US Coast Guard on Speed and Accidents [Archive]

winnilaker

12-21-2005, 11:28 AM

In case everyone doesn't have the link to the full report:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2004.pdf

If you do a search on "Excessive Speed" in that document, you will not find it defined as a particular speed, in fact its just a checkbox on the accident report. We would need to contact the US Coast Guard to find out, but my guess would be that excessive speed can be applied in different ways. Yes, a boat traveling 60 mph did a sharp turn and it flipped. Reason X - Excessive Speed, X- Sharp Turn (Look in that report for how that check reasons off)

I would also think that a boat traveling at 20 mph, hits a docks at 20 mph, should have the reasons X- Excessive, X - Operator Inattention

For one, I personally think excessive speed can be a reason applied TO ANY accident if the boats are moving (see definition of safe speed from the US Coast Guard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navrules/rules/Rule06.htm). So I would like to state, at least myself, I'm not saying "speed is not a safety issue". What opposition is saying is that the arbitrary limits choosen are not supported by any facts as they apply to OUR lakes.

gtxrider

12-21-2005, 11:36 AM

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

Stupidity is not against the LAW. I don't see how a speed limit law will help. Just drive on a road with a posted limit of 55MPH and see how fast there is a car or truck on your rear bumper pushing (drafting for the NASCAR set) you or flashing their lights.

Lakegeezer

12-21-2005, 11:49 AM

The US Coast Guard report from 2003 and 2004 has some details about speed and accidents.

Boating Statistics 2003 – US Dept of Homeland security – Coast Guard
Accidents and fatalities
Not moving 815 61
Under 10 mph 1,173 164
10 to 20 mph 1,147 43
21 to 40 mph 1,082 56
Over 40 mph 180 14
Not Reported 2,966 365

The numbers in the 2004 report are
Accidents and fatalities
Not moving 810 66
Under 10 mph 1,242 163
10 to 20 mph 1,020 40
21 to 40 mph 933 49
Over 40 mph 137 14
Unknown 2,583 344
SPEED

Where speed was reported, it turns out that there were more accidents and fatalities with boats not moving at all than at over 40. The most dangerous speed is under 10.

In my opinion, excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits. I smell a red herring.

Bear Islander

12-21-2005, 12:05 PM

Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits. I smell a rotten red herring.

What do you mean by "Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits" that statement contradicts itself. It also contradicts the USCG data that shows it to be the #4 cause of boating accidents.

Lets take the USCG report at face value. Speed Kills!

winnilaker

12-21-2005, 12:09 PM

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem! Imagine this, we set a minimum length to boats on Winnipesaukee, sorry couldn't resist.

Cal

12-21-2005, 12:12 PM

In case everyone doesn't have the link to the full report:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2004.pdf
I would also think that a boat traveling at 20 mph, hits a docks at 20 mph, should have the reasons X- Excessive, X - Operator Inattention

EXACTLY!!!! Facts and figures can LIE , yet be totally truthful.It's all in the way it is presented.
You know that old saying??? "Figures lie and liars figure"...go figure.

The universal answer to the whole problem???alcohol.
If the speed limit proponents stay drunk enough , they won't care how fast the rest go:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Seriously though , have a Merry Christmas and DON'T drink and drive;)

Bear Lover

12-21-2005, 12:22 PM

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem! Imagine this, we set a minimum length to boats on Winnipesaukee, sorry couldn't resist.

Why would you post such misleading data without an explanation?

First, it is the length of the boat THE VICTIM IS IN that is reported by the USCG. So if a 32' boat goes up and over a 19' boat killing someone, the USCG reports it as a death in a boat 16' to 26'.

Second, the vast majority of boats are under 26' probably around 99% (a guess). How would that graph look if it was death per 1,000,000 boats.

Bear Islander

12-21-2005, 12:34 PM

winnilaker

There are quite a few deaths in PWCs. They are under 16' and they go much faster than 45 MPH. And many boats under 26' are fast.

HB162 is about SPEED!

winnilaker

12-21-2005, 12:41 PM

Island Lover

12-21-2005, 12:42 PM

What opposition is saying is that the arbitrary limits choosen are not supported by any facts as they apply to OUR lakes.

OUR lake had a fatal night accident at 28 MPH. That is a FACT that proves your statement to be incorrect.

Bear Islander

12-21-2005, 12:49 PM

Bear Islander,
Without using numbers, please define excessive speed? This way we'll all be on the same page. "HB162 can't just be about speed ALONE" or supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

I will defer my definition of "Excessive Speed" to the RR&D commitee. They believe it to be 25 at night and 45 during the day.

If HB162 passes we will all have a legal definition of Excessive Speed!

winnilaker

12-21-2005, 01:08 PM

Why would you post such misleading data without an explanation?:)

I'll defer to your post that started this thread, where you don't define excessive speed as it is interpreted for this report.

As for your definition for excessive speed, thank you.

Fat Jack

12-21-2005, 01:12 PM

my guess would be that excessive speed can be applied in different ways.

Herein lies exactly the point (or at least one of them). Once HB162 is passed, there will be no more quibbling and opining about whether a speed was excessive. Aside from what other limitations already exist which can be cited against those going faster or slower, if one is going over 45, his speed will be legally excessive (or 25 if at night). Now that's a law that requires no "guessing".

chase1

12-21-2005, 02:10 PM

This report as previous years shows no statistical reason for speed limits on our waterways. Please review the Vessel Information page from this report regarding boat speed. Fewer vessels were involved in accidents at speeds over 40 mph than any other category including not moving once again, with 137 of the total 6,725 vessels in 2004 falling from 180 in 2003. The Coast Guard report does list excessive speed as the fourth top contributing factor for all accidents with operator inexperience, careless/wreck less operation, and operator inattention taking the top three. The same report glossary defines speeding as - operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances. By definition excessive speed / speeding does not have a particular value and therefore can occur at any speed. With 137 vessels nationwide involved in accidents at speeds over 40mph and excessive speed being one of the top contributing factors with all vessels involved (6,725) it can be concluded that most excessive speeding accidents currently occur under 40mph.

Chase1

winnilaker

12-21-2005, 02:20 PM

FJ,
Exactly, no more misinterpreting what is and what isn't excessive. That's why I'm personally fighting to get it right the first time. For future generations to not look back and say, "this law doesn't address the majority of the real problems"

You may or may not be aware of a new bill proposed by Rep. Spang and Rep. Currier to look into boating safety in more detail. You have the means to find the bill. If folks want me to post it here I can. Spang and Currier were on the R,R & D committee, Spang for a speed limit and Currier against, yet they both came together to draft this new one to really look into boating safety in NH. It has both opponents and supporters on the commission, so it should be well deversed and objective.

My point here is why pass a new law, when we have the opportunity to dive into the real issues on the lake.

Woodsy

12-21-2005, 02:31 PM

Actually, I think you guys are both wrong... I think the quibbling will continue regardless... the conditions prevalent at the time of the incident will always be a factor.

The Coast Guard standard for determining excessive speed bears some serious consideration.

For example, if you are traveling at 25mph in a dense fog and have an accident of some sort, collide with another boat or hit a dock/shoreline. Your rate of travel, 25mph, although legal under HB-162 it would be considered excessive speed by using the Coast Guard standard.

You can be traveling at 45mph thru the Weirs on a busy summer saturday, all perfectly legal under HB-162, regardless of conditions... that is until you collide with someone or something... all within a perfectly legal speed, but it could be considered excessive speed by the Coast Guard standard.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the 28mph the Littlefield boat was traveling at might (and I mean might) have been considered excessive speed for the prevalent conditions. (dark night) It would not have been considered speeding under HB-162. When was the last time anybody got a speeding ticket for 3mph over the limit? The standard is usually 10+MPH over the posted limit.

Woodsy

Fat Jack

12-21-2005, 03:01 PM

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem!

You are right! So we should make the speed limits of HB162 apply to smaller boats too. Oh wait, they already would.;)

Fat Jack

12-21-2005, 03:14 PM

they both came together to draft this new one to really look into boating safety in NH.

Assuming this committee also concludes as the RR&D did that new laws or limits are deserved, and your crowd therefore fights this bill as you have every bill or effort in the past that aimed to put limits on unruly and objectional behavior (noise laws, PWC laws, loon protection, etc), and you are successful in dragging this one out two years as you did HB162, then I will be in my forties. I am getting too old to keep waiting to use our lake again.
Let's go with HB162 for now, then if the committee comes up with some better solution, they can always write directly into that bill a provision for expiring the speed limit law. The statutes are full of deleted obsolete laws...its not that big a deal.

Fat Jack

12-21-2005, 03:27 PM

You can be traveling at 45mph thru the Weirs on a busy summer saturday, all perfectly legal under HB-162, regardless of conditions... that is until you collide with someone or something... all within a perfectly legal speed, but it could be considered excessive speed by the Coast Guard standard.
Woodsy

The authorites are always going to have the choice to apply the stricter of two or more laws in any given situation. A 45mph speed limit is not going to override the reckless operation law, the 150-ft law, the BWI law, or any other law that is violated. The 45mph limit merely gives the MP another tool in their holster. If they refuse to use that tool, that's a discussion for next year. That is why it is so curious to see Glendale fighting this with the argument that it would be "ineffective". If it was truly going to be ineffective at slowing the fast few down, would there really be this much of a stink raised about it? Meaningless laws tend to get very little attention. But then, didn't the director also say that he wasn't aware of any boating problems on Lake Winnipesaukee last winter (before thousands came to the hearings to testify from both sides about the infinity of boating safety problems they were witnessing on the lake)?

Lakegeezer

12-21-2005, 03:39 PM

What do you mean by "Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits" that statement contradicts itself. It also contradicts the USCG data that shows it to be the #4 cause of boating accidents.

Lets take the USCG report at face value. Speed Kills!
As the posts that followed yours point out, my statement does not contradict itself. Excessive speed can be 10 MPH, which has little if anything to do with speed limits. Excessive speed is any speed at which an accident occurs which would have not occurred at a slower speed. If an legal definition of excessive speed is set at 45, that becomes a legal point of view, but says nothing about safety. There can still be accidents caused by excessive speed at speeds below 45, and there can be very safe travel at 60mph (even though it would unfortunately become an legal infraction). The main point of argument here is that speeds above 45 alone have not been shown to cause an abnormal share of accidents yet a set speed limit continues to be brought up as a way to improve safety. Going too fast for conditions is a problem and should remain a point of concern. Going fast is not the problem, but sending the message that 44 mph is always ok because its below the speed limit is dangerous.

Fat Jack

12-21-2005, 03:59 PM

supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

I thought No-Wake zones were reserved for the waters in front of the houses of NHRBA members. ;)

BroadHopper

12-21-2005, 04:18 PM

It is not the fact that HB162 is about speed. I'm worried about all the amendments being tacked to it. Like all body of water including 3 miles out to the ocean. Then there are rumors that Sea Rays and SeaCrests belong in the sea, Key West belong in Key West, Yada Yada Yada. Then the hospitaliity industry is going to tell everyone the lakes are safe when in fact they are WRONG. It is no safer with a speed limit law. The MP are too busy to keep the 'Caption Boneheads' in line. If Captain Bonehead hit Bear Islander ot Bear Lover with his pontoon boat, I can see them screaming bloody blue Jeezus and send out a bill to ban pontoon boats!
That is what I am getting at!

Merry Christmas.

winnilaker

12-21-2005, 04:33 PM

I thought No-Wake zones were reserved for the waters in front of the houses of NHRBA members. ;)

If you seriously think that was the reason, please let all know!! If yes, it will show your true feelings of the haves vs the have nots.

Silver Duck

12-21-2005, 08:30 PM

First, the observation. Excessive speed is easy to define! It's any speed at which you were unable to avoid a collision (and, I'd be happy to stretch that to include a "near miss", too!) If someone is unable to stop or turn their boat with plenty of room to spare,:eek: they're going too danged fast, period, no matter what the spedometer reading is!

Now, the question. Are any of the legislators involved with HB162 experienced boaters?

Silver Duck

fatlazyless

12-21-2005, 09:06 PM

"Help save lives and limbs by supporting speed limit"
While waiting in my barber's today, I came across this letter to the editor sent in by a Nashua orthopedic surgeon in today's Laconia Sun, December 21.

"To the editor.

As an orthopedic surgeon serving the Greater Nashua community for many years and as a lifelong boater on our New Hampshire lakes, I strongly believe that the 45 mph (day) and the 25 mph (night) speed limits as put forth in House Bill 162 are critically needed. Seeing first hand how accidents can harm human life and limb and helping family members manage their injury rehabilitation have made me safety-minded and community-minded. With more and more boats being driven at excessive speed, boating on our lakes in New Hampshire has reached the danger level, for certain, and this bill will help preserve the safety of everyone.
Already, our family centered State has speed limits enforced by the NH Fish and Game and their radar guns on our backwoods trais to ensure the safety of hikers, snow shoers and cross-country skiers, side-by-side ATV's, dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Already, we have speed limits on our town roads to ensure the safety of those bicycling, roller blading, walking, jogging, and pushing baby strollers, side-by-side cars and trucks. It makes sense to do the same on New Hampshire's lakes to protect kayakers, swimmers, sailboaters, windsurfers, canoers, and rowers side-by-side motor boats.
The proposed 45 ph daytime speed limit is plenty fast enough to waterski and to boat from one end of a lake to the other, while allowing enough reaction and stopping time to prevent collisions with objects and other lake enthusiasts. The proposed 25 mph nighttime limit is plenty fast enough to move about at night but at much slower speeds to compensate for the vastly challenged visibility that darkness on water brings.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives will be addressing this bill in January. Please call, write or email your NH legislaturs before then and urge them to support House Bill 162 and the proposed 45/25 mph boating speed limits for New Hampshire. It will save somebody's life or limb.
Douglas Joseph M.D.
Nashua

Letters - The Laconia Daily Sun, Dec 21, 2005

codeman671

12-22-2005, 08:21 AM

#3 Inexperience has already been addressed by the Boating Safety Certificate law.

