Speed Limit test zones dead in the water!

[Skip]

There will be no test speed zones on Winni this year and we are now back to the statewide speed limit proposal.

Read all about it HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070817/CITIZEN_01/108170376/-1/CITIZEN) in today's on-line edition of the Citizen!

[AC2717]

Here is the link to submit your opposition to this ridiculous bill

http://www.opposehb847.com/

All should get involved!

[Acres per Second]

As a practical matter, all that the southernmost speed zone did was to move the hazard from one side of Rattlesnake Island to the other. The Broads side of the island devolved into "the passing lane".

Just visiting my MD-friend's place on Rattlesnake became even more a hit-and-miss proposal: just to wave "Hi" meant running the gauntlet twice.

As most in law enforcement will tell you, "You don't fix crime with enforcement, you just move it".

[Islander]

Barrett loses another round in his attempt to scuttle speed limits with an 8 year "Pilot Program".

I hope this doesn't effect any of those big money jobs in the boating industry he has been preparing for.

[B R]

what are you even talking about?

Were they (winfabs) afraid the facts would get in the way of their agenda? certainly seems so after reading the article.

[jeffk]

… because this is not a rational discussion. Interestingly enough I do not believe that it is based on fear either, although “terrified” and “anguished” people make for good theater during hearings. The push for speed limits is fueled by anger and the desire for revenge over the death of one of their friends. There is no reasoning or discussion with such single minded anger. A large speedboat was responsible for the death of their friend so these boats must be removed from the lake. Since it would probably be impossible to ban a specific boat type the next best thing would be to pass a speed limit that would limit the enjoyable use of such boats and make them “persona non grata” on the lake.

The only thing that facts could do in this case might be to slow up the progress toward a speed limit. It is no surprise that the pro speed limit organizations don’t want to be bothered with inconvenient facts that would impede their agenda.

[Island Lover]

I'm not sure responding to the "we need speed" crowd is worth the trouble anymore. Just read the latest on the fatal Maine boat disaster. How many politicians are going to read that and vote against speed limits.

This bill is a done deal. Even the leaders of the opposition know that now. And Barrett acknowledged it in the article.

"I still believe a statute is going to pass," said Barrett.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

the "we need speed" crowd
Its not we need speed crowd. Heck, my boat won't even hit 40. It's the personal responsibility, personal freedom, smaller government, etc. crowd. We're becoming a society where the government is taking more and more responsibility for our choices. Remember 1984? Once we go down that slope there's no coming back. I think you've been missing that message all along. Anyway, I'm done with this.

[Island Lover]

Its not we need speed crowd. Heck, my boat won't even hit 40. It's the personal responsibility, personal freedom, smaller government, etc. crowd. We're becoming a society where the government is taking more and more responsibility for our choices. Remember 1984? Once we go down that slope there's no coming back. I think you've been missing that message all along. Anyway, I'm done with this.

Did you even read 1984?

You equate a speed limit to 1984? Get a clue!

[Evenstar]

Its not we need speed crowd. Heck, my boat won't even hit 40. It's the personal responsibility, personal freedom, smaller government, etc. crowd. We're becoming a society where the government is taking more and more responsibility for our choices. Remember 1984? Once we go down that slope there's no coming back. I think you've been missing that message all along. Anyway, I'm done with this.
Unfortunately, the reason that we need laws (like a lake speed limit law), is that too many members of our society put their own freedoms above the freedom of others. There are just way too many self-centered people who feel that they have the "right" to do whatever they enjoy doing - reguardless on how it affects others.

I'm not saying that everyone (with a fast boat) feels that way, but I do believe that there are enough of them to justify a NH lake speed limit law - to protect the rights of others (especially those in smaller, slower boats) to safely use the same lakes. Otherwise those with the most horsepower win - they get to keep their freedom, while the rest of us lose some of our freedom.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I said I was done, but personal insults tend to require a response. YES I read it. 1984 posits a world where the government is totalitarian in word and deed. According to the government, this life must be endured for the collective good. If you can't see the parallel with losing personal freedom and personal responsibility, then I give up. Like I said I'm done. I hope you archive your utopia it's clearly different than mine.

[jrc]

So you don't think 1984 applies, how about if I paraphase 1934?

First they came for the fast boaters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a fast boater.
Then they came for the rafters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a rafter.
Then they came for the yachters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a yachter.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

[SIKSUKR]

Here's the article on WMUR's website.A lot of reteric from the pro speed limit groups but no opposing viewpoints.It's certainly not because everyones in favor.Hmmm.
http://www.wmur.com/news/13915326/detail.html

[B R]

So you don't think 1984 applies, how about if I paraphase 1934?

First they came for the fast boaters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a fast boater.
Then they came for the rafters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a rafter.
Then they came for the yachters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a yachter.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

very well said.

[Island Lover]

Here's the article on WMUR's website.A lot of reteric from the pro speed limit groups but no opposing viewpoints.It's certainly not because everyones in favor.Hmmm.
http://www.wmur.com/news/13915326/detail.html

The lack of response is not because there is no opposition.

It's because the opposition knows its all over.




Explain please why speed limits on lakes will bring about 1984, but speed limits on roads are ok? Or are you against them as well?

[SIKSUKR]

That's not how I see it.Most fair media will show both sides of a hotly debated story.

[kjbathe]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that if part of the objection to the pilot was the 8-year duration, change it to a one-year pilot, get the information and make an informed decision. Common sense?

My honest opinion is that speed limit or no, it's not going to change anything of significance on the water: I think most boats out there are doing less than 45 MPH, 45+ MPH on a weekend is typically hard to do comfortably with the boat density and associated chop, and then if you even have some boats doing 45+, what's the likelihood of an enforcement officer being in the right place all the time to stop it? My read of MP's data collection to date seems to support the idea that few boats are in excess of 45. And if the even smaller population of night-time boaters is comfortable going over 25, have at it!

What are we really debating here? I just don't see this making any difference if it passes or not. I'm now on the sidelines with Paugus Bay Resident on this one ;)

[Islander]

What are we really debating here? I just don't see this making any difference if it passes or not.

We are debating the future of the lake. It will make a huge difference!

Its not really about how fast a given boat goes. It IS about the direction the lake community is taking. I don't care if they hand out a lot of tickets or not.

When the speed limit passes the lake will take a step back from the more speed, more horsepower, more noise direction we are in now.

Most of the high speed boats will go somewhere else. I'll say that again so it can sink in. THEY WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

The lake will never go back to "Golden Pond". But it is a big step in that direction.

[Island Lover]

Ever since the speed limit debate began we have been told by the opposition that if it passes the lakes area will be economically devastated.

They claim that millions in high speed boat sales, service, hotel and restaurant revenues will be lost. Many people testified to this at the hearings two years ago.

Now we are supposed to believe that nothing will be changed by a speed limit! The old argument was not working so they will try a new one.

Boats that have moved another body of water can not be breaking the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. That makes a speed limit self enforcing. They will not be speeding, because they will not be here!

And the lake will be a little quieter, less hectic and less polluted.

[brk-lnt]

We are debating the future of the lake. It will make a huge difference!

Its not really about how fast a given boat goes. It IS about the direction the lake community is taking. I don't care if they hand out a lot of tickets or not.

When the speed limit passes the lake will take a step back from the more speed, more horsepower, more noise direction we are in now.

Most of the high speed boats will go somewhere else. I'll say that again so it can sink in. THEY WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

The lake will never go back to "Golden Pond". But it is a big step in that direction.

Seeing as how speed limits on roads don't prevent people from driving at whatever speed they deem reasonable, what makes you think it will be any better on a lake? Where the officer to driver ratio is lower, and then travel lanes are less predictable, and it's harder to setup a speed trap?

A speed limit on the lake will only become a revenue stream to whomever ends up enforcing it.

As for the speedboats going someplace else, I also doubt that. There are really no other nearby inland lakes large enough to make their use fun, and a lot of their owners seem to have a vested interest in Winnipesaukee (slips, condos, homes, etc).

True enforcement may also become a bit of an issue, as speedometers are not a given on boats like they are on cars, so there will be a lot of "warnings" written. The sending units for many speedo's on boats are easily fouled, resulting in inaccurate readings.

Enforcement of existing rules (150', etc) would probably provide more of a reduction in annoyance than yet another law. If current laws aren't enforced well, what is so special about a speed limit law that makes people think it will have any realistic impact?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Edit: I meant Island Lover in the title, But rereading it is appropriate for both parties!

The opposition is very much alive. Growing everyday, and its because of people like you and your ranting and raving. For that I thank you. Here's the deal folks for those of you that don't know.

Round 1 Winnfabs lost HB 162 in the Senate.

Round 2 Winnfabs invokes their right to petition the Commissioner.

Round 3 Starts because Winnfabs finds out Commissioner is not going to step on Legislatures toes, thus HB 847 is born. Round 3.1 is that the committee on HB 847 decides to table the bill until there is more data, that is supposed to come from the petition that WINNFABS brought to the commissioner.

