree more.

If you are in a crowded bay and doing 65mph on a Sat or Sun...you are foolish...if you are alone in the Broads then who are you hurting or bothering at 65..other than your gas mileage

?

OCDACTIVE · 08-06-2009, 02:35 PM

Hey Onlywinni,

A bit off topic but I see you have a 2008 Baja... I thought you might like to see who I had the pleasure of speaking with earlier this year in VA:

onlywinni · 08-06-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Hey Onlywinni,

A bit off topic but I see you have a 2008 Baja... I thought you might like to see who I had the pleasure of speaking with earlier this year in VA:

Cool...of course the old school die hard Baja guys would say my 08 is the Last of the Real Bajas

OCDACTIVE · 08-06-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Cool...of course the old school die hard Baja guys would say my 08 is the Last of the Real Bajas

Very true, but you have to be impressed with some of the upgrades.. I think it was a good move on both sides.

Carry on with the limits..

Kracken · 08-06-2009, 03:23 PM

I have been going to the lake for 35 years. I have seen my share of close calls. I have come to a dead stop many times when I should not have had to. I have seen many boaters doing things that endangered their own lives, their passengers lives and the lives of other boaters. Anybody who has ever been on this lake has seen these things. This forum is loaded with examples of intelligence challenged boaters.

But every single time I have witnessed this idiocracy (I know it’s not a real word, but a good movie). It has never been perpetrated by a performance boat. Yes I have seen people going to fast for the conditions, but that is different and I have never witnessed a performance boat doing it. Yes there are the well documented accidents involving GFBLs, and they have been discussed at nauseam. But they are only a small percentage of incidents on the lake.

I think the speed limits are ridiculous because they are targeting a group that is not the problem. Honestly, if a 30 foot boat doing 70 MPH a half a mile away from you scares and intimidates a boater, what does seeing the Mount pass you at 200 feet do to you? Why is this country so obsessed with how people feel? Why do we put perception before facts? Why are we going to let people who can’t fiscally run this country take over the best healthcare system the world has ever seen? I am sorry about the last one I got carried away.

If you want to make the lake safer, give I.Q. tests along with those Boating Certificates. Oh wait we can’t ban the stupid, oh excuse me the intellectually challenged.

Sorry for the rant.

VtSteve · 08-06-2009, 03:29 PM

I'm only going by memory here. Is 2 the total number of fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving accidents or collisions? Maybe that's just this decade. A huge deal was made out of the Littlefield/Hartman case. I wasn't in the loop at that time, but I did read the various articles and threads here. One of the reasons the speed limit law debates got me interested. I initially heard it wasn't safe to be near shore, much on the lake

I know there have been boats sunk, overturned, fishermen drowned in cold waters, swimming accidents, PWC's hitting moored boats. Are these statistics available anywhere? I know the number of accidents can't be very big, because Winfabs would have published every one of them, instead of their misleading and generalized opinions.

Between Champlain and Winnipesaukee, their safety records are so much better than other parts of the country, it does make one wonder why all the fuss. The only boats I avoid over here are the big cruisers. I can't tell you what seeing a 40' to over 50' Carver or the likes make me do

I do get a kick out of sailors coming out of the woodwork now because "it's safe to sail again". Please, spare me. We have many, and presumably, many larger sailboats here on my turf from all over. There are a fair number of GFBL boats as well. Somehow, they all co-exist with little or no problems. One of the aspects of the debate not talked about is the usual spat between lakefront owners and transient (trailer) or marina boaters. Big difference in the two groups. We could go out whenever we wanted living on the lakefront, while most trailer boaters were weekend warriors, and the cruisers filled the slips. Very different perspective between the two groups, and I've been in both groups.

But getting back to statistics. The stats on Winni are pretty slim. The stats on high-speed accidents are "almost" nil? I say that, because I can't find one in any record. While I think the addition of the term "safe speed" when teaming up with Reasonable and Prudent in terms of safety is a good way to do it, the speed limits themselves just don't fit. I can think of lakes that just might need a speed limit like this one, but as of yet, nothing has passed.

Don asked for some stats and some proof from both sides. As far as I know there is no data available anywhere that suggests Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit for safety reasons, which is the reason given when it was passed. Take the speed limit provision of the bill out, and you're left with a pretty good law.

Kracken · 08-06-2009, 03:38 PM

Summer 2009 Stats through July 13:

Marine Patrol Calls-964 calls for service as of July 13,

370 warnings issued
136 Tickets
3 accidents and f
5 BUI

No speeding tickets.

VtSteve · 08-06-2009, 03:43 PM

I think it's unwise to make this a political argument, especially comparing it to health care. The real problem with our health care system now is that it costs too much. That's the 800 pound elephant in the room that will squash you. If that's not dealt with sooner than later, you always run the risk of people changing it in ways you may not find palatable. The fact that it has not been dealt with all this time is irresponsible IMO. But at some point over the next decade, it will be dealt with while we're all in crisis mode, not a good position to be dealing with problems.

But this is a discussion about a boating law, a targeted one at that. As you point out, some people have stated that they "are fearful" on the lake. Some element of fear is a good thing, it keep us diligent. But I remember back in the days of the 55 speed limit on all highways. When it was finally repealed and states allowed to set a more natural limit, we were basically told that millions more would die. Guess what? They have not referenced statistics again, since all of the stats do not favor their arguments. Even looking directly at the stats themselves, they are misleading. So you're arguing against a group that, at least in part, might think anything over 55 mph on a highway is unsafe.

This boating law was passed because of emotions, perceived fear, and good organization skills. The term "speed-related" has been so widely misused in statistics that it's borderline useless without a fudge factor being identified. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So these aren't grand arguments when dealing with the masses of disparate opinions.

Kracken · 08-06-2009, 03:48 PM

The Healthcare thing was a joke.

I really don't want to debate that

ITD · 08-06-2009, 04:03 PM

You know, I'm not sure I really want to get involved in this debate again, but I just have to say that I really expected very few speeding tickets based on the data collected last year by the MP. I maintained that the wild west characterization concerning speeding last year was wrong and I think that is being proven out this year.

VtSteve · 08-06-2009, 04:23 PM

I'd have to agree with you ITD. I think Winni is a very congested lake, and many just singled out what they disliked the most. The MP has stated many times, and again warned this year, that speed was not much of a problem on Winni. The supporters knew this, and rushed as fast as they could last year to make it law.

Barrett was again in the press in June, making a statement how he thought some would be disappointed, and don't expect a deluge of tickets. I'm sure his statements have enraged some.

Interesting contrast. While boating is a bit slower on Lake Champlain this year, I still see the usual GFBL boats doing their raft ups and cruising. I never have a problem with these boaters, unlike some of the smaller ones. My biggest curse on weekends is trying to weave through the sailboat masses to get out of the bay. I don't grumble (too much), it's a big lake. Most of them are much bigger than my boat, so wakes are not an issue. Even though we have a 200' limit here, even the MP and CG understand it would be silly to enforce it rigidly at such times. Heck, the July 4th boats would still be waiting in line to get out

I think everyone has an expectation of what their perfect boating experience is. Some accept reality and hope for the best and enjoy it, and others try their level best to make sure their vision is put into law. I think some of the sailors whining on these boards should talk to people over here that sail. Get over yourselves and learn to be boaters. If you expect people to hold QUIET signs like they have in PGA golf tournaments every time you go out, fuggetaboutit.

codeman671 · 08-06-2009, 08:14 PM

After going for a cruise on the Long Island Sound a few weeks ago on a test ride and seeing how they boat down there, I feel much better here with no speed limit and a 150' rule then down there with no safe passage law. It was total chaos.

Rattlesnake Guy · 08-06-2009, 08:42 PM

I am the last guy to suggest a law. But perhaps a compromise. My boat also only goes over the speed limit behind my truck. One thing we have constantly observed, even this year, is that boats that go fast keep much wider distances. Probably a matter of survival.