Do you really believe that the Boating Safety Certificate Law has helped tame inexperienced boaters?? Gimme a break! Any monkey with a laptop and a credit card can take the test anonymously over the internet (even for someone else other than themselves) and look up the answers while taking it. One might claim that at least at that point the material was read but was it really? This is no substitution for hands-on training in a boat. Why don't marinas offer a boat training course for hands-on experience when purchasing a boat? A 10 minute test ride to make sure it starts and runs is not sufficient. Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

winnilaker

12-22-2005, 09:13 AM

Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

While I do believe there is work to be done (online course in particular), many have taken the classroom course, I also believe it is working for a large percentage of boaters. I think its the reason, while boat registrations are up and the accidents are continuely going down. 95 in 2000 to 35 last year.

A National Boating Safety Alert recommended 3 things,
1. States should require PFDs for 12 and under. (Which I believe a new bill has been proposed for this) I support it.
2. States should implement a boating education certification program. We did that.
3. States should implement a boating license program. We don't do this. I personally would have no problem requiring boaters to "prove they know how to boat" before they get in one and drive it.

For the full report: http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/sa%5F007.pdf

codeman671

12-22-2005, 09:24 AM

3. States should implement a boating license program. We don't do this. I personally would have no problem requiring boaters to "prove they know how to boat" before they get in one and drive it.

This is exactly what I am looking for. In class programs are decent, the internet one is far from it but having a hands-on training or test would definitely help.

Skipper of the Sea Que

12-22-2005, 10:03 AM

Lakegeezer did a great job illustrating that Excessive Speed can be 10 mph. Winnilaker and others also point out this flaw in the statistical interpretation. Excessive Speed is relative, it is not a specific number (like 45 mph).

I believe that the US Coast Guard survey includes all areas, not just Lakes similar to Winnipesaukee. Ocean boating is a bit different.

I can not go 45 mph in my boat (unless Columbus was wrong and I fall off the edge) but I do NOT favor any new Lake Speed restrictions.

IMHO: It's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast!

Seasons greetings :) .

Bear Lover

12-22-2005, 11:12 AM

Do you really believe that the Boating Safety Certificate Law has helped tame inexperienced boaters?? Gimme a break! Any monkey with a laptop and a credit card can take the test anonymously over the internet (even for someone else other than themselves) and look up the answers while taking it. One might claim that at least at that point the material was read but was it really? This is no substitution for hands-on training in a boat. Why don't marinas offer a boat training course for hands-on experience when purchasing a boat? A 10 minute test ride to make sure it starts and runs is not sufficient. Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

Please don't expand my statements beyond what they clearly say.

All I said was that the Boating Safety Certificate address the issue of boater experience. How well it is working is open to discussion, however there is a law in place. When it comes to speed there is no law in place.

The certificate is better than nothing, at least it gives new boaters some kind of a clue. It also makes it harder to look a MP officer in the face and say "I never knew that!"

chase1

12-22-2005, 11:14 AM

"Help save lives and limbs by supporting speed limit"
While waiting in my barber's today, I came across this letter to the editor sent in by a Nashua orthopedic surgeon in today's Laconia Sun, December 21...

fatlazyless....

I do not get the point of this. This is just a letter. While I was at the barber shop today I read the USCG 2004 Boating Statistics report. You should look at it. This report as previous years shows no statistical reason for speed limits on our waterways. Please review the Vessel Information page regarding boat speed. Fewer vessels were involved in accidents at speeds over 40 mph than any other category including not moving once again, with 137 of the total 6,725 vessels in 2004 falling from 180 in 2003. USCG accident statistics should rank over some letter that expresses the opinion of one individual.

"With more and more boats being driven at excessive speed" - as an experienced boater he should know that excessive speed occurs at any speed and proposed limits therefore HB162 not reduce his income.

I read a tabloid while in line at the market once and a printed copy of a letter sent in from some Jack confirmed alien life forms working in Arizona.

The source is important when judging content.

Chase1 MD

Bear Lover

12-22-2005, 11:52 AM

Dave R

12-22-2005, 12:24 PM

fatlazyless....

I do not get the point of this. This is just a letter.
Chase1

The only point is that it is in favor of the speed limit. Pasted below are all the letters not written to any editor from all the other area Orthopedic Surgeons that don't oppose the bill. Their silence is deafening and implies that they must oppose the speed limit.

;)

Dave R

12-22-2005, 12:32 PM

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

Or perhaps their speed was irrelevant.

Lets assume for a moment that high speeds make it harder to estimate speed based on impact damage (they don't, common sense kinda prevails here); do you really believe the USCG would investigate a high speed accident and report nothing more than "speed unknown" if speed was so high that it could not be estimated? C'mon, that's quite a reach.

winnilaker

12-22-2005, 01:14 PM

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

Doesn't the safe passage law address speed? Any distance within 150 of another boat limits speed to 6 mph or less.

Mee-n-Mac

12-22-2005, 02:02 PM

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

And to be fair lets mention that these statistics are for ALL vessels, including row boats, kayaks, inflatable boats, canoes etc. When you take that into account, it's no wonder many fatal accidents are at low speed.

Wish I had seen thess posts before I had typed my other reply, I could have saved some typing. So what's your point above ? Are you saying that all or most of the unknown speeds are above 40 mph ? Why would you believe that ? Seems to me that it's likely that the distribution of the unknown speeds pretty much follows the distribution of the known speeds. The percentages won't much change then. If you have some reason to belive otherwise please state it.

edit : FWIW the CG entry is for over 40 mph. Should those boats have been going "so fast that their speed couldn't be estimated" I'd think they would have been included in this category.
Investigator: How fast where they going ?
Response : I couldn't tell, it was too fast.
Investigator : [puts checkmark in over 40 box]

codeman671

12-22-2005, 04:31 PM

Please don't expand my statements beyond what they clearly say.

Your statement clearly stated that the issue had been addressed. I do not believe that the solution that was come up with addresses much of anything...I obviously have taken the test as have many others on this forum and I bet that I am speaking for many when I say that the test hardly scratches the surface in proper boater education. I do not believe that by simply taking the test a newbie boater is anywhere near ready to be on the water be it Winni, the ocean or in a puddle. Not to mention how easy it would be for someone to get a certificate without even doing it themselves...

Bear Lover

12-22-2005, 11:11 PM

Doesn't the safe passage law address speed? Any distance within 150 of another boat limits speed to 6 mph or less.

Are you trying to be funny?

Does the "No Limits" slogan refer to the Minimum Safe Passage rule? I didn't know you were trying to repeal that one!

Cobalt

12-23-2005, 08:10 AM

It is really unfortunate the HB 162 proponents were not around in 1912. With the night speed limit and a special subsection to address floating icebergs, they may have saved the Titanic.

Happy holidays.

winnilaker

12-23-2005, 10:55 AM

Are you trying to be funny?

Nope, wasn't, your statement was that speed is not addressed by law, when it fact it is. If you are referring to excessive speed, well that definition is to be defined, I'll follow the US Coast Guard where they define safe speed, and conclude that anything above their definition of safe speed is excessive speed. And since they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision, I also conclude that a collision requires 2 objects (boats or anything). And since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less, its seem that your original post that "speed is not address by law" is incorrect. But this is just my interpretation.

Bear Lover

12-23-2005, 11:43 AM

Cal

12-23-2005, 12:44 PM

Lets not pick nits.

Judging by the number for times you've repeated the "(Estimated)28 mph night time accident involving your neighbor" and made it sould like gosple that a 25 mph limit would have prevented it , you must have an entire pocket full of nits by now.:rolleye2:
Not that I am minimizing the depth of this tragedy but we all know there were a number of poor decisions made prior to that fateful night:(

Fat Jack

12-23-2005, 01:30 PM

they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision
So I guess it's your position that everything is just fine on Winnipesaukee? Thousands attending hearings, writing to reps and newspapers, and voting in polls that speed is a problem needing repair are just wrong, but the 27 or so from NHRBA that are "forum eligible" know better?

since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less
That 150' rule is forty years old. As boating speeds have increased since then, that 150' "buffer" has shrunk from a safety zone to a microsecond (less that the human reaction time at these speeds). You know all this. You've been at the hearings and heard all these facts. You have engineers in your small membership. When are you going to just admit that you and your minority group of fun-seekers are simply wrong?

overlook

12-23-2005, 05:14 PM

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph. Or an accident at night that an operator was not controling there vessel in a manner that not to endanger others. As long as a vessel is moving - speed is a factor.

45-25 came from lake George, without any cosideration for safe passage!

Lake George 21
Lake winni. 0

overlook

12-23-2005, 05:21 PM

I think it is clear to an impartial observer that when I said there were no laws addressing speed, I meant in the context of a "speed limit" as in HB162. Lets not pick nits.

The Minimum Safe Passage rule does not address "speed" on lake Winnipesaukee.

NWZ
Safe passage
Not to endanger
Reasonable speed when visability allows.

Look right when going and comming, and give way.
You seem to have racing blinders on.

Fat Jack

12-23-2005, 06:43 PM

If you seriously think that was the reason, please let all know!!
Of course I don't think it was the main reason. I think the biggest part of the reason was to try to diminish the support for and distract attention from HB162. (of course that did not work). Next biggest part was to try to legitimize NHRBA and make it look like it was really intersested in boating safety. The fact that the place you chose to seek a no-wake zone just happened to be right in front of the house of your single most generous personal contributor was probably third, in my opinion. I was actually in favor of the petition, but have to admit it really bothered me to see the person in the newspapers with one of the largest and loudest boats on the lake (one of the richest "haves" on the lake), speaking about his right to roar around the rest of the lake and force the rest of us to put in earplugs and dive for cover, while you guys are working to get what is effectively a personal "quiet zone" for him in front of his house.
So I guess it does say a bit about my true feelings about the "haves vs the have nots".

Acres per Second

01-02-2006, 06:59 AM

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph.

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/PerformanceReports/marine_1997p.html) alleged: "New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."
On the US' most dangerous lake (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=41452&page=2)-- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.
:)

However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).
:(

'Couldn't be speed, could it?
:confused:

codeman671

01-02-2006, 10:03 AM

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/PerformanceReports/marine_1997p.html) alleged:
On the US' most dangerous lake (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=41452&page=2)-- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.
:)

However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).
:(

'Couldn't be speed, could it?
:confused:
Could be booze and drugs combined after reading your Donzi forum link...Take out these factors and it probably would not have happened. Not to mention he had a reckless history, not all people in fast boats do.

Out of 6 deaths in NH that year, two were non-boating related drownings. The other 4 have no causes listed, there is no facts stated that they are speed related, or for that matter even took place in a moving boat! They could be drunken drownings at the sand bar for that matter. Facts please, not assumptions making NH sound more dangerous than it is. NH is considerably smaller in size and overall acreage of water so it makes sense that the concentration would be higher for accidents. IMO it still does not make NH a deadly place to boat.

ITD

01-02-2006, 10:21 AM

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/PerformanceReports/marine_1997p.html) alleged:

"New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."

On the US' most dangerous lake (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=41452&page=2)-- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.
:)

However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).
:(

'Couldn't be speed, could it?
:confused:
Once again conjecture quoted as fact. Actual, complete quote: "One source has estimated New Hampshire leads the nation in accidents per acre of water and per 1,000 boats registered."

Key words here, "One source" and "estimated". Seems to me a statement like this would be easy to verify, why hasn't this been done? Because it's probably not true. Why don't these posters tell the whole story? The truth simply does not support their arguments as shown again and again right here in these posts, if you read carefully.

If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found.

Island Lover

01-02-2006, 11:18 AM

codeman671

01-02-2006, 11:30 AM

Island Lover

01-02-2006, 11:42 AM

Quibbles and Excuses

codeman671

01-02-2006, 11:53 AM

Quibbles and Excuses
Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

ITD

01-02-2006, 12:59 PM

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

Quibbles and Excuses

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.

Fat Jack

01-02-2006, 01:12 PM

Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

Cman,

By "scare tactics", are you referring to the assertion that the local economy is going to collapse if we slow the very small group of excitement seeking go-fasters down? Or are you referring to the assertion that slow boats are more dangerous because they can't plane and the drivers therefore can't see where they are going when driving "only" 45? Or are you referring to the accusation that this is "discriminatory" against performance boats because they will somehow be the only ones who would have to obey the new limits? Or that this is just a veiled attempt to convert our lakes into "Golden Pond"? Or that the supporters are going to go after all other types of boats next? Or that our shores will be eroded and our environment destroyed by a speed limit? Or that the state will have to impose user fees to enforce a speed limit? Or that even the law abiders will be getting erroneous speeding tickets because of radar that doesn't work on boats? Or that speed limits will actually attract law-breakers to come here for the thrill of the chase? Or that the supporters will all be harrassed by having protest rallies staged in front of their houses? Need I go on?

By "lack of facts", are you referring to the facts that were deleted in all of the go-fast sites? Or to the facts from other lakes where speed limits have been proven so effective? Or to all the high-speed accidents on Winnipesaukee alone over the past few yeras that were mysteriously not classified as "speed-related"? Or to the fact that thousands of lake users (on both sides) testified about the plethora of safety problems on our lakes that our current laws are not preventing? Or, most importantly, to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the lakes' owners want a speed limit, as proven by the legitimate polls done by ARG and NHRBA?

By "hidden agendas", are you referring to the NHRBA pretention that it is a boating safety group? Or to its original "we just care about preserving all boaters' rights" agenda before they finally admitted that this is all just about "excitement"? Or to the supporters' "we just want to be safe on the lakes we own" agenda. when (according to you), what they really want is to rid the lake of boats having a certain shape?

Seems that you've got it all backwards.

Fat Jack

01-02-2006, 01:37 PM

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.
I posted the following earlier in another thread about this same stuff. Unfortunately, now that will not be possible, because your members have had them all deleted. Of course, I'm sure that at least some of those facts have been saved ;) , but when they are publicized now, we will be accused of selecting. Now your side can conveniently claim that things were not really that bad, but that you are the ones who are unable to prove that.
How prophetic.

winnilaker

01-02-2006, 08:04 PM

Cman,
By "hidden agendas", are you referring to the NHRBA pretention that it is a boating safety group?
Seems that you've got it all backwards.

Nice try FJ, I guess we shouldn't have put that NWZ in! Don't respond with your usual (Whaa whaaa, that's because it's in front of NHRBA member's house). That had nothing to do with it, even Rusty called me and congratulated us on getting that passed. And what hidden agenda does NHRBA have??? Please explain it to all. We DO NOT support HB162 as ammended! No hidden secret there! We also want to start an aggressive marketing campaign to better inform people of the 150 ft safe passage law, whooo, bad people we are. Better access to lakes is also an agenda. You're not a member, so how would you know. Oh yeah, I forgot a Winnfabs officer said you can easily inflitrate NHRBA, so if that is true, tell everyone our secrets. If you can't, just go back to supporting HB162 because you want your golden pond and I would have more respect for you if you were honest like Rep. Pilliod about the agenda.