Today round 3.2 WINNFABS finds out what their petition would have really meant, meaning the fact WE DO NOT NEED a speed limit, so what do they do. WINNFABS makes sure to scuttle THEIR OWN PETITION. Now for those faithful forum readers, it is obvious that they are not only out for the GFBLs as they call them, the recent thread on rafting shows that the same people want to get rid of the Big Obtrusive Cabin Cruisers....

In the end, they want, loons calling as they pass by in birch bark canoes.....

It is time that they are called out for what they are. Extremists, Winnfabs will win if the public believes their nonsense. I am here to tell you all, Stand up, be counted make the time to beat these people back! Come to the hearings, take the day off work if you have to. I have, many others have, if you don't we will all lose our ability to enjoy our lakes. Unless you have that birch bark canoe they all want to see.....

[LocalRealtor]

And the lake will be a little quieter, less hectic and less polluted.

Its not the speed of a boat that is scary, its all the boats violating the 150 foot rule.

Noise is an issue on some boats and going 45 mph or less isn't gonna change that. Sorry.

Pollution is a result of the shear number of boats not the few that are going over 45 mph.

One member in particular from Bear island has stated in the past that their boat often exceeds 45 mph(even 60). I wonder if they are aware its causing alot of pollution while doing that scary excessive speed?

I just wish the MP would spend more time enforcing the 150' rule.

Who cares how fast a boat is going in the wide open spaces anyway? Geesh.

[tis]

You are so right, Paugus, don't quit, we need people like you to speak for our rights. I get very frustrated getting in these kinds of discussions too. And JRC, I agree, very well said. And Local Realtor, I totally agree, it is the 150 rule which is NOT enforced. Evenstar is too young to realize that laws are made for those who don't need them. The others won't follow them anyway. My bitch is why do so many people get involved in this who don't live on or even near the lake. Why does someone who lives in say, Manchester and never comes here, care? Many of these surveys include these people who have no clue.

[Lakegeezer]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/images/icons/icon4.gif Islander you are insane! Hey! Lighten up. Islander is entitled to express an opinion here and we are all entitled to our opinion of that opinion. Leave the psycobable out of it. The insults too. :eek:

[Island Lover]

Yes the argument has changed from it will destroy the economy to it will not change a thing. If it will not change anything, then there is no reason not to give it a try.

If it doesn't work I will be in favor of a repeal.

Speed limits failed in the Senate by two votes. Those Senators have been replaced.

The petition was for a lakewide speed limit. Barrett decided that meant an 8 year test study in two small areas. Just a delay tactic.

[LocalRealtor]

Yes the argument has changed from it will destroy the economy to it will not change a thing. If it will not change anything, then there is no reason not to give it a try.

If it doesn't work I will be in favor of a repeal.

Speed limits failed in the Senate by two votes. Those Senators have been replaced.

The petition was for a lake wide speed limit. Barrett decided that meant an 8 year test study in two small areas. Just a delay tactic.

The only thing it will change is limiting the rights of a specific type of boat that is capable of exceeding an arbitrary line in the sand.

If we want the lake to be a safer place, then we all should join together and ask the MP to step up enforcement of the 150' rule.

I also would like to ask: If a boat is going in excess of 45 mph and is no where near another boat, why is that unsafe?

Islander obviously feels that 60+ mph is safe, or they likely wouldn't be traveling on the lake at those speeds endangering us all, so to speak.

[webmaster]

I have to disclose that Island Lover, Islander and Bear Islander all post from the exact same Metrocast IP number.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I will try and reel in my emotion and keep my posts civilized. But this is just the type of thing that fires me up. Obviously 1 person trying to look like 3 or more by using different screen names. That is a tactic the pro speed side has used from the beginning. Remember they are the ones telling us that there are thousands of speed limit supporters. Why do I always see the same half dozen at the hearings then???? Maybe the 6 are the thousands. After all perception is reality!

[ITD]

I have to disclose that Island Lover, Islander and Bear Islander all post from the exact same Metrocast IP number.

D-oh, a farce, just like the cause he/she is fighting for. Legislators, please pay attention and don't allow a one man band to dictate policy. Everything this person says is wrong and a sham.

Edit,

You know this type of dishonesty, and that is what it is, really ticks me off. This person should be ashamed of themself, like I said before, these people or should I say this person will resort to any DISHONEST tactic to gain what she wants. IL, Islander, BI, please don't go away mad, just go away.

[Islander]

The webmaster never said we were one person, just the same ip.

[LocalRealtor]

The webmaster never said we were one person, just the same ip.

Didn't say you weren't either. Are you saying you're not one person?

[jrc]

Don't get the noose just yet :D :D

Although Islander and Island Lover are indistinguishable, Bear Islander has a different tone. I suspect husband and wife, with wife playing two roles. I could be wrong, maybe a third party is in the mix, a daughter perhaps.

Or maybe Bear Islander is a great actor. He has the willpower and stamina to get to the North Pole, he may stop at nothing to get this law passed.

Does it really matter that much? They all just parrot the WinnFabs talking points.

[LocalRealtor]

Don't get the noose just yet :D :D

Although Islander and Island Lover are indistinguishable, Bear Islander has a different tone. I suspect husband and wife, with wife playing two roles. I could be wrong, maybe a third party is in the mix, a daughter perhaps.

Or maybe Bear Islander is a great actor. He has the willpower and stamina to get to the North Pole, he may stop at nothing to get this law passed.

Does it really matter that much? They all just parrot the WinnFabs talking points.

JRC, Good call, I too have thought Bear Islander and Islander were husband and wife. Ever see that Verizon commercial about another companies network when verizon compares themselves to the other network and all the cardboard people fall down? I guess Winfabs is the same type of organization with all those cardboard figures. :laugh:

In my post above I was asking them to come on the record and clear things up. They have the opportunity but seem to have decided to leave the dark cloud hanging over the whole charade. Big Surprise.

For those that haven't read it before, I'll say it again, my boat will barely go 50 mph, so speed limits really don't effect me. It's this style of getting things done that has got really got my hackle up.

[Islander]

I am just one person. The same ip only implies the same neighborhood. The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!

[KonaChick]

D-oh, a farce, just like the cause he/she is fighting for. Legislators, please pay attention and don't allow a one man band to dictate policy. Everything this person says is wrong and a sham.

Edit,

You know this type of dishonesty, and that is what it is, really ticks me off. This person should be ashamed of themself, like I said before, these people or should I say this person will resort to any DISHONEST tactic to gain what she wants. IL, Islander, BI, please don't go away mad, just go away.


I hope and pray that the Legislators voting on this bill are taking into consideration MORE than 1, 2 or 3 people's opinions on a message board!! I'm confident that BOTH sides of the argument have many supporters..not just 1 or 2. On the flip side, still undecided on a speed limit. I have no problem with my boat as 45 is plenty fast for me and around 30 I'm usually screaming at my hubby or kiddos to slow down anyway...but...my jetski is a different thing altogether. Going 45 is fast but I've gone a lot faster at times while still obeying boating laws. Slowing down when I needed to wasn't a problem. It's also extremely difficult to NOT go over 45...I've tried to keep the throttle at 45 consisently and you just can't do it. Technically if there were a speed limit I could be stopped if I was clocked at 46....it's just a difficult thing to control.

[B R]

I am just one person. The same ip only implies the same neighborhood. The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!

Sorry, wrong again. that ip address is for a single cable modem (metrocast was mentioned). what the webmaster said was fact. you are signing in from the same cable modem; it is NOT the neighborhood. unless your whole neighborhood is sharing one cable modem (and this is probably ILLEGAL or certainly could be prosecuted by Metrocast should that be the case), the webmaster is indisputably correct.

[Islander]

Sorry, wrong again. that ip address is for a single cable modem (metrocast was mentioned). what the webmaster said was fact. you are signing in from the same cable modem; it is NOT the neighborhood. unless your whole neighborhood is sharing one cable modem (and this is probably ILLEGAL or certainly could be prosecuted by Metrocast should that be the case), the webmaster is indisputably correct.

Thank you for confirming, in a round about way, that an ip address can be shared by a neighborhood.

Now you can call Metrocast on Monday and turn us in.

[GWC...]

I have to disclose that Island Lover, Islander and Bear Islander all post from the exact same Metrocast IP number.
Perhaps they're using a NAT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translator

[Skip]

...The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS...

Maybe you should turn him in! :laugh:

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive! - Sir Walter Scott

[Airwaves]

Islander, Island Lover, Bear Islander...whichever he is, wrote:
If it doesn't work I will be in favor of a repeal.
If what doesn't work?

There are no speed limits now and there hasn't been a speed related fatality or accident that I am aware of since safety certificates became widespread in NH.

To legislators reading this, the problem isn't speed, it's the violation of the 150 foot rule. If that is enforced accidents will be reduced.

As far as WinnFABS getting the plug pulled on the pilot program it seems to me that the information being collected was NOT proving their point, so another end run was needed!