Possible Compromise: Boats going faster than 45 have to leave 300 feet space to the nearest boat or shore. The fast boat is always the give way boat. The 45+ speeds are limited to the broadest areas of the lake. (perhaps 60% of the area)

chipj29 · 08-07-2009, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

I have been going to the lake for 35 years. I have seen my share of close calls. I have come to a dead stop many times when I should not have had to. I have seen many boaters doing things that endangered their own lives, their passengers lives and the lives of other boaters. Anybody who has ever been on this lake has seen these things. This forum is loaded with examples of intelligence challenged boaters.

But every single time I have witnessed this idiocracy (I know it’s not a real word, but a good movie). It has never been perpetrated by a performance boat. Yes I have seen people going to fast for the conditions, but that is different and I have never witnessed a performance boat doing it. Yes there are the well documented accidents involving GFBLs, and they have been discussed at nauseam. But they are only a small percentage of incidents on the lake.

I think the speed limits are ridiculous because they are targeting a group that is not the problem. Honestly, if a 30 foot boat doing 70 MPH a half a mile away from you scares and intimidates a boater, what does seeing the Mount pass you at 200 feet do to you? Why is this country so obsessed with how people feel? Why do we put perception before facts? Why are we going to let people who can’t fiscally run this country take over the best healthcare system the world has ever seen? I am sorry about the last one I got carried away.

If you want to make the lake safer, give I.Q. tests along with those Boating Certificates. Oh wait we can’t ban the stupid, oh excuse me the intellectually challenged.

Sorry for the rant.

Regarding the bolded, to be fair, just because you have not seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. A couple years ago 2 of us were on PWC's, heading in to Silver Sands. We were coming off plane to idle in, and a GFBL (it was actually a beautiful cigarette boat) came flying in right next to us, presumably to beat us to the ramp. He was less than 50' off my port side.

There are cap'n boneheads all around us, driving all types of water craft. I don't think it is fair to exclude any particular type of vessel.

SteveA · 08-07-2009, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

And I dont hold that against you either

.You might be more conservative than you think.But don't hold that against me.

I was just having fun with ya!

EricP · 08-09-2009, 02:07 PM

I am opposed to the speed limit and have been all along. I do not believe there is a speed problem as other here have also stated. I also believe there are safety violations which are more of a concern to the safety of the public than speed will ever be.

I feel safer taking my SeaDoo across the broads than I do near the Weirs channel where there is congestion and Captain B's galore doing what they do best. Others on the forum have made the same observations in their areas, The Graveyard, Alton Bay, Winter Harbor, etc... (too many to recall and mention here).

If I had a decent camera I'd sit out there and film this stuff to bring to Concord, if anyone wants to and needs assistance I'll come sit in your boat with you and help. We need this type of evidence to show the problem and I think it will be more powerful than 100 rigged polls.

I like the idea of more MP presence to monitor these safety violations and offer a suggestion, what about a $5 surcharge on registrtions dedicated soley to staffing MP to increase safety patrols? I realize some won't like that, others will say "what about kayakers who don't register and therefore don't contribute?". I counter with "if spending $5 makes me safer then it is worth it". Something has to be done to actually improve safety and the speed limit will never accomplish that.

caloway · 08-09-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

OK, the Gov called and told me to stop.

Seriously though in any debate it helps not know the "answer" until you've settled on all the facts. To that end I've not put up my "answer" hoping that some of the numbers I've used would be scrutinized. I still invite that. But to save you any more anguish and to perhaps stir some conversation on this topic I present you the following graphs. In them the stationary boat (kayaker, canoe, PWC, whatever) sits at the 0,0 point. I've drawn a redlined quarter circle at 150' around it. The boat comes in along the horizontal line, from right to left, it's position every 0.1 seconds plotted with a blue diamond.

The initial speed of the first boat ... 100 MPH.

Which I think most people would agree is fast. Does this mean it's perfectly safe to do 100 MPH at all times and in all places ? No, certainly not. But it does start to put things in perspective as to what humans can do (or can't) and the kind of sightlines needed to run at truly fast speeds. It also starts to explain why we don't have boats at "high" speeds running over other boats every weekend. A more realistic case is the next graph where it's a 70 MPH boat. FWIW I didn't even have this one touch the throttle.

1) Using all your numbers--which I believe are reasonable and not conservative--a boater doing 70 mph that looks over his shoulder or adjusts the radio or scratches an itch for 3 seconds would violate the 150' rule.

2) You're completely ignoring the perspective of the kayaker. A kayaker needs about 5 seconds to dump and orient. That means that 5 seconds is the margin of safety--or 650 feet. At 70 mph--even if the boater is not distracted at all--you can't meet that standard. The boater may feel fine, but the kayaker is unpleasantly wet--and hopefully hasn't ingested any water from cold convulsions.

I think it's clear that the higher the speed limit, the more of the lake is off limits to small craft (or conversely, the faster the craft must be to occupy the same general area)

VitaBene · 08-09-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

I am opposed to the speed limit and have been all along. I do not believe there is a speed problem as other here have also stated. I also believe there are safety violations which are more of a concern to the safety of the public than speed will ever be.

I feel safer taking my SeaDoo across the broads than I do near the Weirs channel where there is congestion and Captain B's galore doing what they do best. Others on the forum have made the same observations in their areas, The Graveyard, Alton Bay, Winter Harbor, etc... (too many to recall and mention here).

If I had a decent camera I'd sit out there and film this stuff to bring to Concord, if anyone wants to and needs assistance I'll come sit in your boat with you and help. We need this type of evidence to show the problem and I think it will be more powerful than 100 rigged polls.

I like the idea of more MP presence to monitor these safety violations and offer a suggestion, what about a $5 surcharge on registrtions dedicated soley to staffing MP to increase safety patrols? I realize some won't like that, others will say "what about kayakers who don't register and therefore don't contribute?". I counter with "if spending $5 makes me safer then it is worth it". Something has to be done to actually improve safety and the speed limit will never accomplish that.

I'd pay the extra $5 or $10

tis · 08-09-2009, 06:00 PM

I wonder how many people truly would go 70 for longer than a couple of minutes. I must say I have never seen anyone go very fast for a long period of time. I think most check what is in front of them first and open it up for a while, then slow down. Maybe I am wrong. Anyone?

hazelnut · 08-09-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

I wonder how many people truly would go 70 for longer than a couple of minutes. I must say I have never seen anyone go very fast for a long period of time. I think most check what is in front of them first and open it up for a while, then slow down. Maybe I am wrong. Anyone?

Yes tis. Lost in all of this is that very fact that most of the guys that I have seen or the guys that have given me a ride on their boats usually go 30-50 and only rarely pump up the throttle once they can see a large clear path in front of them. It's way more fashionable for the other side to distort this and claim that performance boats travel willy nilly 75MPH all over the place where little children are swimming.

caloway · 08-10-2009, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Yes tis. Lost in all of this is that very fact that most of the guys that I have seen or the guys that have given me a ride on their boats usually go 30-50 and only rarely pump up the throttle once they can see a large clear path in front of them. It's way more fashionable for the other side to distort this and claim that performance boats travel willy nilly 75MPH all over the place where little children are swimming.

yeah, that's the game isn't it? Supporters pretend someone almost ran over their puppy yesterday and opposers pretend GFBL boats operate in a bubble.

Kracken · 08-10-2009, 10:11 AM

I was only stating I have never witnessed a Capt. Bonehead move by a performance boat. I was not suggesting none of them are Captain Boneheads.

Most people that spend that kind of money / time on any activity have vested interest in protecting and maintaining their property. I would actually go as far to say that most members of this forum have a passion for boating and therefore are not prone to having a CB moment. Personally, I am here to be informed and entertained, plus a great way to kill some time on the slow days. I have been boating for a long time but I am always learning and this forum is a great resource. Last week I learned that Vaseline can actually restore faded gel coat. My wife thinks I am obsessive when it comes to the boat. She saw me heading out to the boat with a smile on my face and a jar of Vaseline in my hand. She knew one day it would come to this.