However Winnfab's hidden agenda that you WON'T find our their site is that they WANT all performance boats off the lake, PERIOD!!! That's hidden, you must have some kind of intelligent thought process to see the difference!

Must I remind you that even Rep. Pilliod is honest about this "hidden" agenda.

".. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them...." Rep Pilliod

And what poll do you keep referring to that NHRBA did, I happen to know about everything that NHRBA has done and we never commisioned a poll. Is this another one of your feeble attempts to confuse the readers? I had to laugh out loud at your post earlier this year!!

I heard on the news that there is so much interest that they are splitting up the hearing into two separate sessions. Those who are in favor of the bill and a speed limit should show at the above time. Those that are against should show up at 2PM.

LOL, trying to get everyone to show up 3 hours late, did ya really think that was going to work!!! I guess that's why only 1 person showed up in favor and the rest were against it at the right time, 11am!!! Your posts are full of contradictory, misguiding, incorrect and sometimes comical information, so please keep them coming, it's a new year and we could all use some hysterics! Look forward to your next post!

Fat Jack

01-03-2006, 10:01 AM

WL,
I notice that you never address the issues-at-hand in your responses, instead taking the response off an a tangent when it is not going the way you'd like. You must have studied debating in school and learned about the use of red herrings to distract when your argument is going astray. Nice.
Of course, anyone else who read that old post knew I was jesting. But I guess if that was all you had... And I guess I forgot who I was dealing with. Did it fool any of you? If so, sorry (said in jest).

Now to the points about NHRBA;
I don't think anyone in NH truly believes that NHRBA is a "boating safety" group, despite your no-wake petition. Recall that John Kerry voted for the war...is he a hawk? We all know why Kerry voted for the war, and we all know why you petitioned for that NWZ.
Did you not report to the Winnilakers membership back in 2003, in a thread directed at your fight against that year's HB406, "its official,...NHRBA has been created. This association will be dedicated to fighting for the rights of boaters on NH's waters...looking for individuals to come to show support against a Bill, trying to impose a night-time speed limit...if the bill passes, day time speed is not far away"? Generally, "safety" groups efforts have something to do with safety....at least their initial efforts. No mention of no-wake zones here or education or improving enforcement of the 150-ft rule...just "fighting for the rights of boaters" (to go as fast as they want).
In that same thread about that night-time speed limit law, you posted a message entitled "This is why we have this site". Are we to believe that the Winnilaker's GFBL group suddenly becomes a "safety" group when they log off Winnilakers and log on to NHRBA?
In another thread, you wrote "NH Lakes Association is supporting this bill, so that means we have to fight even harder". NHLA has been a great thing for the state of NH. Few citizens of this state would disagree. Before NHRBA/Winnilakers, I knew of nobody who did not appreciate all that NHLA has done for all of us. Why were they your first declared enemy if you were a "safety" group?
In another post on that forum entitled "Loon lovers at it again! SB:106 Trying to ban watercraft" one of your members wrote of how Senator Johnson was trying to "backdoor" a policy to define 3-seat PWC's as PWC's (what they are). "We can't allow this to happen" he said. "let the loon loving, canoe paddling, conservatives know that its everyones right to our lakes". He asks for NHRBA's help. Why would he expect help from a "safety" group to fight loon lovers?
As recently as last April, on OSO, you wrote "I have set up a new organization NHRBA...I have legal representation in concord working for us on issues like the speed limit". Why no mention of your real purpose...boating safety?
Also in April, you posted on Winnilakers "The NHRBA has all summer to put in place an organization to counter the false claims of this anti-boating group" (referring to Winnfabs). If your organization was put in place for this purpose then, why not just admit that now? Or else, when did it convert to a "boating safety" organization?

Again, I can't speak for Winnfabs. I do not know how you disserned that their real objective is to ban all boats from our lakes. I have never seen anything except NHRBA talk of that (scare tactics?). But I am told that Winnfabs was formed for the sole purpose of fighting for HB162. In fact, they say so right on their website; "The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of House Bill 162 which provides for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH." They do not pretend to be anything else. I just wish NHRBA would have the integrety to admit what they really are, what you yourself alluded to in the Citizen last week; a GFBL group fighting against any limits on their "excitement". There is nothing wrong with standing up for your beliefs. In fact, that is admirable. If you feel that high-speed boating is exciting, and don't want it to end, just say so. I'd respect that, I'd respect you, and I'd respect NHRBA. Notice that none of us are challenging the integrity of OSO or Winnilakers? They are GFBL groups, they admit they are GFBL groups, and we all respect their right to disagree with us. I respect the rights of smokers groups to fight smoking restrictions, so long as they do not pose as "health" groups and say they are doing so because they feel smoking is healthy.
FJ

PS: Are you swearing here that neither NHRBA or any of its partners, associates, or anyone else fighting like you against HB162 (Winnilakers.com, Speedwake, OSO, Baja Marine, your attorneys, the Marine Trades Association, etc) had a survey of their own done? If that is absolutely true, you should have no trouble with a simple unqualified "yes".

Acres per Second

01-03-2006, 11:03 AM

"...If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found..."
How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?) :confused:

The first guy is a direct Littlefield-CLONE, but twice faster, and twice more deadly as far as can be determined from Littlefield's own, self-serving, (and widely quoted), "28-MPH" testimony. With civil charges and a BWI charge overhead, why not testify to a "slow" 28-MPH?

The Littlefield-CLONES, boats, condition, hit, sentencings, and (speed):

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [B]instructor![/I]] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).

.

codeman671

01-03-2006, 11:46 AM

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [B]instructor![/I]] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).

.

All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened? Would speed limits have saved these victims? I am sure WASTED drivers really care about speed limits. Sounds to me like HB162 should be named Hartmans Bill 162. Absolute tragedy, I certainly do not discount the loss of any of these lives and would love to see stiffer penalties used but none of them would have been saved or for that matter the accident be prevented by a speed limit.

winnilaker

01-03-2006, 11:56 AM

FJ,
I don't really see your point here. This is NHRBA's charter, it's on our website.

"We are chartered to promote and protect the interests of boaters and boating enthusiasts in the State of New Hampshire. This is achieved through legislative monitoring, administrative rules efforts, and public outreach programs."

As a side note, we have attempted to make the lake safer in any way we can. Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org", but secretly were gonna fight bills. Nothing hidden there, most people who have joined, have joined specifically to help fight against bills such as HB162. Again, your post is not very useful for all.
WL

PS. As you often state (I don't know about winnfabs), I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey. So as long as you continue to attempt to give NHRBA a bad name, I will continually defend it against you, since you are the ONLY one on this entire forum that seems to have a problem with NHRBA, at least that has publically stated it. So quote all the posts you want about wanting to fight against HB162, nothing new here! I actually forgot about some of them and its great to see that you are reading up on everything. Look forward to your next post so that I can respond accordingly.

And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting. My points have been clear, no statistics justify it, difficult to enforce and it's limiting a right we have today. Since you are SO good at digging up posts of mine, I don't have time, please post some from me that I state that safety is the reason we don't want HB162. Darn, you got me, I may have said if everyone slows down, the waters may be more rough, I'll give ya that one.

Island Lover

01-03-2006, 12:14 PM

ITD

01-03-2006, 12:17 PM

How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

.

All I ask is for quotes that are not edited or cropped to make them more appealing than they actually are to your cause..........

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?) :confused:
.

Can't really figure this sentence out but I think parts of it are inaccurate based on a quick look at the cases I could find. Typical.

{clip}

The Littlefield-CLONES, boats, condition, hit, sentencings, and (speed):

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [B]instructor![/I]] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).

.

Again, after a quick look, in more than half of these accidents if not all alcohol was a factor. Why bring this up you ask? Full disclosure, you see not everyone agrees that a speed limit will help, even a little. You are presenting your "facts" to support your case. My problem with your facts is that some if not all of the accused seemed to have been intoxicated, leading me to believe that if they ignored the BWI laws, they would have ignored a speed limit.

Fat Jack

01-03-2006, 12:42 PM

Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org"...And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting.

On 4/6/05, in the thread you started to announce NHRBA, you said “Does Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire boaters need a non-profit organization...that promotes boating safety?”

Also on 4/6; “Anybody interested in helping shape an organization that ...is focused on promoting boating safety email me”

And on 4/7; “the group looks forward to your help to ...promote boating safety”

On 4/8; “I'm not about GFBL and certainly (sic) hope the NHRBA is not as well or I will get out.”

On 4/13; “I don't want NHRBA to be a GFBL focused membership.”

Again on 4/13; “look forward to working with you to talk about ideas such as boat limits, out of stater fees for using boats in NH, promoting safety, etc. even speed limits.”

On 12/6; “Well nhrba goals will be to continue to make boating safer.”

Sounds to me like a group hiding under the pretense of boating safety. Want more?

I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey. Is this an "unqualified "yes""? Are you stating for the record that you are unaware of any polls conducted on behalf of those opposing HB162?

winnilaker

01-03-2006, 01:14 PM

winnilaker

I have a problem with NHRBA.

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low.

After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

I am very concerned about this. So you joined over a year ago, that would make it before Jan 2005. Correct? I have just reveiwed the membership of all members since April of 2005 and all appear to be members today, except for 1. Are you stating you are that 1 person? I also searched our NHRBA forums for the word "rat", with no results, can you clarify the exact terminology used? The individual that was asked to leave, wanted to bring down NHRBA, not build it, even though the majority of its members wanted to vote against HB162. So, I'm calling your bluff on this one, if you can do some research like FJ, you'll know I helped start NHRBA over 2 years ago and know every little piece of information about it. So be careful that you don't tarnish your reputation on this forum for making false accusations that you can't defend. That is of course you are that 1 person! Then I can agree with you, sorry we didn't see eye FM.

As for FJ's question,
Is this an "unqualified "yes""?
I can say YES fro NHRBA, but I will check with the officers to double check to see if the other groups have.

Also thanks for the quotes, good ones (I stand by all of them), again I think a waste of your effort. I think your point was that NHRBA is a org that says its a safety org, but secretly wants to fight HB162. I'm telling you its a legislative monitoring org that will use its membership to promote boating safety ANY WAY it can. How much more obviously can I be, of course I want to promote boating safety, who doesn't, I have a 1 year son and 3 year old daughter, you think I want to take them boating on a crazy lake with maniacs doing 100mph everywhere, you're right, that's why I boat on Winnipesaukee, because that's not the reality. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people do it.

Fat Jack

01-03-2006, 01:31 PM

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low. After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

This is not the first story like this I've heard. Why do they say the membership is open to all, then apparently kick out members who join but express a non-GFBL point of view? Of course these are just questions, but; Might they be trying to build up their membership numbers to make the opposition seem larger than it actually is? Might they be trying to confuse? Might they just be trying to raise money by deception? Might you be one of those they count when they say they represent N peopel who oppose speed limits? Was your membership fee used to fund opposition to a bill that you supported?

Island Lover

01-03-2006, 02:32 PM

I said almost a year ago, not over a year ago. I found this so it may have been a little later than I thought.

"Your Web Registration/Membership application Request has been successfully
processed. You will have access to the discussion forum for 3 weeks, if we
have received your member fee by then, your account will be active until
May 1, 2006, if not this registration will be terminated.

If you have any questions please contact us: webmaster@nhrba.com
Thank you,
New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association registration"

As I remember it, I received the form and filled it out, then my posting privileges were removed and I was asked to leave so I never sent the money in.

My memory of the word was rat. There were several posts at that time talking about opposition strategy. There was no discussion of "boating safety", it was 100% anti speed limit.

I know you're not responsible for everything that was posted. But we both know what was going on then, so lets be honest.

Woodsy

01-03-2006, 04:28 PM

All of this divisiveness is really getting old. HB-162 has really divided Lake Winnipesaukee. I really don’t think that I will change the minds of some people such as APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners. I intend to plead my case based on facts and statistics, not emotional rhetoric, muckraking, conspiracy theories and partial truths. Let’s just stick to the facts…

There is a link above to the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report on Boating Safety Statistics. I have also included a link to a Boater Safety Alert issued by the NTSB. http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/sa%5F007.pdf

I strongly suggest that you read both documents in their entirety. It is pretty amazing the educational information contained in those reports.

In 2004 there were approximately 12,781,476 registered boats in the United States. There were 4904 accidents resulting in 676 fatalities and 3363 injuries. Of the 4904 accidents reported, 401 had excessive speed listed as the primary cause of the accident, (approximately 8%) resulting in 39 fatalities (approximately 6%). The USCG definition of “Excessive Speed” becomes ambiguous at this point. The USCG does not put a number as to what speed is considered excessive. We do not know at what speed (estimated or otherwise) that these accidents occurred.

Here is what we do know as FACT!

1. BWI is the #1 cause of boating related fatalities, 109 fatalities (16.1% of fatalities) as a result of 296 accidents (7.2% of accidents). BWI ranked #6 based on number of accidents.

2. Hazardous Waters is the #2 cause of boating related fatalities, 57 fatalities (8.4% of fatalities) as a result of 312 accidents (6.3% of accidents). Hazardous Waters ranked #5 based on number of accidents.

3. Operator Inattention is the #3 cause of boating related fatalities, 55 fatalities (8.1% of fatalities) as a result of 562 accidents (11.4% of accidents). Operator Inattention ranked #2 based on number of accidents.

4. Careless/Reckless Operation is the #4 cause of boating related fatalities, 43 fatalities (6.3% of fatalities) as a result of 570 accidents (11.6% of accidents). Operator Inattention ranked #1 based on number of accidents.

5. Operator Inexperience is the #5 cause of boating related fatalities, 42 fatalities (6.2% of fatalities) as a result of 406 accidents (8.2% of accidents). Operator Inexperience ranked #3 based on number of accidents.

6. Excessive Speed is the #6 cause of boating related fatalities, 39 fatalities (5.7% of fatalities) as a result of 401 accidents (8.1% of accidents). Excessive Speed ranked #4 based on number of accidents.