A new law isn't needed, just enforcement of laws already in place, and for that matter an MP officer can cite someone if they believe he/she is operating a boat at excessive speed for the conditions.

[ITD]

You know it's funny, I was reading posts from Islander yesterday before the truth came out and I was thinking, I can't tell the difference between these two people, Islander and Island Lover. Of course she will just lie, weasle and try to argue her way out of this, true to form.

Islander:
"I am just one person."

No question about that, there is just no way to figure out how many other different identities you post under. You are so bagged.:laugh:

Islander:

"The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. "

The webmaster pointed out three different identities to the same computer, you outed yourself under one of your identities. To try and turn this back on him is sleazy.


Islander:

"If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!"


You have discredited yourself, try being honest for a change.

[Islander]

I know we all love a good conspiracy theory. But..

The webmaster never said same person, never said same computer, never said same home.

And how does any of that effect this piece of news?.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/18/boating_dangers_accidents_on_rise/

[chipj29]

I know we all love a good conspiracy theory. But..

The webmaster never said same person, never said same computer, never said same home.

And how does any of that effect this piece of news?.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/18/boating_dangers_accidents_on_rise/
The article specifically states inexperience and alcohol as reasons for the rise in accidents.

[Dave R]

One cable modem could be connected to a wireless router that a neighborhood could legally share and the IP address would be the same for all posts. It's quite possible that the three "islanders" are indeed three different people.

[Airwaves]

I figured Islander/Island Lover/Bear Islander would use that article.

In fact that article used national figures and the stats are from the New England states that DON'T require boating education. While the article did reveal those facts it was poorly written and easily missed.

Here are the boating accidents for Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006, the year the article used statistics from.

2006 Fatals/Boating Accidents, Lake Winnipesaukee as reported in media

4/03/06 Canoe Capsized. 1 arrested, BWI
6/10/06 24’ Powerboat hits Eagle Island, 1 arrested, BWI
7/04/06 24’ Rental powerboat aground on rocks, Stonedam Island, 1 arrested, BWI
7/13/06 Cabin Cruiser fire, Fay’s Boatyard, no injuries
7/21/06 27’ Cabin Cruiser fire during refueling at Weirs Beach, 2 rescued.
8/05/06 Drowning, man swimming from boat off Rattlesnake Island, 1 dead
8/05/06 Drowning, man swimming from boat off Varney Point, 1 dead
8/13/06 Boat hit by waves, woman injured by fall (location not reported)
8/13/06 Boat towing tube, tube hit big wake, 1 woman injured (location not reported)
10/03/06 20’ Powerboat ran aground on Hurricane Island, Tuftonboro, 1 arrested, BWI
10/28/06 230’ M/S Mount Washington, man overboard. Missing presumed drowned.

So to review: 4 alcohol related accidents
3 non-boat accident related drownings
2 fires
2 injuries while boating due to waves
3 boat groundings (all alcohol related)

Number of deaths on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006: 3
Number of speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006: ZERO
Number of speed related deaths on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 : ZERO

These stats were compiled by me using various media reports throughout the year and I broke out the figures for ONLY Winnipesaukee.

No stats from NH, where mandatory boating education is required for all but a few, were used in the article. The focus of the article was on the three states in New England where boater education is not mandated.

And, as a reference point. Massachusetts, which does not have a mandatory boater education law, does have a 45 mile an hour speed limit. What do marine law enforcement officials have to say?
"If you have the money, you can buy the toy," said Gloucester Harbormaster James Caulkett. He is vice president of the Massachusetts Harbormasters Association, which is pushing legislation that would require boaters to pass a safety course.
Yep, Massachusetts has a speed limit but what they want is a mandatory boater education requirment. Interesting.

Also on the wish list:
The Massachusetts Environmental Police says it has 100 officers to patrol waterways from the Berkshires to Cape Cod.

"There is never enough," said Captain George Agganis of the Massachusetts Environmental Police. "Our numbers really need to increase on coastal areas."
So the border state that has what WinnFabs wants, speed limits, wants what NH has, mandatory boater education.

[GWC...]

I know we all love a good conspiracy theory. But..

The webmaster never said same person, never said same computer, never said same home.

And how does any of that effect this piece of news?.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/08/18/boating_dangers_accidents_on_rise/
It doesn't.

Why?

Wrong state.

Go to Maine and lobby its Legislature for a speed limit if the situation there stresses you.

I am just one person. The same ip only implies the same neighborhood. The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!
You did it to yourself and now you feel the need to blame another for your choice in life.

[LocalRealtor]

I know we all love a good conspiracy theory. But..

The webmaster never said same person, never said same computer, never said same home.



He never said you weren't either.

Funny thing is I have asked before and will ask again right here.

Are you the same person or are you not? If not are you all from the same house?

You have the opportunity to clear things up with the truth.

Are you going to come clean or let the speculation continue?

I guess it really doesn't matter because your credibility is sunk now.

I'm sure some hacker could let us know the answers we seek anyway.

[codeman671]

Funny how a few months back I accused Islander and Island Lover of being the same person. The lack of response at that time said enough for me.

Anyone have any D-Con handy???

Lets face it, the end result of a speed limit being broken in a fatal accident will tag on a $50 or so ticket to the offender, the life would still be lost. I hope their fight to get a speed limit is worth it to them in the end, although I think the overall effect will be minimal.

[LocalRealtor]

Funny how a few months back I accused Islander and Island Lover of being the same person. The lack of response at that time said enough for me.

Anyone have any D-Con handy???

Lets face it, the end result of a speed limit being broken in a fatal accident will tag on a $50 or so ticket to the offender, the life would still be lost. I hope their fight to get a speed limit is worth it to them in the end, although I think the overall effect will be minimal.

and if the speeding boat stays 150' away from other vessels there won't be an accident. go figure. ;)

[Islander]

He never said you weren't either.

Funny thing is I have asked before and will ask again right here.

Are you the same person or are you not? If not are you all from the same house?

You have the opportunity to clear things up with the truth.

Are you going to come clean or let the speculation continue?

I guess it really doesn't matter because your credibility is sunk now.

I'm sure some hacker could let us know the answers we seek anyway.

I thought I answered it already. But for the record I am one person. I have posted under another name in the past but at this time I am only Islander.

I am surprised there are 3 people using this ip, I would have thought 5 or 6.

You are correct in that it really doesn't matter, nor does the credibility of a online identity.

I have now answered more than I need to, or you have any right to know. The webmaster has not canceled or suspended my membership. If I am acceptable to him I don't need to justify myself to anyone else. I am through posting on this subject, If you have any more complaints address them to the webmaster.

[webmaster]

I have to disclose that Island Lover, Islander and Bear Islander all post from the exact same Metrocast IP number.I just wanted to add that I have been contacted and assured that the three members are in fact different people. The explanation was reasonable and I have no reason to doubt it. I appreciate that many of you nice people gave them the benefit of the doubt.

[LocalRealtor]

I thought I answered it already. But for the record I am one person. I have posted under another name in the past but at this time I am only Islander.

I am surprised there are 3 people using this ip, I would have thought 5 or 6.

You are correct in that it really doesn't matter, nor does the credibility of a online identity.

I have now answered more than I need to, or you have any right to know. The webmaster has not canceled or suspended my membership. If I am acceptable to him I don't need to justify myself to anyone else. I am through posting on this subject, If you have any more complaints address them to the webmaster.

Was the other Identity you were posting under Island Lover and if not what was the other identity you were posting under?

Would you also like to let us know that you are the person quoted in the newspaper article speaking on behalf of Winfabs?

A special thanks to the webmaster for helping us clarify what has been speculated upon here in the forum and privately.

[B R]

I just wanted to add that I have been contacted and assured that the three members are in fact different people. The explanation was reasonable and I have no reason to doubt it. I appreciate that many of you nice people gave them the benefit of the doubt.


can you comment whether or not they are from the same house or does metrocast actually use one modem in an entire neighborhood? i find it odd that metrocast would set up an entire neighborhood with one single modem/ IP address. the only way possible is for a strong wireless connection. at the very least, they all certainly know each other and these comments aren't from a random group of strangers all agreeing with each other.

[Island Girl]

Metrocast and all the other providers do not set up a whole neighborhood with one IP. The cable modem to a residence gets the ip... those connected to that modem through a wireless router.. all use the same ip when connecting to the internet... so you can hook up a wireless router and those PCs within range of it can hop on to the internet.. this is what all the fuss is about when setting up your home network... you need to put security on it to prevent your neighbors and unsavory characters from using your connection... Of course you can give the security info to your neighbors to let them do the same... The three posters absolutely can be different households or different people in the same household.. and in some cases... one poster might have an opinion to express and use the other poster to help edit the writing so as to be more coherent... hence the similar writing styles.

I know a few people who do that.. so lighten up folks!!

IG

[B R]

I am just one person. The same ip only implies the same neighborhood. The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!


i read it that you were saying that metrocast set you up this way, my mistake.

i understand how wireless routers/hubs/firewalls work. but i also understand that it doesn't travel very far and the three of you are in very close proximity to each other, most likely next door neighbors; certainly no more than a few hundred yards away from each other.

and please, don't PM me again; i'm not interested.