My point is: If people have a vested interest and investment in an activity, for the most part they take the time and effort to learn how to do it right. You see very few good golfers that do not know the rules of golf.

jmen24 · 08-11-2009, 09:07 AM

I do not have much to add to the debate other than I agree with the posts above in regard to opposing the SL. I am looking to purchase a boat that may or may not exceed the current limit (have not gotten to that part yet). I am however a huge fan of anything fast be it bikes, cars, planes or boats. There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing a craft that can go fast, do so, within able hands at reasonable areas.

I need to know where the 5 seconds to dump and orient number comes from for a kayaker on a Lake. You are out in the open with ample ability to see craft approaching you, I understand that other situations may present less time for you to see a craft approach but your are fully aware of your location prior to dumping.

My example to why that number is completely made up, I paddled the Dead River on Saturday at a small 2400cfs release. I dumped in Spencer Rips (which for those that do not know is a wave track that is not very technical, but the waves classify as class III due to size. I was fully aware that I was going to dump entering the first wave, I was fully aware of my location at that time. I was out of my boat by the time I was at the bottom of that first drop, I entered the wave at the bottom and surface on the other side, I had hold of my boat by the time I entered the third wave and was fully self rescued before the group on river left had blown three shots of the wistle. For those not familar, self rescued means back in control of your situation with all of your belongings at your control and no longer outside of the boat by yourself. I was back on my boat and in control of it before exiting the rip. That entire process was within a span of 6-7 seconds (one wistle blast every 2 seconds). That is in fast moving whitewater, on a lake it would take you 5 seconds just to fall out of the boat and figure out your location? I think you need to adjust your number. If your agument is that experience plays a role in reaction ability your are right and that also means that the person in your senerio needs to stay far away from open water and practice closer to shore.

caloway · 08-11-2009, 04:09 PM

I figured 1 second for problem identification and reaction, 1 second to roll the boat, 1 sec to roll out of the skirt and a couple of seconds to come up and orient. And that doesn't even get you out of the way.

Let's be honest, though, a paddler-turned-swimmer isn't going to be able to get out of the way fast enough to matter.

Not sure about river paddling. My experience is primarily ocean off of southern Maine and Cape Ann. The middle of the lake is pretty comparable to cape and bay paddling.

LIforrelaxin · 08-12-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloway

I figured 1 second for problem identification and reaction, 1 second to roll the boat, 1 sec to roll out of the skirt and a couple of seconds to come up and orient. And that doesn't even get you out of the way.

Let's be honest, though, a paddler-turned-swimmer isn't going to be able to get out of the way fast enough to matter.

Not sure about river paddling. My experience is primarily ocean off of southern Maine and Cape Ann. The middle of the lake is pretty comparable to cape and bay paddling.

Lets see here I understand where you come up with 5 secs.... and yep if you did each of those items independant of each other and serial this would be true..... but what the reality is, is that these things all happen kind of simutaneously..... Sure it might take a second to identify and react to the problem I will give you that one.... but while you rolling the boat, you are also undoing the skirt and poping out... so lets knock that down to say 1.5 secs..... now you have to surface and orient your self... once again these are happening simultaneously and I believe, if you where oriented when you rolled and popped oreintation should take long... so I think we can knock this donw to 1.25 secs.
so my math gives me 3.75 secs... now not everyone is as fast.... so 4 secs....

My point here is not to squable over 5 secs vs. 4 secs..... my point is this, to define how long something like this will take is not easy..... things happen in parallel.... not step by step.....

I kayak, if I was in my kayak and saw a boat comming towards, me and I didn;t seem to get there attention, yep I would take a breath roll, dave and swim under water as far as I could away from the situation.... I am not going to roll and come right back up to re-evaluate the situation until I am out of breath.......

Mee-n-Mac · 08-12-2009, 07:49 PM

Sorry for my slow repsonse to your response. Can you believe they want me to work at work ??

Take a few days off from the forum on a hot topic likle this and I've got a lot of catching up to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloway

1) Using all your numbers--which I believe are reasonable and not conservative--a boater doing 70 mph that looks over his shoulder or adjusts the radio or scratches an itch for 3 seconds would violate the 150' rule.

I'm kinda at a loss for words for this. If you think taking your eyes off your direction of travel for 3 seconds at a time is acceptable then you and I have a larger gulf to cross than a mere speed limit. Would you take your eyes off the road for 3 secs when driving down the I-93? Would you call for speed limits (or lower limits) if someone who did this caused a collision ? Or would you attribute the collision to driver inattention (I may say driver stupidity of a high order) rather than speed (as I would). While people certainly should be looking around them, not just straight ahead, (in boats and in cars) they shouldn't be spending more than a few tenths at any one time doing so. You want to add 0.3 secs to the reaction time ... OK but it won't make a significant difference. Much more than that isn't an argument against speed but against crappy driving. Sorry but I just can't accept you argument above as proof that 70 MPH is unsafe (but 45 MPH is).

Quote:

Originally Posted by caloway

2) You're completely ignoring the perspective of the kayaker. A kayaker needs about 5 seconds to dump and orient. That means that 5 seconds is the margin of safety--or 650 feet. At 70 mph--even if the boater is not distracted at all--you can't meet that standard. The boater may feel fine, but the kayaker is unpleasantly wet--and hopefully hasn't ingested any water from cold convulsions.

I think it's clear that the higher the speed limit, the more of the lake is off limits to small craft (or conversely, the faster the craft must be to occupy the same general area)

I think some others have asked the same question I would have re: the 5 secs but let's consider that in the context of the situation you've proposed. At 10 secs prior to collision our hypothetical boater, doing 70 MPH (~100 FPS) is 1000' away. He notices the kayak in his path and reacts. After 4 secs have gone by the boat is still ~600' away and only 25' off laterally. But more importantly it has turned and this should be clear to the kayaker intent on the boat bearing down on him. In another second the boats closes another ~100 ft closer, is now 50+' displaced laterally and turned even more. IMO, were I in the kayak, I'd interpret this as the boat seeing me and taking proper action to avoid me. I wouldn't be diving below the surface. More over most kayakers I see paddling about Winni are wearing their PFDs so diving to escape doesn't sound like a much used plan (despite the recent Sunapee incident).

But your point is a fair one, which I'll rephase as a question and ask "At what distance does your average kayaker become afraid, not concerned, but truly afraid of being run over ?" I understand that any answer has a dependance on the situation (ie - rowboat vs cruiser vs PWC vs etc). My opinion is that boats on plane and moving above slow speeds all garner about the same amount attention and fear factor. When I'm bobbing about on the PWC amongst all the other boaters I don't differentiate between a boat going 30 MPH and one doing 60 MPH when they're coming at me. What I look for is clear indications that the guy is going to miss me. If he doesn't "signal" by a certain distance I get concerned and then a bit more concerned as he gets closer. For me, if I see that "signal" at 500' distance, I don't get to the fear portion of the program. In this case I believe I do see that signal ... before 500' even ... but the point raised has some validity.

And despite disagreeing with you, I appreciate the response. It would be nice to see people discuss the scenarios and numbers and not just how they "feel" about the topic, let alone trade barbs.

onlywinni · 08-13-2009, 07:02 AM

I am new to this forum and late to this issue so was not involved in the original fights oh I mean discussions.

Is there any Organization or Group that Officially Opposes HB 847 and is currently working to defeat it or at least modify it?

Thanks

Mee-n-Mac · 08-13-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) A "couple of minutes" would handily cover the length of Rattlesnake Island.

As the kids say ... kewl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Surely, you've seen them run the full length of the Broads—including Rattlesnake Island. (Though it helps to observe from a sailboat and not a rapidly-moving platform).

Hmmm, and I'd have thought it would have been better to observe them from a rapidly moving platform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) On most inland fresh water lakes, "a couple of minutes" will take them into something very solid.