7. Passenger/Skier Behavior is the #7 cause of boating related fatalities, 26 fatalities (3.8% of fatalities) as a result of 291 accidents (5.9% of accidents). Passenger/Skier Behavior ranked #7 based on number of accidents.

8. Machinery System Failure is the #8 cause of boating related fatalities, 21 fatalities (3.1% of fatalities) as a result of 285 accidents (5.8% of accidents). Machinery System Failure ranked #8 based on number of accidents.

9. Rules Of The Road Infraction is the #9 cause of boating related fatalities, 13 fatalities (1.9% of fatalities) as a result of 188 accidents (3.8% of accidents). Rules Of The Road Infraction ranked #10 based on number of accidents.

10. No Proper Lookout is the #10 cause of boating related fatalities, 11 fatalities (1.6% of fatalities) as a result of 271 accidents (5.5% of accidents). No Proper Lookout ranked #9 based on number of accidents.

I certainly think that boating safety doesn't necessarily require speed limits. HB-162 only addresses a percentage of the #6 cause of boating fatalities. It does nothing to address any of the other Top 10 causes of boating fatalities.

We know for a fact that boating accidents are down this year (2005) on Lake Winnipesaukee even though the number of boats on the lake has increased. Boater Education laws work!

I am a member of NHRBA. I didn't join just because of HB-162. While I personally don't agree with a daytime limit at all, I might be swayed to accept a reasonable and prudent statute. I was in favor of the NWZ between Governor Is and Eagle Is. as I think it was/is one of the most congested spots on the lake.

Woodsy

Island Lover

01-03-2006, 04:51 PM

#1, #3, #4 and #5 already have NH boating laws that are helping to reduce these fatalities. #2 is a natural condition, it's very hard to pass a law against "Hazardous Waters".

I urge the legislature to pass HB162 so we can start work on the #6 cause of fatalities.

winnilaker

01-03-2006, 05:00 PM

"Your Web Registration/Membership application Request has been successfully
processed. You will have access to the discussion forum for 3 weeks, if we
have received your member fee by then, your account will be active until
May 1, 2006, if not this registration will be terminated.

If you have any questions please contact us: webmaster@nhrba.com
Thank you,
New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association registration"

Good post, If I read that correctly IF YOU DON'T send your membership fee in, you are terminated. Honestly, where does it say "Sorry, we don't like your views therefore you are terminated." Self explanatory, thanks for the post.

This is not the first story like this I've heard. Why do they say the membership is open to all, then apparently kick out members who join but express a non-GFBL point of view?

Simply lies, nice try, please post facts.

Might they just be trying to raise money by deception? Might you be one of those they count when they say they represent N peopel who oppose speed limits? Was your membership fee used to fund opposition to a bill that you supported?

Honestly, check with the Weirs Times, we paid them a bunch of money this summer, placing Boating Safety tips every week. Darn, you got me again, we do like boating safety in addition to legislative monitoring.

If you want to continue to tarnish this thread with this badgering, fine, else we can start a new one to continue this debate over lies vs. truths. Again, unless you are the 1 person I did ask to leave, besides that, not a single person was asked to leave.

And FJ, I confirmed with the NH Bass Federation and Marine Trade Association and no one knows of a survey besides the one. So apparently you know some double secret probation information that the opposition doesn't even know about.

Island Lover

01-03-2006, 05:13 PM

Good post, If I read that correctly IF YOU DON'T send your membership fee in, you are terminated. Honestly, where does it say "Sorry, we don't like your views therefore you are terminated." Self explanatory, thanks for the post.

This email had nothing to do with my termination. I received this when I joined online. I am showing it to you as proof I joined.

About a week after I joined it was made clear to me that I was not welcome and I was no longer able to access the forum.

winnilaker - Are you claiming that speed limit supporters were not made unwelcome at NHRBA last spring?

Jan

01-03-2006, 05:29 PM

I really don’t think that I will change the minds of some people such as APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners.So you think it's only them that favor HB162? You can add me to that list although I honestly have nothing against hi performance boats or their drivers. We have a friend with a Ferrari. I love him and his car. Driving it was a great thrill. I just don't want him doing 90 in my neighborhood (or anywhere else except a racetrack). I also have a brother-in-law with a Skater racing boat and he's taken me on some amazing rides in Long Island Sound. I loved it but it certainly doesn't belong in a lake like this except on a closely controlled race course.

My PERSONAL feeling comes from decades of time spent on and around the lake. I PERSONALLY don't care about all your facts and counter-facts. A child on my street doesn't need to be hit before I do something about speeding drivers (and I did). Somehow we got the limit lowered, extra signs and increased enforcement without a single fact (accident) to support it. Would those speeding drivers say "where are the facts that children are in danger from speeding drivers"? Would a question like that have helped their cause? In that case facts weren't needed, just common sense.

It is obvious to me that the "need for speed" is just not compatable with thousands of small family runabouts, sailboats, canoes and kayaks. I would have supported a compromise but something has to be done and I don't see any other proposals on the table.

This is just one opinion from one non-agenda, non-performance boat hater, little person who sees a problem. You may not like to hear it Woodsy but I think there are lots of us out there. We're not here arguing with you but the calls have been made and the letters have been written.

I've been reading all this with amusement but this is my last post on this subject. You can make up anything you want about why I feel the way I do but you'd be wrong.

J

Fat Jack

01-03-2006, 05:39 PM

All of this divisiveness is really getting old. HB-162 has really divided Lake Winnipesaukee.

Woodsy, you are surely right about that point, but then look what you say and do next;

...APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners.

You cause the very divisiveness that you abhor by repeatedly mistating the motives of the supporters and calling us liars. I believe your reasoning for opposing HB162. I can't see into your mind, so trust that you speak the truth about your motives. I agree that we just disagree about speed limits and the effect they will have. I don't call you a liar or put words in your mouth about your motives as you repeatedly do to us. We all keep asking for the same respect from you as we give you in this regard, but can't seem to get it. Everyone I have discussed HB162 sees it as a safety issue (not to say that an anti-cigarette boat reason or any other reason would not be as valid as a safety reason if coming from one of the lake's owners...one man - one vote). Some supporters are performance boat owners but are happy to go 45 in them because they believe it would be safer. Do you feel they hate themselves? I have never met a person who said "I support HB162 because I have a personal issue with high performance boats, and I just plain don’t like them or their owners."

overlook

01-03-2006, 05:49 PM

You left on your own, You did not like the way your post were rebutted.

winnilaker

01-03-2006, 08:58 PM

winnilaker - Are you claiming that speed limit supporters were not made unwelcome at NHRBA last spring?

This is getting old, but I will continue to respond as long as I'm addressed. NHRBA welcomes ALL boaters, even speed limit supporters, sail boaters, you name it, you'd be surprised by the variety of members we have now. I will state on the record right here and right now, NHRBA will NOT welcome people who are disingenuous, deceitful, use fake names or addresses and/or have the intention of using information NHRBA gathers to attempt to discredit NHRBA. Sound familiar to some of you? I think I saw the term "pathetic" used by Fat Jack, I liken that to the people who tried to join and use fake names and addresses in the hope to gain inside information. Were you one of those people? I have 17 people who have registered but never sent in their membership forms out of 140 registrations, I guess it wouldn't be too hard for me to start calling those folks to find out which one you were. But why go through all that effort, who really cares. The biggest complaints we got so far was, Why aren't we doing more to fight House Bill 162, but that's about it.

Island Lover

01-03-2006, 09:32 PM

Is that a yes or a no?

Sounds like a no.

Woodsy

01-03-2006, 11:22 PM

Fat Jack,

I have never called you or anyone else on this board a liar! I am not going to get into a p*ssing contest with anyone as to what their beliefs are. I respect everyones opinion, and quite frankly devote alot of time defending and explaining an opposing opinion regardless of how unpopular it is. However, I do think the motives of some of those posters I mentioned is very clear. They don't like performance boats or thier owners. Plain and simple.

Rep. Jim Pilliod the sponsor of HB-162 has stated "It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them." He doesn't know what boat I own or how big it is, other than its manufactured by Donzi as I told him in the e-mail I sent him. I think Rep. Pilliods intent is VERY CLEAR... he doesn't like hi-performance boats and wants them off Lake Winnipesaukee.

In order for speed be a "Safety Issue", as the Winnfabs claim it is, one would need statistics and facts to bolster that claim. You would have accident reports and statistics showing an increase in boating accidents, especially those relating to excessive speed. The problem is, there aren't any statistics or facts that bolster your claim. In fact there were less accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee last year than in the year prior. I ask again, if you have those facts or statistics, please post them.

. This whole mess has been simmering for some time, but it came to a head with the Hartman/Littlefield accident. Its kind of like blaming the car instead of the driver or perhaps the gun and not the guy who pulled the trigger. Perhaps the anger towards Littlefields and the Hi-Performance boating community regarding the Hartman accident should be better directed? It wasn't any other boater who served alcohol to Danny Littlefield that night. It was none other than the flag bearer of the Pro HB-162 community Rusty Mclear & Alex Ray's Common Man Restaurant chain. Maybe you should question them as to what thier alcohol policy is? Danny Littlefield was obviously overserved. I am sure that will come out in civil lawsuit of some sort.

One ardent HB-162 supporter, routinely posts pix and approximately 1/2 the story. He tends to leave out other contributing factors to the accident such as alcohol consumption. Kind of reminds of the guy at the Moultonborough Hearing who told the story of the guy in the hi-performance boat who was going so fast he ran into an island. After telling the whole story, the the board asked one simple question... was alcohol involved. Sheepishly the guy answered yes. He obviously omitted that little fact from his story.

To quote yet another ardent HB-162 supporter "There is definitely a prejudices involved. I am prejudiced against boats that are to big, to fast, and to noisy for a crowded lake. But mostly I dislike the "get out of my way" attitude that can be displayed by any boater but is a serious problem when he is operating a GFBL."

Boats have accidents. So does every other machine ever operated by a human being. If your going to use accidents, post the whole story, not just the muckraking tidbits.

We have speed limits on our roads, because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents and fatalities. The speed limit posted is directly related to the line of sight distance a driver can see. I don't have an issue with that as most roads, especially here in New England have a very narrow line of sight measured usually 1/4 mile or less. Interstate Highways are obviously different. Visibility on the Lake Winnipesaukee is 360 degrees, measured in MILES! There are very few places on the lake where one has any sort of restricted visibilty (weather not withstanding).

We in NH have speed limits on our snowmobile trails because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents. I suppose going down a trail on a 500lb snowmobile with lots of immovable objects (trees) less than 6' away at speeds greater than 45 could be considered hazardous. I have gone off the trail at speeds less than 45 and I can tell you its not fun. We do not have a snowmobile speed limit on our lakes however, because there is not any data to support one. (I think there are two lakes in the state with a speed limit, one in Concord, & one in Pittsburgh)

We in NH do not have a helmet law for motorcyclists, even though it has been statistically proven to reduce motorcycle fatalities.

We in NH do not have a seatbelt law for automobiles, even though they have been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities in automobile accidents.

Jan, I applaud that you were able to have the speed limit on your street lowered. Considering cars and children its not a bad thing, and it probably inconveinces a few people, and only for the short period of time they may be on that particular stretch of road. There are facts and statistics to bolster your speed limit reduction. I am sure the number of children in the neighborhood was also a contributing factor. HB-162 however, does not inconvience a few people traveling down a side road. It affects EVERYONE who boats in NH, regardless of where or how they boat.

In fact I am not opposed to limiting my personal freedom when it is deemed necessary by facts & statistics. I have a serious problem with a limitation on my freedom when there are no tangible facts or statistics.

I ask again... post some facts & statistics!

Woodsy

winnilaker

01-04-2006, 07:47 AM

Is that a yes or a no?

Sounds like a no.

My explanation is self explanatory. Are they speed limit supporters that are disingenuous, deceitful, use fake names or addresses and/or have the intention of using information NHRBA gathers to attempt to discredit NHRBA? Be careful how you reply, I have lots of interesting factual information to back up my reply!

Fat Jack

01-04-2006, 09:37 AM

Are they speed limit supporters that are disingenuous, deceitful, Aren't we all? (asked facetiously)

use fake names Is "Winnilaker" your real name?

I have lots of interesting factual information to back up my reply! We did too, until it was all deleted. And since you've brought it up, did you ever follow through on this at OSO?
Would you like me to post a new thread there? Will that really make a difference to everyone?
Response from Fat Jack
It will make a difference to me. Ask people to weigh in again on their feelings about the dangers of high speed boating, to recount all those deleted personal experiences with boating accidents and tragedies, to tell us again of friends that they have lost to boating, to repost all those photos of tragic acidents, to tell us again whether they feel that reasonable speed limits are justified in some cases. Start another poll like the one that was deleted that had about 67% of OSO's own members favoring a nighttime speed limit because they recognized things were getting out of hand and saw this as a necessity to "save their sport". Try to recreate all of the information that was lost by all the recent deletions if you are really sincere.
I also recall that you've been influential with that webmaster in the past in having posts removed and "lurkers" ejected, how about asking him to repost all of the stuff that was deleted?

winnilaker

01-04-2006, 11:01 AM

Is "Winnilaker" your real name?
Juvenile response.

As for OSO, I'll post to stop deleting posts, second that, I don't need to, Woodsy already did. As for replacing old posts, go find the information yourself, any boating accident anywhere in the US, should be public knowledge.

rickstr66

01-04-2006, 01:17 PM

Not a regular contributer to this topic but I have chimed in from time to time. Woodsy made some great points in his post about statistics in reply to Fat Jack. I especially like his usage of the way things are done off the lake in reguards to problem situation on roads. Even another person said they got the speed limit on thier street lowered because it was proven with statistics that, that street alone had a problem with speed. Did the state then go and reduce speed limits on all streets? No. Same thing could be said for a given intersection, pick a place. The town gets complaints that a certian intersection is becomming dangerous and too congested. The town responds by laying those hoses across the street to gather data to see if in fact traffic is high for the current conditions at that particular intersection. Finding it warrents a change because STATISTICS/ DATA for THAT intersection says so, they install a traffic light. Do they go and install traffic lights at ALL intersection in the state now? Nope. Same for a stretch of road. Stats show speed limit for THAT stretch of road is too high because of accidents on THAT stretch of road. State lowers speed limit on THAT stretch of road only. Not all roads in the state and they do it only when the stats/data prove a need to at that location.