[Islander]

i read it that you were saying that metrocast set you up this way, my mistake.

i understand how wireless routers/hubs/firewalls work. but i also understand that it doesn't travel very far and the three of you are in very close proximity to each other, most likely next door neighbors; certainly no more than a few hundred yards away from each other.

and please, don't PM me again; i'm not interested.

I said same neighborhood in my first post on the subject.

You apparently do not understand how "routers/hubs/firewalls" work because your assumptions are incorrect. I offered you a full explanation but you are "not interested".

So live in ignorance.

[B R]

I said same neighborhood in my first post on the subject.

You apparently do not understand how "routers/hubs/firewalls" work because your assumptions are incorrect. I offered you a full explanation but you are "not interested".

So live in ignorance.

you just aren't nice at all are you?

I've been using the internet for 20 years, before web browsers, before windows (when gopher servers were used to navigate around the internet). i am well aware of what a firewall is, how it is used and how the 54,000+ ports of a tcp/ip stack are used and secured.

you sent me a PM accusing me of trying to find out who you are. trust me, that wouldn't be that hard.

you wrote something that didn't make sense to me (like many of your posts) and i was questioning what didn't make sense.

if living in ignorance means i don't have to listen to your convoluted explanation of how the internet works, i can live with that.

[Seaplane Pilot]

It's clear to me that the Speed Limit crowd is trying to "cleanse" the lake of the so-called "Cigarette Style boats, which is their real reason for pushing the speed limit agenda. These types of boats include, but are not limited to, Cigarette, Fountain, Formula, Baja, etc. I think they could care less if a Jet Ski, Jet Boat, Bow Rider or Cruiser exceeds 45 mph, but they do care if it's a performance boat. Here's my question: Do you feel that the majority of performance boats are owned by:

1) People with waterfront or water access property that just use their boats for day boating?

or

2) People that keep the boat on the lake for the entire season and either sleep on their boats or just use it for day boating?

or

3) People that just bring their boat to the lake for the day and then leave?

In my opinion, the majority will be option 1 or 2 - not 3. Therefore, if the speed limit is eventually passed in some way, shape or form (which I highly doubt) these so-called performance boats are not going to leave the lake any time soon. I think the Speed Limit crowd will be in for a sorry, rude awakening if they think that they'll succeed in cleansing the lake of performance boats, as I believe they are attempting to do under the guise of "safety".

[Islander]

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

[Airwaves]

Islander et al wrote:
I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee
So it's true! The ultimate goal of WinFabs and folks like you is to eliminate these boats from a 72 Square Mile lake! You paying attention in Concord? It has nothing to do with speed (which statistics show is not an issue in accidents on Winnipesaukee).

Islander et al also wrote:
I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?
Municipal water supplies in my neck of the woods also ban swimming :eek: Maybe you should be pushing for that as well since humans are a major source of pollution!

[LocalRealtor]

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

Funny thing is you do not mention the very large cruisers that are here and new ones are arriving every day. These large cruisers burn as much gas while cruising under the proposed speed limit. They are quite powerful, as it takes alot of power to push a 10,000 to 25,000 lb boat through the water at any speed. They deliver the largest wake of any boat on the lake, which undoubtedly causes more erosion than any go-fast boat ever could ever dream of. Last but not least, I would bet a fair amount of their skippers would rather not go to a pump-out station and deal with the dirty job of pumping them out, so when out in the broads the flip that little hidden switch and send all their waste into the water.
Ever wonder why the people of Squam Lake have passed an ordinance with NHDES to not allow boats with heads on board to operate on that lake?

[LocalRealtor]

you just aren't nice at all are you?

I've been using the internet for 20 years, before web browsers, before windows (when gopher servers were used to navigate around the internet). i am well aware of what a firewall is, how it is used and how the 54,000+ ports of a tcp/ip stack are used and secured.

you sent me a PM accusing me of trying to find out who you are. trust me, that wouldn't be that hard.

you wrote something that didn't make sense to me (like many of your posts) and i was questioning what didn't make sense.

if living in ignorance means i don't have to listen to your convoluted explanation of how the internet works, i can live with that.

She won't respond, she just sticks to her agenda.

[Uncle Fun]

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee

Well Islander... Your ususal rose colored view glasses are shining once again and you have managed to share your one-sided convoluted opinon of boats in general...

WHO... Let me say it again... WHO decides or WHO knows what boats (if any) are too big, too fast, too powerful, too dangerous, too noisy, etc.??? (by the way the correct usage of the word TOO is spelled with 2 O's) - I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT'S YOU...

Face it... There are countless sizes, style, shapes, colors, lengths, horsepower, etc... of boats and NO ONE specific style is ever going to go away...

Variety is the spice of life and that is why there are so many choices of boats... There is something out there for everyone (except maybe you)...

America in general, and New Hampshire more specifically, is LIVE, FREE, or DIE... Until that changes, I will have whatever kind of boat I WANT TO...

[chipj29]

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee
Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

OR 5) Boat owners who believe they are well within their rights to operate their boat (which they bought legally) on a lake where there are no restrictions.

[Bear Lover]

you just aren't nice at all are you?

I've been using the internet for 20 years, before web browsers, before windows (when gopher servers were used to navigate around the internet). i am well aware of what a firewall is, how it is used and how the 54,000+ ports of a tcp/ip stack are used and secured.

you sent me a PM accusing me of trying to find out who you are. trust me, that wouldn't be that hard.

you wrote something that didn't make sense to me (like many of your posts) and i was questioning what didn't make sense.

if living in ignorance means i don't have to listen to your convoluted explanation of how the internet works, i can live with that.


Wireless is not the only way to go. Cat5 run house to house works great and you can run 350 feet to a router then 350 feet to the next router. You can amplify the line 8 times. Therefore a one dimensional network expanding in two directions can connect 17 homes over a maximum distance of 5,600 feet. That is over a mile. If you figure a three dimensional network using 1 in 4 out routers the maximum number of homes is 16,387 and if there routers have wireless capability the answer is astronomical. All using 1 ip of the satellite.

But even island residents are not that energetic. However there have been several large size networks set up on the island. I am told some of the equipment that was used on Bear has been taken to Rattlesnake now that Bear is getting connected to cable.

[Seaplane Pilot]

[QUOTE=Islander]I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like WinnipesaukeeQUOTE]

...if what you say here is true. Why is it so hard to just come out and state your real agenda, rather than try to hide behind it? Also, please tell me how a performance boat causes too (too with two o's) much erosion? I'll never believe that one in a million years.

[Bear Islander]

Quote Islander "I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee"

...if what you say here is true. Why is it so hard to just come out and state your real agenda, rather than try to hide behind it? Also, please tell me how a performance boat causes too (too with two o's) much erosion? I'll never believe that one in a million years.

It has been said that high performance boats don't have large wakes. I live just outside a no wake zone. In my experience the largest wake, larger than the Mount Washington's, is caused by a performance boat starting out. The horsepower expended in getting up on plane is enormous, and creates the largest wake on the lake.

I believe the pro speed limit community has explained its agenda many times. It is summarized in #4.

[SIKSUKR]

Just for the record,Seaplane Pilot is very concerned about shoreline erosion.I was just at his place and he just spent a considerable amount of money to fix and raise his perched beach which has been beaten up by large wakes.He just built the first wall a short few years ago.He also started the thread "Wakeup? no Wake down!".And finally he does not own a Performance boat or a boat capable of doing much more than 45 mph.While he is a friend,he does not know I'm posting this.

[Islander]

She won't respond, she just sticks to her agenda.

B R posted some questions about me. I contacted her privately to attempt to answer them. In her response I was told in part

"don't bother messaging me. you are rude and obnoxious."

"as usual, you only speak half truths."

"don't bother me again. you people make me sick."


She then posted online

"you just aren't nice at all are you?"

Obviously B R has an agenda. That, and her instructions, is why I no longer respond.


Uncle Fun - The answer is ME. I decide which boats are to big, to fast etc. this is America and I will support any legislation I want. I believe you are entitled to your opinion. Why do you deny me mine? Live Free or Die cuts both ways.

chipj29 and Uncle Fun - You can have any kind of boat you want AT THIS TIME. That will change when horsepower limits are signed into law. Then you will be required to obey the law like everyone else.

[Seaplane Pilot]

It has been said that high performance boats don't have large wakes. I live just outside a no wake zone. In my experience the largest wake, larger than the Mount Washington's, is caused by a performance boat starting out. The horsepower expended in getting up on plane is enormous, and creates the largest wake on the lake.

I believe the pro speed limit community has explained its agenda many times. It is summarized in #4.

Bear Islander, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. I have a home near an area (Dockham Shore) where a lot of cruisers come and go from and I'll tell you that these cruiser take-off wakes are exponentially bigger than any wake I have ever seen from a performance boat take off. See the earlier post by SikSukr - he has seen the damage and erosion first hand caused not by performance boats, but by cruisers.