Sounds like a good argument as to why Winni should be the lake they can run at "high" speed on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

From a dock—and using binoculars—watch them leave on a day that's rough. While they don't "pitch" (a fore-and-aft motion) they will get tossed from side-to-side very strongly: that's why the seats in GFBLs have such generous bolsters.

You forgot to mention the drop out seat bottoms. And I'm surprised that all this tossing doesn't spill all their drinks. Oh wait mebbe that's only the cruisers flying the martini burgees. How much do they toss ? Pitch ? Betcha they have some pretty comfy bolster and seat bottoms too !!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Too many have painted their windshields (!) and gone waterskiing in Lake Winnipesaukee's bays, coves, and harbors: for that matter, too many of us "normal-sized" boaters have failed to look ahead when starting up with a water skiier.

Too many painted windshields. Wow that sure sounds bad. I've only seen a couple with tinted itty bitty wind deflectors. Next you'll be telling us how the drivers have painted glasses on ... what are they called .... oh yeah .... sunglasses. That sounds ever worserer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Now I'll have to move my "train-wreck" and anti-"insurgent" points to a different thread about:

1) windshield-paintovers,
2) fat bolsters to keep from being hurt when being thrown out,
3) size/weight/wake inappropriateness in skiing/tubing of Winnipesaukee's bays, coves, and harbors,
4) hitting solid—and some not-so-solid—objects at speed, and the
5) inappropriate size, weight and speed for inland freshwater lakes of most ocean-racers seen on Winnipesaukee whose speeds can triple the present speed limit.

Please remember to add in running over innocent puppies.

caloway · 08-13-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Sorry for my slow repsonse to your response. Can you believe they want me to work at work ??

Take a few days off from the forum on a hot topic likle this and I've got a lot of catching up to do.

I'm kinda at a loss for words for this. If you think taking your eyes off your direction of travel for 3 seconds at a time is acceptable then you and I have a larger gulf to cross than a mere speed limit. Would you take your eyes off the road for 3 secs when driving down the I-93? Would you call for speed limits (or lower limits) if someone who did this caused a collision ? Or would you attribute the collision to driver inattention (I may say driver stupidity of a high order) rather than speed (as I would). While people certainly should be looking around them, not just straight ahead, (in boats and in cars) they shouldn't be spending more than a few tenths at any one time doing so. You want to add 0.3 secs to the reaction time ... OK but it won't make a significant difference. Much more than that isn't an argument against speed but against crappy driving. Sorry but I just can't accept you argument above as proof that 70 MPH is unsafe (but 45 MPH is).

I think some others have asked the same question I would have re: the 5 secs but let's consider that in the context of the situation you've proposed. At 10 secs prior to collision our hypothetical boater, doing 70 MPH (~100 FPS) is 1000' away. He notices the kayak in his path and reacts. After 4 secs have gone by the boat is still ~600' away and only 25' off laterally. But more importantly it has turned and this should be clear to the kayaker intent on the boat bearing down on him. In another second the boats closes another ~100 ft closer, is now 50+' displaced laterally and turned even more. IMO, were I in the kayak, I'd interpret this as the boat seeing me and taking proper action to avoid me. I wouldn't be diving below the surface. More over most kayakers I see paddling about Winni are wearing their PFDs so diving to escape doesn't sound like a much used plan (despite the recent Sunapee incident).

But your point is a fair one, which I'll rephase as a question and ask "At what distance does your average kayaker become afraid, not concerned, but truly afraid of being run over ?" I understand that any answer has a dependance on the situation (ie - rowboat vs cruiser vs PWC vs etc). My opinion is that boats on plane and moving above slow speeds all garner about the same amount attention and fear factor. When I'm bobbing about on the PWC amongst all the other boaters I don't differentiate between a boat going 30 MPH and one doing 60 MPH when they're coming at me. What I look for is clear indications that the guy is going to miss me. If he doesn't "signal" by a certain distance I get concerned and then a bit more concerned as he gets closer. For me, if I see that "signal" at 500' distance, I don't get to the fear portion of the program. In this case I believe I do see that signal ... before 500' even ... but the point raised has some validity.

And despite disagreeing with you, I appreciate the response. It would be nice to see people discuss the scenarios and numbers and not just how they "feel" about the topic, let alone trade barbs.

I personally don't feel that kayaks have any business well offshore--kind of like putting a moped on 93. For me I see the extremes as a good exercise of the logic we're trying to use.

Based on this conversation, these appear to be the important variables.

GFBL
>>Distance to object identification
>>Speed
>>Reaction time

Other boat
>>150' buffer
>>Reaction time

Using your methodology above we ought to be able to come up with a good number based on a reasonable worst-case scenario.

VtSteve · 08-13-2009, 10:17 AM

Until the MP comes out with a statement, and until people that have actual instances with pictures, preferably video of incidents that really show a problem, I think people are just continually swatting at flies that don't exist. As a daily interstate driver, I can attest that there are many, many drivers that should have a bumper sticker that says WARNING, I BRAKE FOR HALLUCINATIONS".

I realize that there are always people trying to come up with answers to questions nobody ever asked. But seriously, if people are always in so much danger, and are always complaining about safe distance, and the onslaught of GFBL boats, you'd think people would have someone taking video of these events. It's pretty easy for passengers to do the work, whilst the skipper maneuvers around all the boneheads, and frantically waves arms and CD's flashing.

We have had people that could tell the time of day/night that someone would fly by in a NWZ, but never a video of the event. Heck, we even have video over here of the legendary Champ creature in the lake. Surely a Bonehead can't be any harder to film?

Rattlesnake Guy · 08-14-2009, 09:51 PM

If I want to Kayak or Canoe, I am happy to use the 4500 acres of water on the lake that is within 150 of shore. 240 miles of shoreline is plenty to enjoy. If I want to go further out, I pay attention and make sure I am visible. Just like when I walk in a parking lot. I make sure people can see me and I pay attention to the big motorized vehicles that move around with the potential to kill me. So far, so good.

VtSteve · 08-19-2009, 03:29 PM

It's amazing to have come full circle on every point made on all sides, and still be able to pick up new and interesting perspectives. Sometimes I just think people lose touch with both themselves and their surroundings. I remember back as a kid, amongst the pineneedles in our new cottage, which had only a couple of inside walls completed. It was quiet at times, certainly not much to do in town. We went to the Weirs for excitement, which meant a really terrible garlicky pizza and the arcades, Kellerhouse and all sorts of goodies. Late on, it was the Weirs for dances and some music. But mostly boating, water skiing, and endless swimming and snorkeling. Since as kids we were there all week every week, it was pretty easy to see the obvious contrast, and for obvious reasons.

I learned to love to water ski on rough water, had no choice really, with the cruiser and other boat wakes. It was a blast. Daily rides through the Weirs Channel, mainly just to get to the other side. Sometimes Blasting through Paugus Bay at over 40 mph

We didn't do any rafting or sand bar stuff back then. Partially because we didn't have any swim platforms, and also there were no sand bars nearby. It just wasn't really in style anyway. As we got older, we could drive the boat at nights. Amazing how good you get at it when you do it every night all summer. During all this time, many new cottages went up, more traffic, harder and longer to get around. Still not much to do on the lake, I don't remember the Naswa being anything that grand way back.

But the boat traffic grew steadily as the years went by, and cruising around in smaller boats was quite a bit more painful than in days past. Although stiff winds every weekend sure make your dreams of owning a larger boat that much grander. There were quite a few loud boats, more of the earlier GF boats, tons of large wavemakers as I call them. Always chaos between Eagle and the Weirs, which spread down Meredith Bay after awhile. But to be on the water that much, not much to complain about.

Now my generation is in both pre-pre-retirement through early retirement ages. The Boomers are settling down a bit. Some are pretty grouchy

I always thought I'd be living on Winni full time, but alas, that never came to be. It's still a great place with a very special character all it's own. What's changed is a lot. Yes, of course any popular body of water is crowded nowadays, well many of them are at least. There's a different mix of people as well. Way back when we seemed to be a more forgiving lot, accepting the little trials and tribulations of lake life because of the fantastic advantages we had just being there. I'm sure we had Boneheads and arrogant people, but I was too busy having fun to let it bother me. (I do seem to remember telling my dad to Lighten Up on occasion.)