Fat Jack

01-04-2006, 03:18 PM

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

overlook

01-04-2006, 07:42 PM

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

Now thats a quote, you said it all.
Everybody stay in there own state?
Next there own town?
Then stay in your house?

You First Fat Jack.

Acres per Second

01-04-2006, 08:55 PM

NOT!

Yeah, he was going 60-MPH when he collided with the other boat -- causing a fatality. So what? He was drunk!
Case...after case...after case...of excessive-speed fatalities have been dismissed here, using The Alcohol Excuse.
Aren't we drinking-while-boating responsibly? —Baja Bob http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/tiphat.gif
Is everybody doing it?
Does it go with the territory?

This summer, a drunken boating safety instructor drove his boat into his lake's shoreline, injurying one passenger and killing another passenger. It was a 60+MPH nighttime crash.

Pray tell: How do you keep liquor from performance-boaters' heads?

Acres per Second

01-04-2006, 10:00 PM

"... I'll post to stop deleting posts, second that, I don't need to, Woodsy already did. As for replacing old posts, go find the information yourself, any boating accident anywhere in the US, should be public knowledge."
Boating accidents have a brief life on the Internet. While boating forums will maintain accident accounts for an indefinite period, they can be lost or deleted if viewed as harmful to their "sport". (Or moved to a section off-limits to most inquiring eyes).

If an on-line newspaper reports it, they will archive it after only a month or two. They place it under a heading you must search for -- yourself. (And then you must select the correct one using their headline). You will then be charged for each newstory -- usually, $3 per article per day. In the Littlefield case, the reporting went on for months -- then years.

New Hampshire's Marine Patrol had only that one Internet entry, (about the highest national accident rate per acre AND per 1000 registered boats). With so many registered boats, and such a short boating season, it makes sense.

If you want Lake Winnipesaukee accident reports, or "facts", I'm at a total and complete loss as to where to point you. Missouri and Illinois have excellent accident reporting sites.

Federally, the most recent National Transportation "Recreational Boating Fatalities" figures are from the year 2000. (Too easily dismissed here).

Regarding deleted posts, the most-missed ones were those relating to vote-rigging in Forum polls and in newspaper speed-limit polls; however, there's countless scandalous posts still remaining. The cleanup started this summer, because "The Word" had already gone out. The site even asked that their avatars be "cleaned-up".

If they're needed again, I have reams of deleted stuff from Donzi, Scream&Fly, and OSO sites, going back about 18 months. It's not for nothing they were called the Marine Mafia. :eek:

If these hardcopies are not needed again, maybe we can make a Time Capsule for them. :)

Cal

01-04-2006, 10:57 PM

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

Getting a law removed is harder than getting one passed , no matter how rediculous or unnecessary it is. Because this would be ,to a politician , like admitting that you were wrong:eek: . Heaven forbid a politician ever admit to anything:laugh: :laugh: .

Down here in my state , we defeated speed limit laws last year. Some influential "money" person moved to waterfront property and when spring came decided they didn't like the noise:( . They pulled some strings and got a bill introduced to have speed limits on the entire ICW from Manasquan to Cape May AND all other inland tidal waters in the state:fire:
The opposition presented documented facts and figures calmly and logically while the Pro people acted just as a bunch on here are doing , with partial truths and scare tactics.
The powers that be , ruled in favor of NO Speed Limit and gave the guy who started the whole contoversy his very own NWZ in front of his house. Perhaps that's what some of you need.

Acres per Second

01-05-2006, 06:21 AM

You're right, Cal.

They also removed noise limits.

Cal

01-05-2006, 07:53 AM

They also removed noise limits.

HUH:confused: :confused: :confused:
Who removed what noise limits????

Woodsy

01-05-2006, 09:19 AM

I will ask again politely for the Pro HB-162 side to post FACTS and STATISTICS!

I have posted facts from the USCG and the NTSB. Others have posted that the accident rate on Lake Winnipesaukee has dropped to 35 accidents.

APS,
You claim to have reams of accident data. Feel free to post it! Make sure to tell the whole story, not just what you feel is relevant data. I don't think anyone has a problem with posting FACTUAL accident data. People tend to delete information when somebody like yourself uses that information in a less than forthright manner to further an agenda. If your going to post accident data, tell the whole story. The majority of accidents you post involve BWI as the primary cause, not excessive speed. You routinely opt not to post that. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who is under the influence is going to give a damn about a speed limit. You also opt not to post any accident data involving boats other than Hi-performance or PWC.

You have also posted the link to one document, issued by the NH Marine Patrol in 1998... over 7 years ago! PRIOR TO THE SAFE BOATER CERTIFICATION LAW. Yet since the enactment of the SAFE BOATER CERTIFICATION requirement, the accident rate on Lake Winnipesaukee has continued to steadily drop, down to 35 accidents in 2005.

The thread over on OSO listed a total of 50 accidents over 4 years, nationwide, and one or two of those listed were duplicates. That averages out to 12.5 accidents per year nationwide! Very few of the accidents listed had excessive speed as the primary cause of the accident. Most were BWI.

I have no problem with accidents being posted. Boats and PWCs have accidents, so do cars, trucks, motorcycles, atvs, snowmobiles, aircraft, industrial machinery, and any other sort of equipment. Anything operated by a human is going to have some sort of accident rate. The point I am trying to make is that the accident rate for boats is low to begin with, and its even lower when you single out accidents caused primarily by excessive speed.

Please stick to the facts and statistics...

Woodsy

PS: Fat Jack: Telling someone not to get involved up here is not playing nice. I highly doubt you have a NH Voter registration card! The forum is open to all.

Island Lover

01-05-2006, 10:35 AM

Woodsy

01-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HB-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one! I have posted data from the United States Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board.

In your post above you bring up thinly veiled references to the Littlefield/Hartman accident. Specifically the first two points you are truying to make. However here is one of your own quotes from another thread.

We all know that you can drive through speed traps on Rt 93 at 5 or 10 MPH over the speed limit and not be stopped. The same will be true on the lake.

So if you can drive 5-10MPH over the limit with no penalty, how would this have changed the terrible outcome of that night? It is well documented, that if a person is willing to operate a vehicle while under the influence, they really have no regard for any other laws.

As far as your other points go, prevailing conditions at the time of the accident are paramount. Look at the categories the U.S. Coast Guard uses to delineate accident causes. Driving a boat while intoxicated is considered a primary accident cause. 15MPH in a dense fog can be considered excessive speed. Operator Inattention is a primary cause of accidents (thats what Danny Littlefield was convicted of), Operator Inexperience is a primary cause (most likely the primary cause of accidents in which the boats flipped), Hazardous Waters (probably the cause of alot of the kayaking/canoeing deaths), the list goes on.

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

winnilaker

01-05-2006, 11:24 AM

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

I was at the R, R & D committe meeting when they asked the bills sponsor, Rep. Pilliod that exact question. And this is a FACT, he reply was "NO, I do not!"

ITD

01-05-2006, 11:30 AM

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

You forgot to mention that you rationalize data to support your cause. Each "rationalization" above is part of the truth, discounted and left out of your data because you deem it unimportant. You try to show the only cause of problems is speed over 45 mph day / 25 mph night. Your whole case is based upon the same type of rationalizations that you say discredits the anti-speed limit crowd. That's why it is so easy to discredit you, you don't tell the whole truth.

The data you present is a bunch of half truths. Very easy to expose with a little research. Present the whole story and let people decide, stop distorting and sensationalizing to prove your point.

The true complete "facts and statistics" do not support your cause.

And while I'm at it:

The speed limit will :

NOT Stop bad behavior
NOT Reduce the number of boats on Winni
NOT stop shore erosion
NOT make canoeing / kayaking safer.
NOT lower an already low death rate on winni
NOT make the people who want NO BOATS on Winni happy.

Island Lover

01-05-2006, 11:45 AM

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!...

This is a perfect example of your spin Dave. Go look at the first post in this thread. US Coast Guard statistics

I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

Woodsy

01-05-2006, 12:15 PM

Island Lover,

What is your point? How am I spinning anything? The Coast Guard did a great job with that report. I merely re-organized the report based on the number of fatalities! BWI was the #1 cause of accidents resulting in death!

I also think the NTSB Safety Alert speaks volumes!

Where is your data & statistics to support your position on HB-162?

You should read page 34 of the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report. It has yet more interesting facts...

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat.

Our Illustrious neighbor to the south, Massachusetts, has 150,683 registered boats. In 2004 they had 55 accidents, resulting in 9 deaths and 35 injuries. They do not require a Safe Boater Certificate for adults...

Seems to me the numbers speak for themselves....

Post your data & statistics!

Woodsy

Mee-n-Mac

01-05-2006, 12:33 PM

{snip} I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

I doubt you'll find anyone on either side of the argument that will dispute the above. What I and others have said is that this reality has no negative impact on safety. That Littlefield's speed that night is thought to be only 3 mph above the proposed limit means that to most of us, HB-162 would have made no difference in the outcome. The reasons for this have been hashed out but I can reiterate them if desired. If you really think that 25 is "safe" and 28 is "unsafe" then I'd like to know why. Moreover if I thought that the previous was true I'd be pushing for a much lower speed limit. If 25 or 45 mph had been arrived at by some analysis we could debate the inputs to that analysis or the analysis itself, but they weren't. They (HB-162 limits) were choosen for some reason and left unsupported. If I wanted to be unreasonable I could have proposed limits of 10 and 25 instead and then said any accident above those speeds was, by my definition, due to "excess" speed. But I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into my interpretation. I'd have to somehow prove that my limits were correct and any higher limits were unsafe.

Island Lover

01-05-2006, 12:59 PM

Mee-n-Mac

01-05-2006, 01:15 PM

{snip} 28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

Fine then ... I will propose that the maximum speed allowed on the lake be no wake speed (NWS). Seems pretty plain to me that any speed above NWS has the potential to cause injury or death and so any speed above NWS is therefore unsafe. Safer is slower ! I bet I can find more than 1 case where someone was killed (and many more injured) at a speed above NWS and I'll cite these as proof positive that only NWS is proper and any higher speed is bad. Anything else is quibbling !! How does this sound ?

ITD

01-05-2006, 01:36 PM

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat. Wow, real numbers and they don't support a speed limit, what a surprise!!!!

Thanks Woodsy.....

Ski Man

01-05-2006, 02:06 PM

Woodsy,
I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in.

In order for speed be a "Safety Issue", as the Winnfabs claim it is, one would need statistics and facts to bolster that claim. The problem is, there aren't any statistics or facts that bolster your claim. I ask again, if you have those facts or statistics, please post them. How do you get a chicken without and egg? How can we get statistics that a speed limit reduces accidents if we have no speed limit to use for generating statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in your own message...by looking at how speed limits have worked elsewhere.

We have speed limits on our roads, because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents and fatalities.
Of course, before there were speed limits on our roads, there was no way to get statistics to prove they would reduce accidents, right? I'm sure many excitement loving car drivers fought our highway speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

We in NH have speed limits on our snowmobile trails because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents.
And, of course, before there were speed limits on our trails, there were no such statistics, right? I'm sure many excitement loving snowmobilers fought our trail speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

We in NH do not have a helmet law for motorcyclists, even though it has been statistically proven to reduce motorcycle fatalities. I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a biker was not helmetted. Bad comparison. None of the HB162 crowd has been fighting for this bill, as far as I can find, because they are worried about the GFBL boaters safety. If they were, then this comparison would have some merit. Alternately, I guess this might be the place where you all can use that "live free" argument that makes no sense against HB162.

We in NH do not have a seatbelt law for automobiles, even though they have been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities in automobile accidents. I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a driver in another car was was not belted in. Another poor comparison for Hb162, but another place the "live free" argument might be useful.

I guess I just don't agree with the whole "statistics" defense. If the residents of NH want speed limits on their lakes, why do they have to prove the need to anyone? I don't see that they have any burden to prove anything, except that they are a majority, which they have obviously proven. Its not like they are trying to do something unconstitutional like ban a "protected group" from the lakes. There is no constitutional right to drive boats fast. Is it your position that GFBL's are a "protected group"?

Woodsy

01-05-2006, 02:19 PM

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

Island Lover...

I did make a mistake. I forgot Bear Lover started this thread with one page of the U.S. Coast Guard Report. However, it was the Anti HB-162 crowd that originally posted the link to the report, and the Safety Alert issued by the NTSB. Sorry about that.

You are wrong in your assessment of my opinion in regards to the USCG report. I am in complete agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard. The reality is, numbers don't lie, they are neither fair nor unfair, they just are.

I agree with USCG report, in that Excessive Speed is the #4 cause of accidents in the U.S. Excessive Speed is the #6 cause of boating fatalities. I pointed that out in my post above. Then the Coast Guard on page 44 of the report did an analysis of the accidents as they relate to the speed of the boat.

Not Moving – 810 accidents – 66 fatalities
Under 10 MPH – 1242 accidents – 163 fatalities
10 to 20 MPH – 1020 accidents – 40 fatalities
21 to 40 MPH – 933 accidents – 49 fatalities
Over 40 MPH – 137 accidents – 14 fatalities
Unknown – 2583 accidents – 344 fatalities

You state “28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI. This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!” You go on to state “I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them” That is something only a closed minded person would say. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open.

Yet another interesting statistic from Page 44 of the U.S. Coast Guard Report….

Of the 6725 boats involved in the 4904 reported accidents, 1013 of them were rental boats, 15%!

Of the 676 recorded fatalities, 92 of them were in rented boats, 13.5%!

Woodsy

Ski Man

01-05-2006, 02:55 PM

The cleanup started this summer, because "The Word" had already gone out.
It started earlier than that. I was almost fooled into joining NHRBA last spring because they painted a pretty inviting picture of themselves, but then I got a flavor of the group from their forum, which was then open to join, and opted out. I recall a message there from their webmaster that the Marine Patrol Director Barrett was going to be joining the club and that posts were all going to be "cleaned up" to make the club appear professional. Then many of the posts disappeared.

Dave R

01-05-2006, 03:00 PM

Yet another interesting statistic from Page 44 of the U.S. Coast Guard Report….

Of the 6725 boats involved in the 4904 reported accidents, 1013 of them were rental boats, 15%!