[Uncle Fun]

Uncle Fun [/b]- The answer is ME. I decide which boats are to big, to fast etc. this is America and I will support any legislation I want. I believe you are entitled to your opinion. Why do you deny me mine? Live Free or Die cuts both ways.

chipj29 and Uncle Fun - You can have any kind of boat you want AT THIS TIME. That will change when horsepower limits are signed into law. Then you will be required to obey the law like everyone else.

ISLANDER: Apparently this is your SOAPBOX and Platform... Too bad it falls on a lot of deaf ears... Maybe you should run for State Rep. - get elected (not likely) - and then introduce some legislation which would only get voted down anyway... I NEVER said that I was denying you your opinons - but have some substance to back up your MISCONCEPTIONS about size, horsepower, etc...

By the way... Do you know something that the rest of us don't about horsepower limits??? There will NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER be horsepower restrictions... If a speed limit is not going to fly, than what makes you think horsepower limits are the answer??? How much horsepower does the Mt. Washington have??? Where do you think this regulation is going to come from??? Do you think the boat manufacturers will not build or sell boats with the largest horsepower allowed by the USCG and the NMMA (U.S. Coast Guard and National Marine Manufacturers Association)... Do you think the boat dealers will not sell any horsepower that a buyer wants to purchase??? Do you think the Marine Patrol will pull over a boat and ask to look 'under the hood' so-to-speak to check out how much horsepower a boat has... MOST engines do not even have any indication of how much horsepower they have -only the displacement typically... Horsepower has NO RELATION to wake size and practically no bearing on overall speed - because the bigger a boat is the more horsepower it needs to push it along - although it doesn't necessarily mean it will go faster!

You can have your opinions... I am not denying you that... Just try to make them not so extreme and more along the main stream... It's those extremist views coupled with proposed restrictions that are trying to make the lake user un-friendly - Fortunately, it will never work!!! Remember... Live, Free, or Die is not - Live, Free, or Die, except as outlined by the following restrictions... :patriot:

[BroadHopper]

I suggest we contact Jerry Springer and move it to his show! :D

[bbarrell]

Let's face it, there's no speeding issue on Lake Winni. Look at the accident stats and get out on the lake for a day....speeding just isn't an issue. The 150ft violations? HUGE issue there and I really wish there was more ticketing related to that! Winnfabs thought they had it in the bag last year, then they thought they had it in the bag this year...all to no avail. We'll see about next years boating season but the number of opposers is growing immensely as the true facts are uncovered. I don't think any of the high performance boats are going ANYWHERE because I agree most of them live on or rent slips at the lake. Also, have your checked the economy and real estate market lately? Um, nobody is gonna buy those boats or any property there over the next 1-2 years.

I honestly can't remember the last time I drove my boat over 50mph but I'd like the freedom to do so under the proper conditions. No matter which side wins or loses (and even IF a law is passed).... this fight will never go away and neither will performance boats.

[Islander]

Let's face it, there's no speeding issue on Lake Winni. Look at the accident stats and get out on the lake for a day....speeding just isn't an issue. The 150ft violations? HUGE issue there and I really wish there was more ticketing related to that! Winnfabs thought they had it in the bag last year, then they thought they had it in the bag this year...all to no avail. We'll see about next years boating season but the number of opposers is growing immensely as the true facts are uncovered. I don't think any of the high performance boats are going ANYWHERE because I agree most of them live on or rent slips at the lake. Also, have your checked the economy and real estate market lately? Um, nobody is gonna buy those boats or any property there over the next 1-2 years.

I honestly can't remember the last time I drove my boat over 50mph but I'd like the freedom to do so under the proper conditions. No matter which side wins or loses (and even IF a law is passed).... this fight will never go away and neither will performance boats.

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.

[LocalRealtor]

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.

I guess I missed the fatality on Winnipeasukee this year. The fatality you mention a few years back involved a boat that wasn't speeding.

The one in Maine was with a craft that was a sitting in the dark(most agree) and could easily have happened if the boat was traveling 30mph or even less.

[bbarrell]

was speed that caused any of those accidents....which is was not. I believe the accident reconstruction from the death a few years back put the 'high speed craft' at a whopping 27mph....not to mention he was intoxicated AND hit a boat that had no lights on at night. We are all saddened by that accident but it's not grounds for a speed limit. This is the exact behavior I'm referring to. I actually have the 2006 USCG stats (freshly published)....Here's some info...read em and weep:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Unlike many states, the number of boat registration in NH is up slightly. Nationally, registrations have declined 2%.

two-thirds of all fatal boating accidents were drownings and nearly 90% of those were not wearing a PFD!

Alcohol was a contributing factor in 1 out of 5 accidents.

Skier mishap was the most common (22) boating accident in NH . . . collisions with fixed objects was next with 9 accidents. There were a grand total of 8 boat-to-boat collisons and according to the NH Marine Patrol, none of those 8 collisions involved a speed over 30 mph.

And interestingly, about 90% of the NH accidents involved boats under 25ft in length.

[Uncle Fun]

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.

ISLANDER... Again and Again after I read your posts, I realize just how out of touch you are and how you distort your words to suit your cause... HIGH SPEED BOATS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS - just as SPEED IS NOT THE CAUSE of most accidents...

Here is some info that may set your thinking straight... Then again, I must be dreaming... NOTHING will change your liberal and irrational views... Even this info:

Talk about ignoring facts you don't like................

***Speed is not a leading cause of boating accidents on New Hampshire lakes and rivers, and boat accidents have declined sharply, according to Coast Guard records examined by The Telegraph. (nh.com Feb 4, 2006)

Operator inexperience and inattention easily swamp speeding as a cause of accidents in the state, according to a Telegraph review of the Coast Guard’s Recreational Boating Accident Database for 1999-2004. Inexperience and inattention were blamed for 120 accidents; hazardous waters, 55 accidents; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; the weather 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.

Other causes were passenger/skier behavior, 16; sharp turn, 16; obstructed vision, 13; alcohol use, 8; congested waters, 6; improper loading, 6; wake, 5; improper anchoring, 3; improper boat lights, 3; overloading, 3; standing/sitting on bow, 3; rules-of-road infraction, 3; hull failure, 1; and unfamiliar waters, 1.

Boating accidents with injury or serious property damage declined by 68 percent from 1999-2004 in New Hampshire, the records show. The state began mandatory boater education in 2002. Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years. Deaths also declined, from six in 1999 to only two in 2004, the latest year available.

The number of reported accidents fell from 109 in 1999 to 94 in 2000, 74 in 2001, 68 in 2002 when mandatory boater education began, 49 in 2003, and 35 in 2004. That’s a decline of 68 percent over five years.***

SO... AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE... High Speed Performance Boats and even Speed are not the leading causes of accidents... Because a fatality involves a high speed craft does not mean that A) the high speed craft itself caused the accident. 2) Speed caused the accident. 3) There should be a blanket ban on high speed boats because you think they are involved in the most accidents... That is like saying we should outlaw Toyotas because they cause or are involved in the most accidents in this state... I don't know if that is true - I am trying to show a point here... Now I personally don't own a high speed boat, but you have to agree facts are facts... You have your facts and I have mine... The only difference is that I don't distort my facts to suit my agenda...

[overlook]

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

You are oblivious to tandem thoughts and justify your reasoning for your own self center. You know nothing about me and yet you choose to catorgorize me in general. You are so far from the truth, it sickens me.

[Airwaves]

It it not speed these folks are trying to ban, it's boats capable of speed!

Islander wrote
NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.
Note the wording HIGH SPEED CRAFT not accidents involved high speed because the accidents didn't involve speed over the limits being proposed!

Also note that the author had to go back several years to find an accident involving a HIGH SPEED CRAFT that involved alcohol, not speed, and had to point to an accident from another state where boater education is not required even to make the above statement!

CONCORD, this is a blatant attempt to outlaw an entire class of boat, and with it an entire class of people, from Lake Winnipesaukee.

As the data that the Marine Patrol was collecting will likely show, speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is NOT A PROBLEM, violation of the 150' rule IS!

To add to the discussion among your colleagues in Concord ask yourself and them, why did the folks who initially called for a speed limit REALLY throw down a roadblock to prevent two pilot speed limits on the lake?
Because they know that the data will show SPEED IS NOT A PROBLEM ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE!

[B R]

Wireless is not the only way to go. Cat5 run house to house works great and you can run 350 feet to a router then 350 feet to the next router. You can amplify the line 8 times. Therefore a one dimensional network expanding in two directions can connect 17 homes over a maximum distance of 5,600 feet. That is over a mile. If you figure a three dimensional network using 1 in 4 out routers the maximum number of homes is 16,387 and if there routers have wireless capability the answer is astronomical. All using 1 ip of the satellite.

But even island residents are not that energetic. However there have been several large size networks set up on the island. I am told some of the equipment that was used on Bear has been taken to Rattlesnake now that Bear is getting connected to cable.