In society today, there seems to be an over abundance of selfish people, rude people, domineering people, that can't let anything go without getting all whiney. People fight about development, or lack thereof. Their form of boating is passive and others are aggressive. People's boats are either too small or too big, too loud or too fast, not good at the launch or uncaring about where they point their vessel. It's always something nowadays. I think most of us were a respectful lot (most of the time?) in younger days. but I don't remember all the backstabbing and attacking that has become sport. We went about our business and didn't tell people how to handle theirs. My daily commute would be wonderful if there were no trucks, no other cars, no whatever to get in my way. But life's a shared experience, unless you lock yourself in your cabin and hibernate. (I still get miffed having to wait in line for Sunday brunches anywhere

)

But what a sad commentary that so many have become Grumpy Old Men (and women). I'm not a very spiritual or religious sort, but I wonder what it takes to spread cheer nowadays. Smiles and happiness used to spread like a virus, with only the most hapless malcontents unable to catch the disease. I just can't imagine living the next twenty or thirty years or more with such pent up frustration and hostility. With that much energy devoted towards being hostile toward one group or another, one can only imagine what group is next?

4Fun · 08-19-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It's amazing to have come full circle on every point made on all sides, and still be able to pick up new and interesting perspectives. Sometimes I just think people lose touch with both themselves and their surroundings. I remember back as a kid, amongst the pineneedles in our new cottage, which had only a couple of inside walls completed. It was quiet at times, certainly not much to do in town. We went to the Weirs for excitement, which meant a really terrible garlicky pizza and the arcades, Kellerhouse and all sorts of goodies. Late on, it was the Weirs for dances and some music. But mostly boating, water skiing, and endless swimming and snorkeling. Since as kids we were there all week every week, it was pretty easy to see the obvious contrast, and for obvious reasons.

I learned to love to water ski on rough water, had no choice really, with the cruiser and other boat wakes. It was a blast. Daily rides through the Weirs Channel, mainly just to get to the other side. Sometimes Blasting through Paugus Bay at over 40 mph

We didn't do any rafting or sand bar stuff back then. Partially because we didn't have any swim platforms, and also there were no sand bars nearby. It just wasn't really in style anyway. As we got older, we could drive the boat at nights. Amazing how good you get at it when you do it every night all summer. During all this time, many new cottages went up, more traffic, harder and longer to get around. Still not much to do on the lake, I don't remember the Naswa being anything that grand way back.

But the boat traffic grew steadily as the years went by, and cruising around in smaller boats was quite a bit more painful than in days past. Although stiff winds every weekend sure make your dreams of owning a larger boat that much grander. There were quite a few loud boats, more of the earlier GF boats, tons of large wavemakers as I call them. Always chaos between Eagle and the Weirs, which spread down Meredith Bay after awhile. But to be on the water that much, not much to complain about.

Now my generation is in both pre-pre-retirement through early retirement ages. The Boomers are settling down a bit. Some are pretty grouchy

I always thought I'd be living on Winni full time, but alas, that never came to be. It's still a great place with a very special character all it's own. What's changed is a lot. Yes, of course any popular body of water is crowded nowadays, well many of them are at least. There's a different mix of people as well. Way back when we seemed to be a more forgiving lot, accepting the little trials and tribulations of lake life because of the fantastic advantages we had just being there. I'm sure we had Boneheads and arrogant people, but I was too busy having fun to let it bother me. (I do seem to remember telling my dad to Lighten Up on occasion.)

In society today, there seems to be an over abundance of selfish people, rude people, domineering people, that can't let anything go without getting all whiney. People fight about development, or lack thereof. Their form of boating is passive and others are aggressive. People's boats are either too small or too big, too loud or too fast, not good at the launch or uncaring about where they point their vessel. It's always something nowadays. I think most of us were a respectful lot (most of the time?) in younger days. but I don't remember all the backstabbing and attacking that has become sport. We went about our business and didn't tell people how to handle theirs. My daily commute would be wonderful if there were no trucks, no other cars, no whatever to get in my way. But life's a shared experience, unless you lock yourself in your cabin and hibernate. (I still get miffed having to wait in line for Sunday brunches anywhere

)

But what a sad commentary that so many have become Grumpy Old Men (and women). I'm not a very spiritual or religious sort, but I wonder what it takes to spread cheer nowadays. Smiles and happiness used to spread like a virus, with only the most hapless malcontents unable to catch the disease. I just can't imagine living the next twenty or thirty years or more with such pent up frustration and hostility. With that much energy devoted towards being hostile toward one group or another, one can only imagine what group is next?

You must have been watching the Woodstock anniversary video before you wrote that. "Peace and harmony man..."

I am not a grumpy person but I do get irked when someone takes something from me by being inconsiderate, oblivious or just plain deceitful. I feel I just don;t have enough free time for someone to be steeling iot from me willy nilly.

With that said, I do think patience and tolerance can help us all though

SIKSUKR · 08-20-2009, 09:51 AM

That was one fantastic and insightfull post Steve.Nuff said.You said it all.

OCDACTIVE · 10-26-2009, 04:39 PM

these have fallen off the top... Wanted to see if any opposers still were discussing. I see the supporters thread dropped off in interest. Didn't know if anyone had any new feelings on the matter or had heard anything new?

NoBozo · 10-26-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

. Smiles and happiness used to spread like a virus, with only the most hapless malcontents unable to catch the disease. I just can't imagine living the next twenty or thirty years or more with such pent up frustration and hostility. With that much energy devoted towards being hostile toward one group or another, one can only imagine what group is next?

I used to go to another Forum (boat brand specific) which I really liked. I found the above by VtSteve to be the case. No one can SMILE anymore. Some people are just looking for some ulterior motives or agenda in your posts. When you suggest they lighten up...with a smile..you are attacked.

It got SO Tiresome that I don't go back any more. It only takes two or three on a forum to Poison the water. NB

OCDACTIVE · 10-28-2009, 08:17 PM

The part I find funniest is that those who started the supporters thread so they could discuss the law without any fear of getting into an arguement don't discuss them there.. Instead from what I have been hearing they are trolling and badgering in other threads.. makes you wonder why it was started in the first place.

Resident 2B · 10-28-2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I used to go to another Forum (boat brand specific) which I really liked. I found the above by VtSteve to be the case. No one can SMILE anymore. Some people are just looking for some ulterior motives or agenda in your posts. When you suggest they lighten up...with a smile..you are attacked.

It got SO Tiresome that I don't go back any more. It only takes two or three on a forum to Poison the water. NB

To me, they have messed up both the lake and the total enjoyment I once had on this forum. I still like both, but neither are as enjoyable as they used to be.

On the water, I enjoyed watching the fast boats running at speed on the broads. On the forum, everyone used to be genuine. Good fun and a few friendly disagreements.

If only we could turn back time. Those were great days! Maybe we can have something like "Troll-less Tuesdays" and "Fast Fridays".

R2B

OCDACTIVE · 11-09-2009, 07:02 PM

I tried starting a thread but it hasn't popped up yet... But thinking of trying to organize a get together for opposers & supporters..... I think things may be a lot more civil if we all knew each other.

I would say it would be at the lake obviously.... Before I start looking into places and dates just trying to gauge interest.

How many people would be interested and able to get together? Maybe some weekend night in January?

Let me know.

Thanks

LIforrelaxin · 11-10-2009, 11:05 AM

OCD,

Given enough Heads up I am definately in for a gathering. Loaction is not a big concern for me. Obviously as it is winter I am definately towards the south in Ma. More but, I can always head to the Lake.

OCDACTIVE · 11-17-2009, 08:52 AM

I want to concur with Vita's post in the supporters thread of:

SL opponents, I suggest respectfully that we do not comment in this thread as it is for supporters only.