Of the 676 recorded fatalities, 92 of them were in rented boats, 13.5%!

Woodsy

Wow! I figured rentals would be over represented but that's just plain shocking.

Ski Man

01-05-2006, 03:00 PM

the Coast Guard on page 44 of the report did an analysis of the accidents as they relate to the speed of the boat.

Not Moving – 810 accidents – 66 fatalities
Under 10 MPH – 1242 accidents – 163 fatalities
10 to 20 MPH – 1020 accidents – 40 fatalities
21 to 40 MPH – 933 accidents – 49 fatalities
Over 40 MPH – 137 accidents – 14 fatalities
Unknown – 2583 accidents – 344 fatalities

Woodsy,
Are these the speeds of the "hitting" boat or the "hit" boat that the victims were in? How could 810 accidents have been caused by "hitting" boats that were "not moving"?

Cal

01-05-2006, 03:02 PM

Woodsy

01-05-2006, 03:07 PM

Ski Man...

You do not need the boat to be moving to have a fatality. There were 810 accidents resulting in 66 fatalities involving a boat that wasn't moving. There were 1479 collisions involving with other vessels, involving a total of 3003 boats, that resulted in 8 drownings and 60 other deaths. See page 36 of the USCG Report.

How do you get a chicken without and egg? How can we get statistics that a speed limit reduces accidents if we have no speed limit to use for generating statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in your own message...by looking at how speed limits have worked elsewhere.

Of course, before there were speed limits on our roads, there was no way to get statistics to prove they would reduce accidents, right?

To respond to your post, it is actually pretty simple. Every accident is a statistic. In every vehicular accident, pretty much since the dawn of motorized vehicles, accident statistics have been compiled. Factors such as the weather at the time of the accident, the speed at which the accident occurred, was the operator under the influence of alcohol or drugs, operator inattention, operator inexperience etc. These factors are all compiled and put into the statistical reports.

And, of course, before there were speed limits on our trails, there were no such statistics, right? I'm sure many excitement loving snowmobilers fought our trail speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

Wrong again… We have a 45 MPH speed limit on our snowmobile trails BECAUSE it was STATISTICALLY PROVEN to be warranted. All of the snowmobile accidents were analyzed and the result was a speed limit of 45 on trails, and no speed limit at all on lakes. (with the exception of two). I read a pretty good article in the NHSA Sno-Traveler written by a Fish & Game police officer on this particular subject.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a biker was not helmetted. Bad comparison. None of the HB162 crowd has been fighting for this bill, as far as I can find, because they are worried about the GFBL boaters safety. If they were, then this comparison would have some merit. Alternately, I guess this might be the place where you all can use that "live free" argument that makes no sense against HB162.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a driver in another car was was not belted in. Another poor comparison for Hb162, but another place the "live free" argument might be useful.

Actually I wasn’t comparing the lack of a helmet law or seatbelt law to HB-162. They were mentioned as laws in other states that have been STATISTICALLY PROVEN to reduce death or injury, yet they are not laws here in NH.

I guess I just don't agree with the whole "statistics" defense. If the residents of NH want speed limits on their lakes, why do they have to prove the need to anyone? I don't see that they have any burden to prove anything, except that they are a majority, which they have obviously proven. Its not like they are trying to do something unconstitutional like ban a "protected group" from the lakes. There is no constitutional right to drive boats fast. Is it your position that GFBL's are a "protected group"?

Ski Man, it is your constitutional right not to agree with me. I don’t have a problem with it at all.

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom without just cause.

Woodsy

PS: What type of skiier are you?

BroadHopper

01-05-2006, 03:55 PM

Ski Man...

PS: What type of skiier are you?

Obviuosly, he doesn't ski barefoot. I love to ski barefoot and this law will not allow me to enjoy my favorite pastime. I'm hoping the kids can enjoy this but I guess not.

Cal

01-05-2006, 04:08 PM

Ski Man...
What type of skiier are you?If it's a snow skier , I think the should be speed limits on them too. My wife was knocked unconsious be a SKI INSTRUCTOR of all people. She was standing perfectly still talking to a friend:eek:
It was also her last ski trip:rolleye2:

winnilaker

01-05-2006, 04:11 PM

I recall a message there from their webmaster that the Marine Patrol Director Barrett was going to be joining the club and that posts were all going to be "cleaned up" to make the club appear professional. Then many of the posts disappeared.

Welcome Ski man to the debate. I was the one who wrote that message. My clean up was to remove those with inappropriate messages (NOT A SINGLE ACCIDENT post was removed). I did not want NHRBA's forum to be a bashing forum, but a constructive mechanism to discuss issues on the lake. You fault me for that?

And yes I wanted the Dir to participate in issues, he doesn't want to read threads of posts irrelavant to boatings issues. So I had a challenge at first to help guide some of our members on proper forum usage.

NHRBA will make a positive impact on our lakes with or without you, sorry you didn't want to stick around.

overlook

01-05-2006, 06:48 PM

He still would have died if the speed was 25mph.

Silver Duck

01-05-2006, 07:00 PM

A strong (and unsurprising) pattern seems to be emerging in this thread showing that BUI is a major contributing factor to boating accidents of all kinds.

Whether or not we, as individuals, support a speed limit could we all come to an agreement that it would be a good thing to get drunks off the lake? (I don't think that I've observed any party to this debate supporting the right to get behind the helm while blitzed, no matter what kind of boat that helm is attached to!)

Perhaps, while they're considering boating safety, the legislature could encourage the MP to instigate a major crackdown on BUI - whether or not a speed limit is enacted!

One other thing; if a speed limit is enacted, perhaps the supporters might want to encourage the legislature to provide some means other than high speed pursuit to nab violators. (Providing funding for helicopter surveilance might be an alternative). If the idea of speeds in excess of 45 mph is frightening, HB162 supporters should find the idea of high speed pursuit even more so!

Silver Duck

Fat Jack

01-05-2006, 08:01 PM

And yes I wanted the Dir to participate.Is this proper for the Director of Marine "Safety" to be joining up with a GFBL association and at the same time helping them to fight against a safety initiative being supported by a huge majority of the citizens who are paying his salary? It certainly puts a lot of things in perspective and explains a lot of the odd things he was saying last year. This is one for the newspapers.

Fat Jack

01-05-2006, 09:02 PM

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom

Sometimes we give bad things good names to hide what they really are. I think that calling the act of flying across a crowded lake at break-neck speeds a "freedom" is rather insulting to the word freedom. I guess under your definition, f_rting in church and p_ssing in the town pool would be "freedoms" too. Although I guess they are freedoms, technically, if they are things you've always been allowed to do and that you've come to enjoy, but they seem more like "obnoxious offenses" or "hazards" to me. They aren't the kind of things that come to mind when one generally adds up his real freedoms, like "speech" and "worship". Adding "driving real fast in my boat" to that list just doesn't seem appropriate.
People use to smoke in hospitals and sell cocaine before those "freedoms" were taken away too.
What other "freedoms" do you put in this high-speed boating class?
Sometimes we just have to be willing to sacrifice our "freedoms" for the common good.

Now on the other hand, when we talk about "rights", those should never be taken away...Like the "right" of NH's citizens to the safe use of their lakes.

Boater

01-05-2006, 09:07 PM

I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in.You may regret getting into this Ski Man. The small handful of people who try to steamroll this forum with their unlimited speed agenda always have to have the last word. They'll ridicule, insult and question your intelligence. They'll tell you what your motives are and ignore any sincere and thoughtful statements you make about your actual motives. No matter what you say Woodsy, winnilaker, Cal and Mee-n-Mac will tell you at length why you're wrong (usually within minutes) with the same tired arguments they have made a hundred times before (and no doubt a hundred times more).

They'll "play nice" here because they're forced to by the moderator but you only need to spend a few minutes on OSO and other forums to see their true colors. Note that one of their leaders, who also frequently posts here, has to continuously tell them that insulting and bashing your opponents does not help their cause. He has to do that because insulting and bashing HB162 supporters is SOP for many of them.

They'll never change their tactics and you'll never convince them. They will stop at nothing to protect their ability to drive their boats at unlimited speeds in a self-contained lake filled with mostly small family boats. Your time is much better spent writing to or calling your rep. In my humble opinion of course ;) .

Acres per Second

01-05-2006, 09:42 PM

"...Woodsy, I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in...."

Wow. This is certainly a breath of fresh air. Clarity of thought, finally.

Most of the time my slogging feels like:

Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!
ApS: Does TOO!
Eminem: Does NOT!

And you're right! They are digging themselves in deeper. I've actually been asked to provide "deleted" posts.

One of the most damaging has likely already been read by all NH Representatives, and was written by "Team Jefe". It can't be reproduced here, 'cause this is a family Forum. Wait! -- it hasn't been deleted. Maybe Woodsy will direct our attention to it?

Nah. Too many references to "adult beverages", adult activities on boats, and lots of "Hold muh beer, Cletus, ...'n watch thee'us!" moments.

An' speakin' of fuggedaboudit...

HUH
Who removed what noise limits????

According to NJ Marine Police, noise testing had become too dangerous by 2003:

Letter from the Asbury Park Press 8-8-03
Noise testing had to change

I would like to respond to several articles printed lately concerning boating noise and speed.
The Boat Regulation Commission takes umbrage to the remark by William deCamp Jr. of Save Barnegat Bay, stating that "A step was taken backward today" after our July 9 meeting. He was referring to noise regulation 13:82-4.2 (a), which states: "No person shall operate or give permission for the operation of any vessel or watercraft capable of emitting noise totaling in excess of 90 dba in or upon the waters of this state."

In order to check the allowable decibel level, it was required that the boat being checked would pass by the Police Boat at the highest speed possible. This was so dangerous that senior officers would not allow it. The second method used checked the boat at a dock, with the motor at "the lowest throttle setting in neutral gear." This could not produce conclusive results and has been discontinued.
90 dB is awful bad, but this gets even worse:

Regulation 13:82-4.3 on muffling devices states: "Every outboard motor, inboard or inboard/outboard motor in use or attached to a vessel operating on the waters of this state shall be equipped with a muffling system as supplied by the manufacturer or installed by the owners."
As the pass-by and the dock test did not produce the results needed, it was suggested by the commission that all reference to the dba testing be removed from the regulations. The muffler requirement is to remain.

At the same time, the State Police have been placing "slow speed-no wake" buoys where needed. We believe that these two methods will both quiet the boats and also slow then down where necessary.

This was not the step backward. It was to clean up the regulations to obtain the results needed.

Roger Brown
CHAIRMAN
N.J. STATE BOAT REGULATION COMMISSION

"Save Barnegat Bay" only wanted a speed limit. They lost the speed limit battle, then went on to lose the noise WAR!

"The results needed?" Geez...

Hey, this was rejected by the NJ State-Motto-Contest:
New Jersey: To Live here, is to Die Here.
http://fool.exler.ru/sm/velo.gif http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/beer.gif

Woodsy

01-05-2006, 10:09 PM

Fat Jack,

There is a BIG differences between personal fredoms and rights. Personal freedoms are just that, freedoms. They are subject to change. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and are irrevocable... unless your talking guns... but thats a whole other debate! Speech and Worship are Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Farting in church, however distasteful, is a freedom. Last I checked it wasn't illegal. Urinating in the town pool is illegal and subject to arrest under public urination statutes, or perhaps indecent exposure statutes. I think public urination in Laconia will net you a $300 fine. There are probably a few more statutes the police can use in that instance.

I have no problem sacrificing a personal freedom for the common good. However, you need to justify taking my personal freedom away. To date there has been all sorts of wrangling back and forth, yet the Pro HB-162 crowd and Winnfabs has yet to produce ANY hard numbers, from an official government document that justifies taking away my freedom! When you can produce those numbers and subsequent statistics, then I will be willing to change my mind and give up my freedom.

Boater...

Ouch... I am sorry you feel that way. I really and truly am.

When you try to institute a law or policy that severely restrict an individuals personal freedoms, the reaction from those most affected by the proposed regulation is negative at best, downright nasty at its worst. This is effect is compounded when the proposed restriction is not based on facts or statistics, but on emotion. We have all sorts of laws that limit our personal freedoms. All of those laws were passed based on prior factual evidence.

I have used facts and statistics published by the USCG and the NTSB in my argument against HB-162. I have not ridiculed or insulted anyone. I play nice on all of the websites I post on, and I respect everyones opinion. I do not post insults, or tell people to mind thier own state like others here have. I go out of my way to defend the positions of some of the Pro HB-162/Winnfabs crowd. My argument is not a "tired" argument, nor is it emotional. It is a passionate factual argument, supported by facts and statistics gleaned from official government documents. The numbers do not lie. I am sorry you don't like the way the numbers align. I have repeatedly asked your side to post thier facts, post thier statistics. I have asked again and again to post the whole story when posting about boat accidents. Bolster your argument that Lake Winnipesaukee and NH NEEDS a speed limit. To date they have posted 2 documents, the one page from the 2004 USCG report (originally posted by an NHRBA member) and the other a "Public Service" article published by the USCGA. The PSA from the USCGA had "Speed Kills" in the title, however, the article was about striking a sumerged object.

I personally have no problem with the R,R & D minority opinion on HB-162. I think NH should adopt the USCG standard which is the same as the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea, also known as COLREGS.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I think that is a fair compromise for both sides. I would like to see some sort of funding package passed for the Marine Patrol as well. It would be a good thing for them to hire a few more officers. The mere presence of the MP boats in the congested parts of Lake Winnipesaukee has a distinct calming effect.

APS... Feel free to post the link to the adventures of Team Jefe. There are quite a few of them on the Donzi forum, most involve offshore salt water fishing and some sort of hot looking girl. He is from Texas, thats the way they are down there. He is an exceptionally good friend of mine regardless of whatever buffoonery he may partake. The really funny thing is he doesn't drink.. he can't. Severe stomach issue. But whatever, feel free to post it! I can ping him an e-mail so he can log on and tell you the stories himself if you would like. He actually trailered his 30' Fishing Boat from Houston Texas to Lake Winnipesaukee, just to boat here. It doesn't go faster than 52-55 MPH.

As far as noise regs go, I don't have a problem with revisiting them.

Woodsy

Cal

01-05-2006, 11:30 PM

"Save Barnegat Bay" only wanted a speed limit. They lost the speed limit battle, then went on to lose the noise WAR!