Wow, you guys sure are time consuming.

yes, you can have networks with as many people as you want on them (ever heard of a university) that can even travel to other countries. i'm not disputing that.

what i am disputing is your notion that metrocast set up your neighborhood with a single ip address. this is against fcc regulations and i'll tell you why.

metrocast needs to be able to supply data to federal and local authorities should the need arise. an example would be suspected terrorists activity, downloading inappropriate material from the internet.... if the fbi calls metrocast and asks who is at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ip address, they need to be able to identify the household, not the neighborhood. if the fcc allowed connections like you're trying to tell me you have, there wouldn't be any accountability for anyone's internet activity; and we know this is not the case.

so i'll stand by my statement that you are not all hooked up to one cable modem, that at the most you are sharing a wireless internet connection that's probably got a reach of 100 yards.

no matter how many times you say it, 1+1 will never equal anything else but 2. you can say it equals 3 as many times as you want; it will not change the facts.

btw: 1) you can run 600' between routers and 2) no one in my department has ever heard of a three dimensional network. did you make that up? 3) multiport routers aren't used that much anymore; most people these days use layer 5 switches. i have some that have 48 ports on them; would that be a 48th dimensional network??? WOW, that's sounds really cool. i didn't know i had one of those.

[ITD]

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.


You sound EXACTLY like Island Lover. I missed the fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer, please provide details.

Your pole (sic) is useless, for all we know you polled your family and friends again and one more decided to register to vote.

[Islander]

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

Uncle Fun - Horsepower limits are in effect on dozens of NH lakes already. The MP has no problem enforcing them. I'm sure you can sneak in a few extra hp here and there, but not very much.

HP limits are also common on municipal water supplies. In MA, Quabin has a 10 horsepower limit.

If you think horsepower limits are not coming one of these years, then you are living in a dream.

[overlook]

Islander, lover and or bear lover: What death this year in NH are you referring to? Give us details. Define performance boat. 25 or 27 the result several years ago would still be the same. I am not aware that authorities would really ticket someone for 2mph over. That could be an error for differences of equipment.

The Union leader Blog showed that most boaters do not agree with you. There should be a poll from educated boaters that have taken the course. The results would be considerably different. Would you like to have plumbers make decisions on your vascular system? That what your so called poll feels like.

POLL: As an educated boater in NH, Considering that more registrations are on the increase and accidents are on the decline, Education is now mandatory, and NH has a safe passage law. Do you agree that a blanket speed limit of 25 night and 45 day on all NH lakes and waterways would be beneficial to ALL users. YES or NO

[ITD]

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

Uncle Fun - Horsepower limits are in effect on dozens of NH lakes already. The MP has no problem enforcing them. I'm sure you can sneak in a few extra hp here and there, but not very much.

HP limits are also common on municipal water supplies. In MA, Quabin has a 10 horsepower limit.

If you think horsepower limits are not coming one of these years, then you are living in a dream.

You just keep changing tactics from one inaccuracy to another. I want you to tell me about the high speed fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer that you (ala APS, although he is much better at it) alluded to because I missed it and apparently so did all your SL friends.

Here is a real "fact" for you:


From the Concord Monitor Article

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic," he said. (Marine Patrol Director David Barrett)

From the Citizen Article http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN)

"One thing he (Barrett) is confident in is that many unexperienced boaters who are viewing vessels from shore, are likely believing boats are going faster than they are."

This whole issue is a sham, we are going to end up with a law that isn't necessary. Stop this madness legislators.

[Cal]

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.



If you think 2 mph would make that much difference , you 're the one in a dream world. I think alcohol and/or inattention due to alcohol had more to do with it but heaven forbid we mention that. So lets ban alcohol just like back in the days of prohibition. I mean entirely , not just on the water or highway. I mean close the bars and liquor stores and rid your trash cans of brown bottles.

[Airwaves]

There you go again Islander!
How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?
The first mention of this ficticious fatal accident was referrenced by YOU, post #52
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4600&highlight=islander

Several folks asked you then to give details, you did not. Now you are again referrencing this high speed fatal accident.
Islander in post #52
Another speed related boating death on the lake again this summer is all the facts I need.
I did a Lexis-Nexis search of publications, TV, broadcast and wire services for this fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2007. Know what I turned up?
Of course you do, NOTHING!

Then I localized it and did a search of 2007 in the Union-Leader and Foster's, want to know what I found? You already know Islander don't you?
NOTHING.

So when and where did this fatal accident involving speed on Lake Winnipesaukee happen? Looks like you're the only one who knows about it because we all know that you would never ever twist facts or make them up to aid your cause of getting High Speed Capable Boats off Lake Winnipesaukee, right?

[codeman671]

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?



Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

By the way, lets see what happens if you get your horsepower limit. Most marinas sell large boats, both cruisers and GFBL's. Hamper their business by taking that away and they go out of business. Maybe many of the big boats do leave. What funds the towns then? Industry down, major businesses hurting, the taxpayers have to make it up. Hopefully that will have a negative effect on your tax bill and drive you and your Posse of Protectors and your agendas off the lake. :laugh:

[WeirsBeachBoater]

1 Vote For No.

[codeman671]

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.



While we are at it, who really is to say that he was doing 27mph and not 25mph? The speed was based on the damage done to both boats and not by any real reading. Depending on the angle of the drives when the impact occured this would affect how far the offending boat traveled up and over the stern of the boat that was hit. There is no way to tell where the drives were at and exactly how far up the nose was. It's all a guess.

Other than your thoughts that the boat in question does not belong on the lake Dan was not truly speeding or operating even operating faster than conditions warranted. Alcohol and innattention caused the accident (and maybe lack of lights?). Your petty speed limit revenge bill will not bring your friend back. Let it go, this is not the way to avenge him.

[LocalRealtor]

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee.

I guess I missed the fatality on Winnipesaukee this year. Please fill me in on the details

You just keep changing tactics from one inaccuracy to another. I want you to tell me about the high speed fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer that you (ala APS, although he is much better at it) alluded to because I missed it.

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

Islander, it seems as though your the only one who is aware of a fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer. Several people have asked for the details including myself and you just ignore these requests and continue with your agenda and misinformation campaign.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.


Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

[Islander]

While we are at it, who really is to say that he was doing 27mph and not 25mph? The speed was based on the damage done to both boats and not by any real reading. Depending on the angle of the drives when the impact occured this would affect how far the offending boat traveled up and over the stern of the boat that was hit. There is no way to tell where the drives were at and exactly how far up the nose was. It's all a guess.

Other than your thoughts that the boat in question does not belong on the lake Dan was not truly speeding or operating even operating faster than conditions warranted. Alcohol and innattention caused the accident (and maybe lack of lights?). Your petty speed limit revenge bill will not bring your friend back. Let it go, this is not the way to avenge him.

"Who is to say he was doing 27" that would be the Marine Patrol. And they said 28 not 27. 28 is more than 25 which makes it faster than the proposed limit.

If you can assume that 28 is really a lower number then I am free to assume a higher number. From now on can I post that Dan was doing 68 mph? People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine.

I suppose you want to assume the PWC in the fatal accident has standing still. However the accident certainly involved a high speed craft. Incredible how people have forgotten that accident. The legislature will not forget, nor will they forget the Maine accident.

I have no desire for revenge. In fact as far as Dan goes, there but for the grace of god go many of us. However I do not believe these boats are appropriate for Winnipesaukee.

[Skip]

...People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine... Incredible how people have forgotten that accident...

I am surprised at your constant confusion over this issue. Did you not take the time to read the appeal that you cited for us numerous posts ago? Let me refresh your memory:

Belknap
No. 2003-627
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
v.
Daniel J. Littlefield
Argued: October 13, 2004

Opinion Issued: June 16, 2005


...The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257.


...WE AGREE WITH THE STATE...

Once again, and confirmed by the appeals court, Littlefield was convicted of the felony death of another by failing to maintain a proper lookut do in large part by the jury lawfully (and constitutionally) considering the ample evidence supplied by the State that he was intoxicated!


...It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like...

Methinks one should perhaps take the time to deeply consider one's own opinion! :)

[ITD]

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

Thanks Mac, this family has suffered a huge loss. I'm sure a speed limit and getting GFBL boats off the lake would have prevented this tragedy, not!!!!!! :rolleye1:

There is a reason why there is a law against children driving PWCs. How do you (Islander) know this was a "high speed" craft? How do you know it was going at a high speed? One more example of twisting the facts or in this case inserting your own incorrect facts to serve your agenda.


......From now on can I post that Dan was doing 68 mph? .......



Why not, we're used to your misportrayals, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Seems like a perfectly logical progression to me.

[SIKSUKR]

As the saying goes,"better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt".

[Islander]

Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?

All the rationalization in the world will never make 28 less than 25.


The poll I quoted is from the American Research Group.


ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

However I never claimed a speed limit would prevent fatal accidents. Speed limits on our roads do not prevent fatal accidents. The idea is to set standards and hope they lower the chances a little.