However, I would also implore all to take a look at why these two threads were originally started. It was to discuss the merits without debate with your fellow supporters / opposers.

It was not to give you the ability to put up posts, photos, or case studies that are made to start a debate. Or information that shall we say is less then factual.

These were designed for you to discuss with those "your opinions" so not to draw a debate or feel that they will get at all your for their thoughts.

jmen24 · 11-17-2009, 10:02 AM

I agree totally with OCD's post. When you start to answer questions from another thread, you are opening up the debate.

VtSteve · 11-17-2009, 10:29 PM

I doubt you'll ever see the likes of APS ever answer (or own up to) deliberate falsifying wherever he posts.

I'd also like to add this to Don.

You've been far more protective of the supporters. This is an open debate, and they put up obvious BS in other threads that we get cut out of. APS is the biggest offender of all, and the other biggest offender is just so full of it, most filter him out. Not willing to discuss factual aspects of events that they themselves post is a pretty obvious indication of their own relevance.

Without them both filtered, the overall "discussion" would be most cordial, and informative.

Most of these arguments and/or discussions work themselves out when facts and good intentions are presented. When that is not allowed to happen, people get testy.

But there are certainly better boards to discuss this.

08-04-2009, 03:38 PM	#1
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Opposers Thread I'll open this for symmetry. I think we need to make a convincing argument for letting the law lapse. We need to build this arguement from a position of logical strength. No one will be convinced by a bunch of bullying yahoos. I'm a little concerned that elchase believes that the board is nearly unanimous and that this because we are all performance boaters. I also concerned that he thinks he is not welcome because he doesn't agree with the majority. You can't have a discussion without to points of view. We will never convince people to see things from a different light and view things with an open mind if we are perceived as only performance boaters out to protect our turf. I am not a performance boater, I'm willing to "prove it" if needed. One or two people on the forum make me nervous, so we need to find a "safe" way to do this. I object to the speed limit mostly on libertarian grounds. Bad laws restrict our freedoms and must be resisted. Bad laws distract our LEO's from dealing with the real problem (dangerous boaters). Bad laws distract the public from seeing the real problem (dangerous boaters) and dealing with it. Bad laws are written when the public and government is too lazy to figure out the real issue and write a good law. Bad laws are driven by a few to punish others. That's why I think the speed limit is bad law and should expire. We have to work on the real issue. It is too easy to let people conflate fast boaters with dangerous boaters.

08-05-2009, 06:27 AM	#2
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	I am an opposer of the speed limit. However, I am also not a performance boater. I do own a PWC with a top speed of around 55 mph, however that speed is nearly impossible on Winni due to the waves. I oppose the speed limit for one simple reason...I don't think it is needed. I would like the data to speak for itself. The data that was pulled during the test last year, as well as the data from this season. I think that the two different data sets need to be compared to find out what exactly the speed limit accomplishes. I have never tried to bully anyone from this forum, and I never will. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I doubt my written words are going to change your mind, and I know that your written words will not change mine. Simply said, it isn't worth the argument. In summary...show me the data. __________________ Getting ready for winter!

08-05-2009, 07:35 AM	#3
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	Chip pretty much sums up the entire debate. Problems are best solved by getting accurate answers to questions, and sifting through the data to see if the problems can be solved. We're all well aware of the largest problems on the lake, and most every lake and waterway in the country. Too Many Drunks Boats Too Close together Boaters Not Paying Attention Boaters going too fast for conditions ie: Fog, waves, congestion It's very hard to solve problems, and create a better environment, if all people can focus on is emotions, whether they be fear real or perceived. One real issue struck a cord with me in last year's heated debates. I've been boating since I was a kid in a 12' boat. I wasn't that smart, but common sense told me that rowing in the middle of the lake between Meredith Neck and Stonedam Island was not that smart. I could certainly do it, perfectly legal, but just not that sharp a thing to do. There are those that firmly believe that waterways have to be rigidly controlled by legislation to make them "feel safer" as they paddle everywhere. Fear is a very real thing if you believe it to be true. I know I would be fearful if I was in the middle of The Broads in a dark colored kayak. And here's where some of the hardliners reside, correct me if I'm wrong here. My "impression" is this. Over time, they'd like the entire lake to be guaranteed paddle-friendly. The speed limit was just the beginning. Led by a group spurred on by an accident that had little to do with speed, they sought to rid the lake of performance boaters. In theory, if the SL passed, they would all vanish. Other groups that "felt" unsafe, joined in this coalition. Now they can concentrate on making the SL law permanent, and then move on to other areas, like wake zones, larger boats, whatever they feel unsafe about. As for the Sailors of the lake. Sailboats here on Lake Champlain seem to outnumber powerboaters by a large number. Many large sailing vessels, and the usual array of racing clubs and groups. We all co-exist. Nobody whines about being unsafe and fearful, even though getting out of the big bay can indeed be a trying experience. Kayakers and canoes know full well how silly it would be to paddle in the middle of these crowded areas. The vast majority do not. But everything seems to work well. As is the case everywhere, the real problems are not dealt with. The Pro SL crowd has absolutely no intention of debating how to deal with the dangerous tubers and boneheads, and only deal with the 150' rule when measuring how long a boat takes to cover the distance at a given speed. OK, we get the speed thing. Not even a broad generalization here. I can't remember any posters that are Pro SL getting in a huff about the daily violations that take place, that put us all in danger. Those threads are largely devoid of any of these people. They either don;t want to acknowledge it for fear of diluting their own agendas and focusing attention on the real problems, or they genuinely believe that fast boats are the only problems on the lake. I suspect that people that are active in the legislation areas have gotten the word that they need a voice here. I think that's great. But it would be helpful if they didn't have such a myopic view of life. As evidenced by the various threads on Captain Boneheads, these problems are not going away because of a SL law, permanent or otherwise. The arguments are devoid of facts, and filled with emotion. That approach will never solve any problems. But as some even admitted after the law passed, they already knew that. At the end of the day, if your only argument is "We Don't Like Them, and We Want Them Off The Lake", you'll not get much support will you? Forgot to add. In the spirit of compromise, due to the economic and weather condition this year, I'd like to make this proposal. Extend the SL period by moving the sunset provision ahead one or two years. I know the pro crowd is worried that people will think that the SL is a solution to a problem that isn't there. They're also worried about what the MP might add to the discussion. So in the interest of fairness, and of course, proving them wrong Let's do that. For all of 2010 at least, data will be accumulated. Hopefully, people will start doing pictures and videos of what's going on. Hardly any stories from the Pro SL people, who seem to only boat in the safest parts of the lake, wherever that might be. They know that being called out is the worst thing for their movement. Once the true nature of the problems are known and widespread, they'll look like fools. TV crews could help out immensely in this debate. Last edited by VtSteve; 08-05-2009 at 07:42 AM. Reason: wow

08-05-2009, 07:45 AM	#4
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Ok then... I completely oppose the speed limit. I do not own nor have I ever owned a performance boat, I own a “Family Truckster”. I am in one of the groups (for now) that this law is supposed to protect. I believe if laws take liberties away from any group of people, it diminishes us all. With that being said, I think we have to be realistic. I don’t think unlimited speed on the lake is realistic. While I don’t have a problem with it, I believe the general pubic would. I think we need to come up with a realistic number both sides can live with, and certainly not an arbitrary number like 45. We should use this forum to gather the opinion of all boaters. So the question is: What is an appropriate limit?