A bunch of sailboaters on Barnegat Bay wanted a "statewide" speed limit on ALL inland tidal waters , not just Barnegat Bay. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to fix what isn't broke.;)

Mee-n-Mac

01-08-2006, 07:32 PM

You may regret getting into this Ski Man. The small handful of people who try to steamroll this forum with their unlimited speed agenda always have to have the last word. They'll ridicule, insult and question your intelligence. They'll tell you what your motives are and ignore any sincere and thoughtful statements you make about your actual motives. No matter what you say Woodsy, winnilaker, Cal and Mee-n-Mac will tell you at length why you're wrong (usually within minutes) with the same tired arguments they have made a hundred times before (and no doubt a hundred times more).
{snip}

So when I post anti-HB162 I'm "steamrolling" and when others post pro-HB-162 they're just discussing ? Since you've listed my name specifically I'd like you to bring forth my posts that have ridiculed, insulted or questioned anyone's intelligence. I've tried to be pretty calm in this debate but if I've failed let me know. If you recall we own a 24' Wellcraft non-gofast boat. I've not called for unlimited speed in any discussion of this issue, now or in years past. Lastly if my arguments are "tired" it's partly because I keep having to drag them out to refute that "Littlefield" has any factual bearing on a speed limit.

Mee-n-Mac

01-08-2006, 08:08 PM

Wow. This is certainly a breath of fresh air. Clarity of thought, finally.

Most of the time my slogging feels like:
{snip}

Gee I thought I usually stated my reasons for disagreeing, didn't realize I was being so simplistic. Since you appreciate SM's clarity, I'd like to direct your (and other's) attention to his point about how HB-162 is not about protecting GFBL boaters from themselves. Next time anyone feels like dragging in some single boat accident not involving anyone else, breathe some fresh air instead.

Fat Jack

01-08-2006, 08:22 PM

Acres per Second

01-08-2006, 08:59 PM

A bunch of sailboaters on Barnegat Bay wanted a "statewide" speed limit on ALL inland tidal waters , not just Barnegat Bay. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to fix what isn't broke.
Something was "broke" at Lake George, and it sure was "broke" to the "bunch" at Barnegat Bay.

Lake George is presently "fixed", while New Jersey remains...well...New Jersey. New Jersey: The Superfund State

While accidents were going down, fatalities were shooting up: Off the coast, a cruiser running at top speed ran down fishermen in a 20-foot boat. Three brothers died together in their GFBL.

Those were alarming headlines to read about in one season.

But here's the "Marine Mafia" talk that shot down New Jersey's boating speed limit. (New Jersey's restrictive boating-noise laws were the next to fall to monied interests).

"...You need to get organized, hire a law firm/lawyer and start writing/e-mailing/phone calling your state reps. Is there (sic) any major political races happening in NJ this Nov.? What are the Hi-Performance Marinas saying about this? Are they even aware of this issue? If not, get them up to speed ASAP! Look at these websites to see how we approach waterway restrictions.
www.standing-watch.org
www.cfw.org
This effort won't be cheap, so you need to prepare to "Step up" with $$$$$!

Starting a Non-Profit "New Jersey Boaters Rights" group will make this less costly, and add credibility to your cause."

Now, what group would be analogous to "New Jersey Boaters' Rights"? The NHRBA?

Isn't NJ "Hi-Performance Marinas" analogous to NH "Whalley's" monied interests?

BTW: "Standing-Watch", and "cfw" are currently devoted to removing speed limits from endangered marine-mammal habitat. :rolleye1:

Since humans aren't endangered, Winnipesaukee only has loons to worry about. :emb: I mean the waterfowl-kind.

_______________________

http://fool.exler.ru/sm/velo.gif"Know" :eek: Limits...http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/beer.gif

Acres per Second

01-09-2006, 08:18 AM

Gee I thought I usually stated my reasons for disagreeing, didn't realize I was being so simplistic. Since you appreciate SM's clarity, I'd like to direct your (and other's) attention to his point about how HB-162 is not about protecting GFBL boaters from themselves. Next time anyone feels like dragging in some single boat accident not involving anyone else, breathe some fresh air instead.

A single boat accident always involves someone else -- passenger or hapless rescuer. A hapless Laconia rescuer is the most important reason we voted in the anti-"skimming" law of 2005.

You're not concerned for Heidi? ...at DonziRegistry.com?
"...I caught a big cruiser wake and did a little Superman act of my own. I think I scared Heidi a little, but she was a trooper and held on as beverage cans went flying all over the place. We made it to Weirs in no time flat..."

In disagreeing, I find myself reading reasons that either obfuscate, complicate, or merely "don't compute". I also don't understand defending a "Viva yo" attitude on Winnipesaukee, either. (Viva yo is "HOORAY FOR ME!" noted by author James Michener in Iberia)

Winnipesaukee's quaint 150-foot rule is now obsolete -- made so by "Progress": (Multiple 1100-HP engines, and still counting...).

It's not just horsepower:

It's not illegal to have a DVD screen mounted in the dashboard -- next to the GPS and radar screens, twenty gauges, multiple throttles, trim controls, radio, tilt controls, VHF, and stereo controls. It's not illegal to "drive" using one's feet. You can carry six cases of beer on board (or vodka, the odorless choice of speedboaters). Or, as I pointed out earlier, a shotgun or Beretta. Will these beer-swillers (http://www.flpowerboat.com/new/photo_gallery/05-09-A/A05-09-021.cfm) be voting against a speed limit? You can legally mount cruise-control on your boat, for those too-long stretches across the Broads to the Naswa. Until last year, boaters could leave the scene of one's injurious- and death-causing Winnipesaukee collisions -- and not go to prison. You can travel at 150-MPH if you want (http://media.putfile.com/Skater-haulin-azz).

You never cleared up "TUNNEL VISION" -- a concept that no Opponent has acknowledged here.

When a boater races along at 60MPH, there is only one boat on the water. Why? Because his attention is only forward: Instant Captain "B".

You may not have noticed that every photograph I took this summer near krwxcr700 (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23903&postcount=54) had the "drivers" having to stand and look directly forward. (That is, when they and their passengers could see over the bow at all). Should a smaller boat approach from afar, it will be ignored UNTIL IT GETS TOO CLOSE. This is the "Instant Captain B" concept. Captain "B" is oblivious to the lesser "stand-on" boat and unintentionally fails to acknowledge its importance. It's krwxcr700, you'll recall, who alleges -- to borrow Wordsy's synonym for mendacity -- to have been "buzzed" by speedboaters while fishing.

That's why the 150-foot rule has become obsolete -- and hugely unenforced -- on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Lake George's speed limit is due to never having had a "150-foot rule" to enforce! 'You suppose Lake George boaters viewed 150-MPH boats -- or 4½ ton speedboats -- as a hazard? Should they have instituted a 150-foot rule instead? I don't theenk so....

New Hampshire is now having to play its usual catch-up legislative game.

You don't know you can buy a BMW sedan with 500+ HP off the showroom floor that will do 200-MPH? ...On American roads? Or that Mercedes offered a 600-HP sedan this year in response? At least Porsche offers driving schools for Americans who buy Porsches: Porsches, which are electronically-governed to speed along at "only" 155-MPH. Or that new 115-foot yacht offered today that will do 57-MPH?

On inland protected waters, I call this wretched excess.

****

Here are a few of your arguments -- the first not so much simplistic as self-indulgent:
"...given that rules are preferential to kayaks and sailboats, I have a better chance of making it to the dock today with the 1000 PWCs..."

And I did leave out obfuscatory (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19158&postcount=25) parts:

So I call a registration fee a tax, you can call it a poodle if you wish.
or, Will they be Chihuahuas next year ?

To this day, I remain confused and unclear on the above quotes, and evermore appreciative of Clarity.

Mee-n-Mac

01-10-2006, 10:10 AM

Let's stay on subject;
Did you read that article in the Citizen yesterday about how well the speed limits there are working?
And what do you think of Rep Whalley's attempts to use a noise bill to undermine HB162?

I just did read the article. It said nothing new to me. So how much safer is LG with (vs w/o) the speed limit ? Could the limit be higher and less discriminatory ? As to Whaley's bill ... how could it undermine HB-162 ? I'm told all support for HB-162 comes from people afraid to boat on the lake, not people concerned about noise. Moreover I find it marginally intriguing (though just) that people who question Pilliod's motives based upon his words are chastised while questioning Whalley's motives is OK. The true questions to ask are; is HB-162 good law, is HB-1624 (?) good law.

Island Lover

01-10-2006, 11:52 AM

Mee-n-Mac

I don't know what Rep. Whalley's motives are. I don't know if his method of monitoring noise is an improvement or not.

What I question is the timing. Suddenly this other bill is getting a lot of attention. Its a diversion tactic.

Here we are on a special forum set up just for HB162. Yet in the last days before a vote on HB162, we are taking about a noise limit bill.

If you can't win the argument, then change the subject. And the opposition can't win the argument.

Woodsy

01-10-2006, 12:40 PM

Island Lover...

It was Fat Jack, a Pro HB-162 person who originally brought up Rep. Whalley and questioned his motives in regards to the newly proposed noise bill in another thread. It was not Mee-n-Mac.

Woodsy

Acres per Second

01-12-2006, 05:33 AM

"...APS... Feel free to post the link to the adventures of Team Jefe...He actually trailered his 30' Fishing Boat from Houston Texas to Lake Winnipesaukee, just to boat here. It doesn't go faster than 52-55 MPH. Here's Team Jefe at Winnipesaukee:

"...Those of you who have had the unequalled pleasure of riding in Jefe’s Revenge with me at the helm know exactly how I turned around. But, for those who have not had that pleasure, imagine cruising along at 50+mph, and your captain saying “hang on” as he gets a devilish grin on his face, then reefs the helm round as tight as it will go. The boat slams up on it side and turns in a radius of about 50 feet. at 50 MPH, no slip, no spin-out, just boom and we were going the other way..."

OK to quote deleted posts?

___________________
http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/beer.gif "Know" :eek: Limits ...http://fool.exler.ru/sm/velo.gif

Woodsy

01-12-2006, 09:50 AM

APS...

How is that post fron Jefe an issue? He didn't do anything inherently unsafe.
Do explain?

Woodsy

Acres per Second

01-16-2006, 08:20 PM

Maybe it's because here's no slamming or booming on my boats. That quote falls into the category: "Hold muh beer, 'n watch this".

Perhaps "slamming" and Booming" should have been seen in the context of this following Winnipesaukee activity at the Donzi Registry:

"...hits a wave and launches into the air. HOLY Soaring Eagles Batman. I’m talking completely outta the water, airborne, I saw props for several seconds. This was a poster shot...I caught a big cruiser wake and did a little Superman act of my own. I think I scared ***** a little, but she was a trooper and held on as beverage cans went flying all over the place. We made it to Weirs in no time flat."

Beverage cans?

Doesn't everybody say "beverage" cans?
:rolleye2:

___________________
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/images/smilies/drinkers.gif http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/beer.gif "Know" :eek: Limits ...http://fool.exler.ru/sm/velo.gif

Paugus Bay Resident

01-17-2006, 12:50 AM

APS,

Noticed this in your signature, The 150' rule is obsolete and unenforceable.

If you believe this about a fundemental rule that effects all powerboaters, then how can a speed limit be enforced? Inquiring minds want to know .... :confused:

Acres per Second

01-17-2006, 08:03 AM

We've already read that some speedboaters intend to break the new law, regardless.
We've already read that Director Barrett may—or may not—enforce the law.

That doesn't mean laws should not be enacted.

The neighborhood that enacted this speed limit [picture below] now lives a quiet, safe, and laid-back existence. The community is an area greater than 18 square miles and has over 100 miles of 2-lane blacktop roads whose speeds are controlled by this blanket speed limit: 25-MPH.

Dump trucks there, however:
1) ignore, even double, the speed limit to haul gravel within this same community.
2) because of their political clout, are "effectively immune" to local police control.
3) will fill your rear-view mirror with their grill should you obey the law.
4) are responsible for most of the prior fatalities.

The speed limit has won wide residential support—and the usual noisy and well-funded detractors. (The gravel pit industry and dump truck industry are among the detractors).

Supporters carry bumper stickers to exhort violators to "Observe the Limit—or Leave". (And, fortunately, are laid-back enough not to give the "Winnipesaukee Salute", so often mentioned at the GFBL forums).

A huge state roadside sign leading to the community reads, in part, "Speed Kills".

The effort wasn't to save the lives of school children; in fact, the locals can only tell you that they've had tangible results—certainly more spectacular results than Lake George's speed limit, for sure.

The point: Even with law enforcement's blind eye, residents love the new speed limit, and the mostly-outsider "Monied Interests" hate it. Sorta like HB162!

Cal

01-17-2006, 08:09 AM

APS,

Noticed this in your signature,

If you believe this about a fundemental rule that effects all powerboaters, then how can a speed limit be enforced? Inquiring minds want to know .... :confused:

Demanding minds don't know.

They just want it THEIR way , right or wrong necessary or not , enforcable or not. They are more than willing to give up another freedom that someone else (not they) enjoy. Just be careful what you wish for. One thing leads to another and can come back to bite YOU in the :) :) :)

Woodsy

01-17-2006, 09:00 AM

APS...

Jefe does not drink. Those were soda cans and empty bottled water containers. You are trying to make something out of nothing. I am sure you can find plenty of other examples where people were actually consuming alcoholic beverages.

The Donzi Poker Run that year was run during on a grey rainy day with some rough water. There were quite a few small boats, Donzi 18 & 22 Classics to be exact that got bounced around quite a bit. The NHMP shadowed the run in its entirety with one of thier RIBs. There were no 150' violations or any tickets issued by the NHMP.

Woodsy

Acres per Second

01-17-2006, 06:55 PM

APS...Jefe does not drink. Those were soda cans and empty bottled water containers. I'm impressed! My own recollections about such things usually only go back a day or two -- certainly not back to 2004. "Jefe" goes on to say:
"...Well W----- and W----- don’t wait in lines. This is their town, and we are their guests so we strolled right in past the line (and several dirty looks). When we got inside there was a cover charge….Cover? what do you mean cover? These boys don’t pay no stinking cover either…..It’s nice to have the help of the local talent..."
As I imbibe infrequently, I've never paid "cover" nor "strolled right past" anybody! Still, I wonder about those who would treat others near—or on—Winnipesaukee with such disdain.