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

[chipj29]

Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?

All the rationalization in the world will never make 28 less than 25.


The poll I quoted is from the American Research Group.


ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

However I never claimed a speed limit would prevent fatal accidents. Speed limits on our roads do not prevent fatal accidents. The idea is to set standards and hope they lower the chances a little.

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?
You are so off-base on PWC it is amazing. Nice sweeping statement. Nothing like a little scare tactic to start the day.
Not all PWCs are capable of exceeding the proposed speed limit. There are several models which can barely do 40 mph. Sure they can get up to speed quickly, but that isn't part of the arguement.
A speed limit will NOT keep PWCs off of any body of water. Well maybe except Squam. Mine will barely do 50 mph, and I won't be going anywhere else. I just may run circles around Bear Is. at top speed. Go ahead and report me...I am going the speed limit.

Yes, of course there are PWCs that go over 45 mph. But they won't be going away anytime soon.

[codeman671]

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee.


No confusion on my side...Islander clearly stated that the fatality this summer involved a high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. Last time I checked there was nothing tying the unfortunate accident with the PWC and the 15yo boy to speed. Many PWC hardly break a true (not speedo) 50mph under perfect conditions.

[Lakegeezer]

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?Of course it will lower the chances - but how much? Do we have a 50% of all fatalities problem or more like 1%?

But why stop there? Why not go all the way?

Are you saying:

eliminating all boats from the lake will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
prohibiting kayaks from going out at night, even with lights, will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
requiring all passengers to be able to drive a boat will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (remember the sister who couldn't drive a boat when the driver went in the water to retrieve a map?)
prohibiting kids under 6 from swimming will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (how many kids have died?)
requiring all Mt. Washington boat passengers to stay at least 3 feet from the rail will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (did they ever find that guy?)Who wants to go on the record supporting those statements?

You see the point? There are many things that could lower the chances of a fatal accident. But we are not seeing 45+ speed as a signficant contributing factor (ie, more than n% of fatalities). Alcohol on the other hand is - and is addressed by law. Below a certain point, the risks and results are acceptable - above a certain point, they are not.

Some people (not all) like speed. The country was founded on a bill of rights that includes the persuit of happiness. Those who try to restrict that persuit through law need to be challenged by those who respect law.

When I hit 60, I plan to purchase a jetski that will do 60 mph and persue me some happiness. :D Until then, I will fight to keep the right to be within the law as I safely persue.

[Skip]

...Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?...

Once again you are incorrect, and I will ask you to please take a few moments and read the Supreme Court case that you cited.

From the same NH Supreme Court decision:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening...

Sorry Islander....not "weak evidence" but "significant evidence; the difference being, well, significant!

But hey, thanks for continually sending me these softballs, Lord knows I can use the batting practice! :D

[codeman671]

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

If in fact there was an overwhelming majority of accidents to date that were caused by speeds seriously greater than the proposed limits I might agree with you but since CG reports do not agree with you neither will I.

Sure, I will not argue that at slower speeds you have more reaction. A 2-4mph over a 25mph sped limit is not ridiculous and it is still hard to prove exactly what speed within a few mph he was traveling. I have not heard of a claim to speed in the accident in Maine but do not doubt that they were flying although on a dark night with a boat in your path that was not lit they are not entirely at fault. A speed limit may likely have had no effect, if a person is going to speed they are going to speed. A speed limit will not stop them. I speed frequently in my car or suv, chances are you and the bulk of the people on the forum do as well.

Why don't you start a new crusade, maybe smart chips installed in cars or boats that will read the speed limit of a certain area and govern the vehicle automatically? Seems like it could be a new quest for you.

[AC2717]

Just received this in an email because I am on the mailing list for alerts. I know we already know here that it has been defeated, but here is the more definitive direction of those that want a speed law in place are now going, it is a warning to us all:The speed limit pilot offered by the NH Marine Patrol has been cancelled by the administration rule department. The pro-speed group lobbied to have it cancelled, citing it wasn't going to prove anything. The pro-speed group are now targeting PWCs, large cruisers in addition to performance boats and anything they deemed unsafe for our lakes. You can rest assured they will be contacting the representatives to twist their message that speed limits are needed. Only you can make a difference.

The chairman Rep Ryan, was quoted as saying its time for the House to get this bill and from what we gather he supports the bill. The pro-speed limit group often cites a poll that was done by random NH citizens, not random boaters. Your support is needed to help protect your rights!!

The Transportation committee is likely to vote on a recommendation this fall and then it goes to the full house in Jan 2008. If passed it will go the Senate, which they will have another hearing. We will need you at this hearing!!!

1. Stay informed, be active and come to the hearings.
2. Contact Transportation Committee if you haven't already.
3. Contact your local Representatives and Senators
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/whosmyleg/default.asp This will go to the whole house end of the month. Calls and letters work best, then emails.
4. If you haven't already, sign a new petition at http://www.opposehb847.com to be updated on status
5. Contact the local businesses your frequent that oppose the bill and ask them to get involved. Forward their names to info@nhrba.com to become part of Businesses that oppose HB847
6. Pass this onto EVERYONE you know.
7. We could use your letters to add to other ones provided by boaters like to you to put into a comprehensive package to be given to our legislators. Please send them to my email info@nhrba.com.
8. If you want financially help in this battle, you can purchase HB847 decals and posters, send an email to erica@nhrba.com if you wish to get any.

Your freedoms are being taking away without justification! Please contact the Transportation Committee members and your local representatives.

Thank you,
Custie
http://www.opposehb847.comAgain, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our rights.

[Islander]

Once again you are incorrect, and I will ask you to please take a few moments and read the Supreme Court case that you cited.

From the same NH Supreme Court decision:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening...

Sorry Islander....not "weak evidence" but "significant evidence; the difference being, well, significant!

But hey, thanks for continually sending me these softballs, Lord knows I can use the batting practice! :D

Skip - As people will do when on the losing side of an argument, you are attempting to jump on any possible misstatement of mine. You have made two large posts based on one sentence. All I said was that the prosecution only proved 2 glasses of wine. But it just doesn't matter.

Lets assume he was blasted if you like.

The facts are: 28 is more than 25, he was acquitted of BWI, the speed limit bill will pass.


I do not know how fast the PWC was going. But unless it was not moving it had a speed. And a PWC is a high speed craft.

I'm glad some of you understand that speed limits will lower the chances of a fatal accident.

Lakegeezer's ideas would I think save lives. If he thinks it prudent he can push for legislation on those ideas. I would predict none of them will pass. However I, like 78% of NH registered voters believe speed limits are a good idea, and I have no doubt they will pass.

[BroadHopper]

As the saying goes,"better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt".

"If at first you don't succeed. Quit! No sense in being a damn fool about it!" W.C. Fields

[codeman671]

The facts are: 28 is more than 25, he was acquitted of BWI, the speed limit bill will pass.



Of course he was acquitted of BWI, how do you test someone a few days after the incident? He made himself scarce and did not come into contact with the Police for a day or two. No surprise there.

[BroadHopper]

Since Winnipesaukee is legally a drinking water supply, I think we should ban ALL BOATS. Motorized and nonmotorized. No pollutants and it will quit all this bickering about speed limits, no wake zones, no rafting zones, horsepower limits, length of boats limits etc.
Think of the money we save by eliminating all boats and the Marine patrol. No problems with some islanders as they think they can walk on water....................:rolleye1:

[ITD]

ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.



You are way too easy. Not all PWCs are "high speed craft" (capable of going over 45 mph). In fact riding a PWC over 25 or 30 for any long period of time (longer than a couple of minutes) can be quite uncomfortable. That is why almost all the PWCs I see when on the lake are easily passed at 30 MPH in my boat. (Of course, you sitting on your island, with your preconceived misconceptions would probably swear I was going 90 if you saw me pass a PWC.)



Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

If anything, a speed limit will INCREASE the chances of a fatal accident on the lake by diverting MP from patrolling for 150' violations and other unsafe practices. Instead they will be sitting in one spot, probably in front of your house, sitting in speed traps.

Speed traps, BTW, that were tested this summer and showed there is NO speeding problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.


This 28 versus 25 BS is an estimate by an expert, it is not fact, we've argued this before and you are still wrong.

[Airwaves]

Something for Islander et al to work on after she has rid Winnipesaukee of those DANGEROUS boats.

This quote is from an Op-Ed piece in a California newspaper:
However, the latest statistics reveal recreational boating has never been safer, according to Scott Croft of BoatUS. The facts show boating is safer than riding a bicycle or motorcycle, and more people perish in bathtubs and swimming pools.
Link to the article:
http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2007/07/13/columns/dpt-harbor13.txt

So, there’s your next challenge Islander!!! Get those bicycles off the road and close down those pools! :eek: I wonder it a hot tub is considered a pool or bathtub? :laugh:

[overlook]

Islander

Your logic states that kayaks and all paddle boats should be banned, because there involved in more deaths than performance boats.

This speed limit bill will not decrease the likely hood of a death related accident.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY.