08-05-2009, 08:13 AM	#6
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	The first few members posting here have hit the nail on the head.I would be willing to guess 75% or more of the opposers do not own go fast boats.I am another one with only a PWC.These people love doing the typical liberal scare tactics and lies about who opposes this speed limit.Why can't people see through this crap? __________________ SIKSUKR

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
robmac (08-05-2009), SteveA (08-05-2009)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chipj29 For This Useful Post:
brk-lnt (08-05-2009), robmac (08-05-2009)

The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
robmac (08-05-2009)

08-05-2009, 08:11 AM	#5
malibu Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 7 Thanks: 21 Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts	I have been opposed to the speed limit from day one and after being out on the water these past few weekends are opposed even more. Before I go any further we own a ski boat, kayaks and two sail boats. We are not go fast boaters, but have nothing against them either. We still have people coming within fifty feet of us traveling between 35-45 mph. They are not breaking the speed limit just two of the older laws on the books, 150 feet and reckless boating. But the biggest problem is they never get pulled over!!! If the people of NH and the state really want to make the lake safer they should double or triple the MP presence. Wouldn’t you like to see a MP boat in every bay on the weekends actually pulling people over for breaking the laws we already have, to me this would make a lot more sense than trying to catch speeders. This really comes down to a common sense approach; the speed limit is not addressing the real problem. The lake has actually become less safe, maybe it’s the weather and pent up boaters or people think hey I am not speeding so leave me alone. Whatever it is the speed limit isn’t the fix. Maybe what the state should do is combine MP with Fish and Game, they could justify more resources being that Fish and Game is in force 12 months a year and has a larger budget. Malibu

08-05-2009, 09:00 AM	#8
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Maybe I don't understand Maybe it’s me, and please corrects me if I am wrong. I thought there was already a law on the books to protect ALL boaters. Reckless boating. Please indulge me as I use a completely fictitious example. For a setting lets use the Broads, just east of Rattlesnake. On this particular day the broads are very congested. There a many performance boaters moving at 6 miles per hour or just drifting. Along comes a high performance yellow and red neon kayak. The music is blasting; I believe it’s the band Phish. This is no ordinary kayak, it’s a Sea Kayak. This baby is doing 90 as it approaches the peaceful performance boats, it does not slow down. Due to the incredible skills of the driver, the sea kayak navigates by every performance boat and manages to stay 150 feet away from every one of them. Unfortunately the defenseless performance boats get tossed around a bit by the wakes, and paddle splashes of the Sea Kayak but nobody is injured. Now I was under the impression, if something like this happened, the MP could give a ticket to the Kayaker under the reckless boating. Am I mistaken?

08-05-2009, 09:39 AM	#11
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	While it is obvious that speeds must be limited to the conditions, I've always been reluctant to throw out numbers, because the number needs to be based on things like sightlines, weather, and traffic. Plus, It's not practical to put signage for every route, no one wants to see Winni covered with speed limit bouys. M-n-M can do math and figure out the absolute maximum safe speed, I'm too lazy. I'm sure it's a pretty big number, but that speed would only be safe in certain conditions. He could also do the math for worst case conditions, but that number would be impossibly small.

08-05-2009, 10:10 AM	#12
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Speed Limit I would say 65 day / 35 night. I believe the general public would go along with that. These are Max speeds. Conditions may dictate lower speeds.

The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
KTO (08-07-2009)

08-05-2009, 10:22 AM	#14
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	??? You are killing me. M&M. Please give us the number.

08-05-2009, 11:29 AM	#15
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	Hey guys... Most of us have talked this subject to death.... And frankly there is really no further argument to be made in my own opinion.. Most all of you know me from my past posts as being one of the most vocal opposer there is to the limits. I am appalled to think my state: Live free or die... even has to discuss such a ludicris law. As we all know and have seen there is no data or evidence that a speed limit law is needed. When the pro-speed limit crowd is questioned they continue to bring up Safety issues. When asked where the data is they don't have any. I have read most every thread on here and there a outrageous claims i.e. 80% of NH's population support the law, there are 60% less tickets being issued because the GFB's are no longer on the lake etc etc etc... WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THESE??? I have been wanting to know how many tickets have been issued for speeding and I haven't found that data anywhere..... Where are these %'s coming from? It just goes to show you that people will say anything to support their cause. I am so frustrated with these mindless debates. The same old people are making the same old arguements with no statistics or evidence to back them up. So Arguing with them won't get us anywhere..... We lost last time because we all were lulled into a sense of security that it had been brought up and shot down so many times it won't happen.. Well it did and now is our chance to finally rid this once and for all. I propose we organize and get the word out. Not just on this forum but in general. I remember I used to get emails from someone in the past giving my updates but I have lost those (3 years ago) Does anyone remember or have that contact info? Also does anyone have a list or names of groups who are opposed to the law? If not lets get one going. I would be happy to help orgainize. Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Also, any updates as to the progression of the bill currently? SADDLE UP!!!!!!! __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-05-2009, 12:47 PM	#16
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 664 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Don't waste your energy and ideas here. Kind of reminds me of the old saying..."Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud, because you'll soon find out the pig enjoys it." This is exactly what the supporters of the speed limit want. Don't tip your hands here - let's do this in the quiet. I don't believe that the supporters care one bit about speed, but rather, they have a bigger agenda. We need to organize and take action. Infiltrators from the supporter side will be forced to take a 1 hour ride in a GFBL at 100 mph (on Lake Winnisquam, where it is perfectly legal). Kind of ironic, huh!

08-05-2009, 12:59 PM	#18
SteveA Deceased Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Gilford, NH Posts: 2,311 Thanks: 1,070 Thanked 2,054 Times in 497 Posts	I am also opposed to the SL My Pontoon can easily go 55 MPH, if I'm towing it behind my Jeep. Seriously, the real problem is the Captain Boneheads. And, by the way, Capt. Bonehead drives HP Boats and Pontoons. Any waste of time chasing down GFBL's simply based on the speed they are traveling is a distraction from the real job the MP has stopping the drunks and people who have no idea what they are doing out on the lake. JMHO PS SIKSUKR I'm liberal.. but I take no offense. __________________ "Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry he'll be a mile away and barefoot!" unknown

The Following User Says Thank You to SteveA For This Useful Post:
Martha Marlee (08-05-2009)

08-05-2009, 11:44 PM	#20
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	An idea Given that Rep Jim Pilliod R-Belmont is planning to file a bill in a couple of weeks to eliminate the sunset clause of the speed limit law I have a plan. Opponents of the current law that want to hear it should PM me. I will check your name against the posts on the reopened threads before responding to you.

08-06-2009, 07:56 AM	#22
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	There you go MnM, using actual statistics and data to prove the case.... The supports are not going to be happy with this because you haven't incooperated skewed polls from non-boaters, fear, or false statements of safety and the pile of accidents that haven't occured due to speeding... I implore the supports to show us similar data that proves their points..... Oh thats right, there isn't any..... __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-06-2009, 07:57 AM	#23
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	OK Mee + Mac I think I see your logic; maybe a graph at 45MPH and 120MPH would be good as a reference. So you are stating these charts as maximum speeds under ideal conditions? Obviously factors such as wind speed & direction, currents and visibility would be factors that would increase reaction time as well as physical condition of both boat and driver.

08-06-2009, 01:16 PM	#26
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	? And your thoughts on Universal Healthcare? Mee-n-Mac You should run for office.

08-06-2009, 02:35 PM	#28
OCDACTIVE Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro Posts: 1,045 Thanks: 444 Thanked 574 Times in 178 Posts	Hey Onlywinni, A bit off topic but I see you have a 2008 Baja... I thought you might like to see who I had the pleasure of speaking with earlier this year in VA: Attached Images __________________ Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

08-06-2009, 03:23 PM	#31
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Another rant I have been going to the lake for 35 years. I have seen my share of close calls. I have come to a dead stop many times when I should not have had to. I have seen many boaters doing things that endangered their own lives, their passengers lives and the lives of other boaters. Anybody who has ever been on this lake has seen these things. This forum is loaded with examples of intelligence challenged boaters. But every single time I have witnessed this idiocracy (I know it’s not a real word, but a good movie). It has never been perpetrated by a performance boat. Yes I have seen people going to fast for the conditions, but that is different and I have never witnessed a performance boat doing it. Yes there are the well documented accidents involving GFBLs, and they have been discussed at nauseam. But they are only a small percentage of incidents on the lake. I think the speed limits are ridiculous because they are targeting a group that is not the problem. Honestly, if a 30 foot boat doing 70 MPH a half a mile away from you scares and intimidates a boater, what does seeing the Mount pass you at 200 feet do to you? Why is this country so obsessed with how people feel? Why do we put perception before facts? Why are we going to let people who can’t fiscally run this country take over the best healthcare system the world has ever seen? I am sorry about the last one I got carried away. If you want to make the lake safer, give I.Q. tests along with those Boating Certificates. Oh wait we can’t ban the stupid, oh excuse me the intellectually challenged. Sorry for the rant.