And WHO would restrict boat type?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=42619
("Guess-who?" favors a limit on a boat-type)?

There is a perception that all owners of High Performance boats are essentially lawless cowboys.
On Winnipesaukee, Donzi GFBLs call themselves "The Donzi Bandits", right? (Not Cowboys, Heaven forbid) :rolleye1: These might be instructive:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=51030
("What's so wrong with a cold beer?")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=45526
("Can't keep 150-foot separation")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=42597
("Marine Patrol - Help Us")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=41878
(Cigs do donuts 50' off dock)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29427
(Won't keep cowboys from buzzing your dock).
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=13622
("Donzis racing one another").
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=42593
(July, 2002: "Some day someone will die...due to cowboys...")http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=41838
(Donzi throws big wake returning to his buddies)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=27707
(Cigarette boat loses its transom in the Broads.)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=27452
(Bearmeister says [Cig] speed kills—in 2001!)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=27486
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy).
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29835
(FLL nails it 365 days before 2002 fatality-causer is nailed himself)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29720
(Reckless operation tears off outdrive of 28' "Noise boat")
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=28163
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy — II)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=45395
(Hobie girls passed by 110-MPH Tunnel-Hull)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=45480
(Throttleman agrees with my speed estimate, above)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=43992
(M-n-M sees GFBL sunk suggests alcohol, not H2O)
http://www4.citizen.com/news2002/aug_02/08_30_02/mere_0830a_02.asp
(2002 fatal crash by Citizen shows "Not Found -- 404 Error" today)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=41958
(FLL "thinks small" on weight, horsepower, speed, and decibels)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=41958
(Baja Bob lectures forum on ROW -- wrongly)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=62808
(New Hampshire boating safety stats nearly as bad as Washington state's)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=42585
(Aquadeziac, upset BEFORE Winnipesaukee's worst collision).
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29832
(43-footer "Black Thunder" sinks in Broads)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=57570
(Fountain flips and crashes in Broads) Restrict them from The Broads?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29832
(Speedboat gets stuck between trees—in Wolfeboro)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=63437
(Cigarette enters cottage—three killed—at night)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=11075
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—III)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=11235
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—IV)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=11119
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—V)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=11286
(Why you guys are your own worst enemy—VI)
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=19327
(A Poker Run Is Not a Race—II)

The NHMP shadowed the run in its entirety with one of their RIBs. There were no 150' violations or any tickets issued by the NHMP.

Woodsy
What year? This post says that you have it all wrong: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29072
(Donzis run from the Marine Patrol).

Finally: Things should return to normal after HB162 achieves history: We forget about the importance of well-advised laws. Here's an "Olde Forum" nugget:

"Glad you guys were not around when they proposed to ban lead from paint or we'd all be too dumb to even have this conversation."

.

Woodsy

01-18-2006, 10:56 AM

APS...

Wow... so now it gets personal.... I am actually pretty surprised! I really expected better from you. Too bad you actually stooped to this level. I guess I am not perfect like you Rob. I don't partake of personal attacks and mudslinging.

I am sorry to hear your recollections don't go back that far. I participated in the 2004 Donzi Poker Run as a guest on Jefe's boat. He towed that boat all the way from Houston, Texas just to boat on Lake Winni. There were absolutely NO ALCOHOLIC beverages of any kind on that boat. The MP's did shadow us the entire run in 2004, nobody was pulled over for any violations. Of course you wouldn't know because you weren't there. Though I suspect you were glued to the police scanner.

As far as the quote that you (politely) deleted my name from. Its ok as I have nothing to hide. The owners of the establishments that Jefe wrote about are friends of mine. I frequent the establishments in the Weirs year round and I spend my money there year round. I am considered to be a local, so in the summer when there is a line out the door to get in I usually stroll right past.

I fail to see how that is a disdain for others? It no different than frequent flyer miles or first class upgrades that the airlines give to thier best customers to show appreciation for thier business!

If you feel the need to go back 5 years to 2001 to find an old post, so be it. As far as my post about big cruisers, I stand by it. I haven't flip-flopped at all. I personally don't like the wakes generated by some of these behemoths. It because of those wakes I sold my 22' Donzi and and purchased a larger 26' Donzi. I respect thier choice to buy a big cruiser even if I don't like it. They (and the wakes they generate) will be the next target of choice to be sure.

As far as the Donzi Bandits nickname you brought up. Let me give you a bit of history. Its actually the Winni Bandits, not Donzi Bandits, and we are comprised of a bunch of friends. The name is tounge in cheek, similar to the nickname my parents gave my bunch of friends when I was growing up. It was given to us by a friend of mine from Michigan, when 5 of us trailered our boats from Lake Winnipesaukee to Lake Cumberland in KY. I guess in todays world you have to expect the small minded to take things in a literal sense and out of context.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=51030
Post Date 2003
You actually quoted a boater who spoke truthfully about a "handful of cowboys" I interpret that quote to mean a small number of people. Anyway, we no longer use the term "Cowboy" on the Winni forum anymore as it is no longer Politically Correct (PC). I think Don got a letter from some guys out west who threatened a lawsuit. The term we use now is Capt. Bonehead. I am not defending Baja Bob, however there is nothing wrong with A cold beer (singular)... There is plenty wrong with MANY cold beers (plural). Perhaps we should adopt a zero tolerance policy? At what point do we surrender all personal responsibility to the government?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=45526 Post Date 2002
This post is about PWC's and Paugus Bay congestion. What does it have to do with HB-162? Oh wait.. they used the word "Cowboy" in thier post!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=42597
Post Date: 2002
Another post about rude boaters. She used the word "Cowboy" too, although she didn't preface it with GFBL or any other moniker. Of course nowadays driving her little outboard boat into the wake of the Mount would be seriously frowned upon. There is a law against wake jumping now. Yet another post with nothing to do about HB-162.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=41878
Post Date 2002
This post references an incident that occurred a few years prior to 2002. Nothing to do with HB-162, but plenty to do with reckless operation. Oh ya, they use the term "Cowboys" too.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29427
Post Date:2001
Another post using the word "Cowboy". Its in the context of a thread about the lake being crowded. Nothing to do with HB-162, but certainly 150' violations.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=13622
Post Date: 2000
Donzi's racing one another? Now I know you are really reaching! That is such a stretch! This post has nothing to do with Donzi's. It specifically mentions PWC's. (We don't call them Jet Ski's anymore as its not PC either)

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=42593
Post Date:2002
I actually like this post. its a pretty good one. It also uses the word "Cowboy"

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=41838
Post Date:2002
I don't take issue with this post other than it doesn't use the word "Cowboy". The Capt. Bonehead operating this Donzi acted in a rude, inconsiderate and possibly illegal manner. I am sure if we search the archives we can find posts about many different brands of boats with a Capt. Bonehead at the wheel.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29072
Post Date: 2001
I posted my response here at this link...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=29092
Actually the whole thread bears reading again. There are several references to different versions of the story. I am sure they all bear some truth.

Woodsy

Acres per Second

01-18-2006, 12:43 PM

"...Wow... so now it gets personal.... I am actually pretty surprised! I really expected better from you. Too bad you actually stooped to this level...Woodsy..."Actually, permission was given to post the entire "Jefe" post from DonziRegistry.com.

It could not have been linked here in good conscience; moreover, it would not have remained posted here, as this is a family forum.

Wordsy's really been done a favor, and no reference to a real name has been made here.

It's not really a big effort to keep posts non-personal here: Notice the use of "Passive Voice"? One will see very few "I", "my", "you", or "yours", in the replies sent from this keyboard.

Besides, these past weeks have been instructive: Cal, for example, has earned a few notches for well-tempered responses from Cal's keyboard. Contrast those with this collection of Opponent revelations (paraphrased for maximum eye-rolling effect): :rolleye2:

FACT: Radar doesn't work for boats.
FACT: 2002's most experienced boater would not have been affected by a speed limit.
FACT: No accidents involving speed have occurred on Winnipesaukee.
FACT: Horror stories aren't facts.
FACT: Mountainous lakes will echo less noise than flatland lakes.
FACT: Performance boats don't leave wakes.
FACT: NH salesmen won't sell you a boat with switchable exhaust.
FACT: All "Lakers" were noisy.
FACT: The deletion of posts from other sites don't mean anything.
FACT: Occurrences on other lakes are of no consequence.
FACT: Tres Martin's school is too far and expensive for performance boaters.
FACT: "Reasonable and prudent" has been found to be Constitutional.
FACT: Only performance boats will be discriminated against.
FACT: The faster the boat, the better the drivers can hold their liquor.
FACT: Speedboaters are being oppressed.
FACT: A collision at 90 is the same as a collision at 44.9 MPH.
FACT: There aren't enough boats on the lake.
FACT: Common sense will solve the speed problem.
FACT: One of the fastest boaters on Winnipesaukee has not benefited from the newest NWZ.
FACT: A site hosted by a Mass-person cannot be used to criticize out-of-state weekend boaters.
FACT: Nothing written here will influence anybody.
FACT: Records of Lake Winnipesaukee's speed-related crashes are readily available.
FACT: With the speed limit, speedboaters will be stopped from boating altogether.
FACT: Kayaks are the problem, not performance boats.
FACT: Cigarette boats know how to "play together" with other boaters.
FACT: Cabin cruisers are the real problem.
FACT: Winnipesaukee's "Most Experienced Boater for 2002" sped at exactly 28-MPH one night.
FACT: With a speed limit law, there will be fewer boats on the water.
FACT: Laws do not promote safety.
FACT: Elderly boaters are the problem, not speeders.
FACT: OSO has posted all of the collisions that have occurred.
FACT: BWI is a non-speed-related offense.
FACT: All the posts (50) are still there, and not deleted.
FACT: The most unlikely way that you will be killed is by a performance boat.
FACT: Lightning will kill more boaters than speeders will.
FACT: Speedboat sites that censor themselves aren't afraid of the facts.
FACT: Only posts with unsubstantiated or anecdotal evidence are being deleted.
FACT: Driver error or BWI should not be counted in performance boat crashes.
FACT: "NH fishermen will suffer because the Maine, Mass, fisherman do not have to obey speed laws in their states."
FACT: The 150-foot safe passage rule means Winnipesaukee doesn't need a speed limit.
FACT: Lake George has a speed limit, so it doesn't need a safe-passage law.
FACT: High speeds only occur on The Broads -- away from people.
FACT: In trying to reduce a wake, trim tabs will be ripped off,
FACT: "Speed Kills" is a meaningless phrase.
FACT: Director Barrett will not be able to enforce the new law.
FACT: Speed is #4 in accidents; however, reckless operation, inattention, and inexperience don't apply to performance boaters.
FACT: Stupidity is not against the law.
FACT: Emotion should not precipitate law-making.
FACT: Nixon was impeached.
FACT: Fewer vessels were involved in crashes in the category "over 40 MPH" than any other category -- including "not moving".

Finally: Will an "end-run" on HB162 occur in the next day or two? With "facts" like the above, who knows?

UPDATE: In this evening's extreme-boating news, I found this:
"ask woodsy how fast art and him went in the 57 boat...."
There is more than one "woodsy"? And if not, shouldn't we be advised of other risk-taking behaviors before accepting advice on HB162? The discussion topic was a new 200-MPH pleasure-speedboat! http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1596351&postcount=23
.

Cal

01-18-2006, 01:20 PM

APS,
Don't you worry about me , Don already does , so I can't "go trolling" to start trouble like you seem to enjoy.
All I have to say is , I take your last post as a personal insult , grouping me with all the others. I speak for myself:p

Seaplane Pilot

01-18-2006, 01:52 PM

WASHINGTON Jan 18, 2006 — About one-third of the people killed in automobile crashes involving the nation's youngest drivers were pedestrians or occupants of other vehicles, according to a report released Wednesday.
For the rest of the story...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/wireStory?id=1516764

Maybe the NH legislature should focus on a real safety issue such as teen drivers (ban them altogether - more safety?), not a fabricated safety issue like the boat speed limits. I'm far less afraid of getting killed by a boat on Winnipesaukee going more than 45MPH than I am of these out of control teen drivers on the streets. Now, if we all went back to horse & buggy days...

Woodsy

01-18-2006, 07:51 PM

APS...

You have tried to use Jefe's post in order to further your own agenda. I take a great offense to that as Jefe is my friend. I don't know how it is where you come from, but where I come from a man stands up for his friends.

As usual, you only tell part of the story and take quotes completely out of context. Your insinuations that the thread cannot be linked here in good conscience is absurd. As I have stated before, I have nothing to hide. Here is the link to the thread over on Donzi.net that contains the adventures of Jefe during the 2004 Donzi Poker Run. For those who are so inclined, its a pretty good (long) read, but nothing outrageous occurred. Just a bunch of friends from all over the country gathered here on Lake Winnipesaukee to have some fun. Jefe does tend to go on a bit much about the pretty girls, but thats Jefe, he likes pretty girls. The part about the "Bumpa Cars" is pretty funny. Too bad you don't know him, because then you would get the real sense of the story.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36923

I have no idea who the other "Woodsy" is. I have a different screen name over on OSO.

Woodsy

Acres per Second

01-18-2006, 08:59 PM

Okaaaa-ay, your call.

1) "Money talks?" Sorry, but this crowd comes across as seedy. http://www.donzi.net/forums/showpost.php?p=298166&postcount=4

2) As for standing up for friends, "Winnipesaukee's Most Exerienced and Most Educated Speedboater for 2002" also had lots of people standing up for their friend. Many unknown to him. Why?

3) I have no idea who the other "Woodsy" is. I have a different screen name over on OSO.

That's odd...he reads the same:

Re: 130 MPH NorTech on Winnipesaukee???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its good to see high perf isn't quite dead yet on the Lake....

Woodsy:rolleye2:

No matter what happens in the next few days or weeks, it's the headlines that will keep this issue before the Winnipesaukee public.

4) "Safe Passage" isn't getting it done.
5) "Education" was a band-aid, proving marginal.
6) I can name you a scenic lake twice the size of Winnipesaukee that enacted a 10-MPH speed limit—just this year.
7) "Speed"—with or without alcohol—will drive the headlines, and the headlines will drive the Legislature.

If not now, later.