08-06-2009, 03:29 PM	#32
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	Records I'm only going by memory here. Is 2 the total number of fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving accidents or collisions? Maybe that's just this decade. A huge deal was made out of the Littlefield/Hartman case. I wasn't in the loop at that time, but I did read the various articles and threads here. One of the reasons the speed limit law debates got me interested. I initially heard it wasn't safe to be near shore, much on the lake I know there have been boats sunk, overturned, fishermen drowned in cold waters, swimming accidents, PWC's hitting moored boats. Are these statistics available anywhere? I know the number of accidents can't be very big, because Winfabs would have published every one of them, instead of their misleading and generalized opinions. Between Champlain and Winnipesaukee, their safety records are so much better than other parts of the country, it does make one wonder why all the fuss. The only boats I avoid over here are the big cruisers. I can't tell you what seeing a 40' to over 50' Carver or the likes make me do I do get a kick out of sailors coming out of the woodwork now because "it's safe to sail again". Please, spare me. We have many, and presumably, many larger sailboats here on my turf from all over. There are a fair number of GFBL boats as well. Somehow, they all co-exist with little or no problems. One of the aspects of the debate not talked about is the usual spat between lakefront owners and transient (trailer) or marina boaters. Big difference in the two groups. We could go out whenever we wanted living on the lakefront, while most trailer boaters were weekend warriors, and the cruisers filled the slips. Very different perspective between the two groups, and I've been in both groups. But getting back to statistics. The stats on Winni are pretty slim. The stats on high-speed accidents are "almost" nil? I say that, because I can't find one in any record. While I think the addition of the term "safe speed" when teaming up with Reasonable and Prudent in terms of safety is a good way to do it, the speed limits themselves just don't fit. I can think of lakes that just might need a speed limit like this one, but as of yet, nothing has passed. Don asked for some stats and some proof from both sides. As far as I know there is no data available anywhere that suggests Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit for safety reasons, which is the reason given when it was passed. Take the speed limit provision of the bill out, and you're left with a pretty good law.

The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-06-2009)

08-06-2009, 03:38 PM	#33
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	A stat Summer 2009 Stats through July 13: Marine Patrol Calls-964 calls for service as of July 13, 370 warnings issued 136 Tickets 3 accidents and f 5 BUI No speeding tickets.

08-06-2009, 03:43 PM	#34
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I think it's unwise to make this a political argument, especially comparing it to health care. The real problem with our health care system now is that it costs too much. That's the 800 pound elephant in the room that will squash you. If that's not dealt with sooner than later, you always run the risk of people changing it in ways you may not find palatable. The fact that it has not been dealt with all this time is irresponsible IMO. But at some point over the next decade, it will be dealt with while we're all in crisis mode, not a good position to be dealing with problems. But this is a discussion about a boating law, a targeted one at that. As you point out, some people have stated that they "are fearful" on the lake. Some element of fear is a good thing, it keep us diligent. But I remember back in the days of the 55 speed limit on all highways. When it was finally repealed and states allowed to set a more natural limit, we were basically told that millions more would die. Guess what? They have not referenced statistics again, since all of the stats do not favor their arguments. Even looking directly at the stats themselves, they are misleading. So you're arguing against a group that, at least in part, might think anything over 55 mph on a highway is unsafe. This boating law was passed because of emotions, perceived fear, and good organization skills. The term "speed-related" has been so widely misused in statistics that it's borderline useless without a fudge factor being identified. It means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. So these aren't grand arguments when dealing with the masses of disparate opinions.

08-06-2009, 03:48 PM	#35
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	VTSteve The Healthcare thing was a joke. I really don't want to debate that

08-06-2009, 04:03 PM	#36
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,913 Thanks: 474 Thanked 684 Times in 382 Posts	You know, I'm not sure I really want to get involved in this debate again, but I just have to say that I really expected very few speeding tickets based on the data collected last year by the MP. I maintained that the wild west characterization concerning speeding last year was wrong and I think that is being proven out this year.

08-06-2009, 04:23 PM	#37
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I'd have to agree with you ITD. I think Winni is a very congested lake, and many just singled out what they disliked the most. The MP has stated many times, and again warned this year, that speed was not much of a problem on Winni. The supporters knew this, and rushed as fast as they could last year to make it law. Barrett was again in the press in June, making a statement how he thought some would be disappointed, and don't expect a deluge of tickets. I'm sure his statements have enraged some. Interesting contrast. While boating is a bit slower on Lake Champlain this year, I still see the usual GFBL boats doing their raft ups and cruising. I never have a problem with these boaters, unlike some of the smaller ones. My biggest curse on weekends is trying to weave through the sailboat masses to get out of the bay. I don't grumble (too much), it's a big lake. Most of them are much bigger than my boat, so wakes are not an issue. Even though we have a 200' limit here, even the MP and CG understand it would be silly to enforce it rigidly at such times. Heck, the July 4th boats would still be waiting in line to get out I think everyone has an expectation of what their perfect boating experience is. Some accept reality and hope for the best and enjoy it, and others try their level best to make sure their vision is put into law. I think some of the sailors whining on these boards should talk to people over here that sail. Get over yourselves and learn to be boaters. If you expect people to hold QUIET signs like they have in PGA golf tournaments every time you go out, fuggetaboutit.

08-06-2009, 08:14 PM	#38
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,430 Thanks: 219 Thanked 793 Times in 473 Posts	After going for a cruise on the Long Island Sound a few weeks ago on a test ride and seeing how they boat down there, I feel much better here with no speed limit and a 150' rule then down there with no safe passage law. It was total chaos.

08-06-2009, 08:42 PM	#39
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	I am the last guy to suggest a law. But perhaps a compromise. My boat also only goes over the speed limit behind my truck. One thing we have constantly observed, even this year, is that boats that go fast keep much wider distances. Probably a matter of survival. Possible Compromise: Boats going faster than 45 have to leave 300 feet space to the nearest boat or shore. The fast boat is always the give way boat. The 45+ speeds are limited to the broadest areas of the lake. (perhaps 60% of the area)

08-09-2009, 02:07 PM	#42
EricP Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 329 Thanks: 28 Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts	I am opposed to the speed limit and have been all along. I do not believe there is a speed problem as other here have also stated. I also believe there are safety violations which are more of a concern to the safety of the public than speed will ever be. I feel safer taking my SeaDoo across the broads than I do near the Weirs channel where there is congestion and Captain B's galore doing what they do best. Others on the forum have made the same observations in their areas, The Graveyard, Alton Bay, Winter Harbor, etc... (too many to recall and mention here). If I had a decent camera I'd sit out there and film this stuff to bring to Concord, if anyone wants to and needs assistance I'll come sit in your boat with you and help. We need this type of evidence to show the problem and I think it will be more powerful than 100 rigged polls. I like the idea of more MP presence to monitor these safety violations and offer a suggestion, what about a $5 surcharge on registrtions dedicated soley to staffing MP to increase safety patrols? I realize some won't like that, others will say "what about kayakers who don't register and therefore don't contribute?". I counter with "if spending $5 makes me safer then it is worth it". Something has to be done to actually improve safety and the speed limit will never accomplish that.

08-09-2009, 06:00 PM	#45
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,643 Thanks: 746 Thanked 1,439 Times in 1,000 Posts	I wonder how many people truly would go 70 for longer than a couple of minutes. I must say I have never seen anyone go very fast for a long period of time. I think most check what is in front of them first and open it up for a while, then slow down. Maybe I am wrong. Anyone?