[Islander]

It's not surprising that the MP can't find a speed problem in the test areas.

If you visit the offshore boating site you will find members, some that post in this forum, planning to either avoid the test sites or stay under the proposed limits when they are in the test sites.

If the truth doesn't work...... screw up the data.


If the MP wated to collect some valid data they could try unmarked boats in undisclosed areas. Publicizing the test area is... ..... .... ...... sorry I was laughing to hard to type.



ITD - Can you tell me the make and model of those PWC's that have a top speed under 45 mph?

[ITD]

It's not surprising that the MP can't find a speed problem in the test areas.

If you visit the offshore boating site you will find members, some that post in this forum, planning to either avoid the test sites or stay under the proposed limits when they are in the test sites.

If the truth doesn't work...... screw up the data.


If the MP wated to collect some valid data they could try unmarked boats in undisclosed areas. Publicizing the test area is... ..... .... ...... sorry I was laughing to hard to type.



ITD - Can you tell me the make and model of those PWC's that have a top speed under 45 mph?

Tigershark, I see many of these on the lake, the Seadoo two seaters with the smaller engine made a few years ago. I'm sure there are others.



If the truth doesn't work...... screw up the data.



Once again you project your actions onto others.

[Islander]

Tigershark, I see many of these on the lake, the Seadoo two seaters with the smaller engine made a few years ago. I'm sure there are others.



Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Yamaha XL 700 Will barely make 40
Seadoo GTI again a stretch to do 40

Also, Islander how about the data MP DID collect from undisclosed speed zones!!! Oh ya, you wouldn't want to mention that, because it doesn't support your crusade!!!

[chmeeee]

If you visit the offshore boating site you will find members, some that post in this forum, planning to either avoid the test sites or stay under the proposed limits when they are in the test sites.


Cite your source please.

Of course they publicized the test locations, they were planning on ticketing in those areas. If you are going to make a new law and enforce it, it is rather key that you tell people about it first.

"Yes sir, we're going to have to give you a ticket for speeding. Oh, you didn't know there was a limit now? Of course not, we didn't tell you because we thought you might slow down otherwise."

[Mee-n-Mac]

{snip}
I do not know how fast the PWC was going. But unless it was not moving it had a speed. And a PWC is a high speed craft.
{snip}


I have to ask what you consider to be a high speed. Also was the PWC the teenager riding one of these or a lesser watercraft ? Since you don't know how fast he was going I really have to question what drives you to apply the term "speed related fatality" to this incident ? Moreover last I had read the craft didn't look damaged and so the possibility of collision with another vessel seems remote at this time. In what way would this incident support the need for a speed limit which, if I recall what I've been told, is to protect "us" from the "speeders". Are "we" now pushing for another law to protect "us" from "ourselves" ?

As for Littlefield's speed I again remind people that if he was doing 28 mph and the Hartmans doing just 4 mph, the closing speed would have been under the proposed nightime limit. That anyone believes that, had the SL been in place that night, the results would have been any different ... well I guess I'll have to remind myself more often of what Einstein had to say about the vastness of human intelligence. :rolleye1:

[Airwaves]

May I suggest to those of us who believe that there are currently laws on the books in NH that address the issues Islander et al are pushing focus our comments, via this forum, to Legislators in Concord?

Instead of responding to the outragous falsehoods and lies that Islander(s) et al are making, just point out to lawmakers that they are false and show them, through facts, statisics etc., why they are false.

Challenge legislators and the Governor to follow the data! No speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in years! NH requires a safe boating certificate! Data collected by the Marine Patrol! Things are working, the lake is safe, leave it alone!

In my opinion, Islander Et Al, has a problem, perhaps it is that he/she needs to be the center of attention?

Let's call on LEGISLATORS to really look at this bill and the data that the NH Marine Patrol has collected and KILL IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[codeman671]

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

Another great falsification, wanna rethink that one?. Tigershark/Arctic Cat never made a machine that would break even a true 60mph. The fastest pwc to date on the market (in true mph not false speedo mph, or "dreamo" as many pwc enthusiasts call it) is approximately 70mph. There are two machines that are capable of this, the new 250hp Kawasaki 3 seater and the 2 seater 215hp Sea Doo RXP. I am a PWC lover and have owned and ridden dozens of machines. My fastest one was a highly modified GP1200R, with $6k+ in mods it was only good for 73.7mph on radar. If you think that your probably stock Tigershark was a 70mph machine you are sadly mistaken, or just inflating speeds to suit your own agenda.

I can give you the name of an ex Tigershark dealer (they have not been produced in years) and you can verify for yourself. As for the speed stats of the Kawasaki and the Sea Doo I would be more than happy to dig up a test report if you need it. My FX-HO Yamaha is a 60mph machine all day long, under perfect conditions and no fuel you can see 62-63mph. The speedo may read 70+ but it is not accurate, nor is the speedo on any pwc. Riva Yamaha in FL is a Yamaha and Sea Doo dealer and one of the top pwc performance companies on the planet. Their performance upgrade section lists the actual top speed of most of the top machines onm the market and what their mods do to add to it.

By the way, our two yamaha 700 3 seaters will not break 45mph, probably 42 max.

[ITD]

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

Please read my sentence closely. I did not say the Tigershark was a Seadoo. I was giving you two examples. I think I am beginning to understand why you can't be reasoned with.

[chipj29]

Please read my sentence closely. I did not say the Tigershark was a Seadoo. I was giving you two examples. I think I am beginning to understand why you can't be reasoned with.
If he/she thinks a Tigershark ever did 70 mph, then he/she has no concept of being able to judge speed.

[Islander]

Cite your source please.

Of course they publicized the test locations, they were planning on ticketing in those areas. If you are going to make a new law and enforce it, it is rather key that you tell people about it first.

"Yes sir, we're going to have to give you a ticket for speeding. Oh, you didn't know there was a limit now? Of course not, we didn't tell you because we thought you might slow down otherwise."

Here is one thread on the subject. You better get there quick, based on past experience those posts are going to start disappearing soon.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157911

I like the quote below from that thread. It explains the entire thing was a sham.

"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."

I doubt Barrett ever had any intension of handing out any tickets. The entire thing was a delay tactic, or as the offshore people themselves think, a way to move it out of site. Then he has the incredible nerve to actually say he was trying to do what WinnFABS wanted. Give me a break!

We may all disagree with the need for a speed limit. But if you think the MP have not been playing their own game, then you have your head in the sand.

[Airwaves]

Concord, here’s the thing. Director Barrett did NOT say or imply this statement! It is a slanderous statement put forward by questionable sources on the Winnipesakee dot com forum trying to imply Director Barrett had no intention of collecting data and that you, members of the state legislature are in complicity.

Where did the following quote come from?
"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."
Someone on the internet identifying him/herself as OCDACTIVE!

Concord, now the opponents of a speed limit have taken to slandering a respected state official (Director Barrett) with "quote" from anonymous sources that could very well be themselves on an internet forum.

There is no data to support their position. There is an abundance of data to support the position that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.

It's time to show leadership and end this nonsense, there are laws in place to handle all the issues raised by the "speed limit, powerboats gotta go" crowd.

[Dave R]

Here is one thread on the subject. You better get there quick, based on past experience those posts are going to start disappearing soon.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157911

I like the quote below from that thread. It explains the entire thing was a sham.

"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."

I doubt Barrett ever had any intension of handing out any tickets. The entire thing was a delay tactic, or as the offshore people themselves think, a way to move it out of site. Then he has the incredible nerve to actually say he was trying to do what WinnFABS wanted. Give me a break!

We may all disagree with the need for a speed limit. But if you think the MP have not been playing their own game, then you have your head in the sand.

There were a lot of things stated in that thread, many of them inaccurate. Why is this the only one you obviously took as fact?

[Islander]

There were a lot of things stated in that thread, many of them inaccurate. Why is this the only one you obviously took as fact?

It could be BS but it does have the ring of truth.

It does illustrate the attitude of the high performance boat crowd. Not exactly the image one gets on this forum is it!

However I posted the link to back up my claim that the high speed crowd have devised a plan to skew the MP test area data. It does a pretty good job proving my theory doesn't it?

That thread is all the evidence anyone needs to prove than any data collected on test area speeds is useless.

Yet the MP is still out there every day wasting money collecting "data". Since the test zones are dead why don't they move this data collection effort to an area high speed boats are not avoiding. It's all a sham!

[Chris Craft]

The accident in Maine is under investigation. There is some speculation that the smaller boat may have run into the speed boat. The MP said that alcohol was not a factor for the PEOPLE IN THE SPEED BOAT. They have not said anything about the people in the other boat. Let them finish the investigation before you point the fingures at the speed boat.

[Acres per Second]

"...Let them finish the investigation before you point the fingers at the speed boat..."
A really good idea! :)

"...There is some speculation that the smaller boat may have run into the speed boat..."
Ummm...ummm... :confused:

[Dave R]

It could be BS but it does have the ring of truth.

It does illustrate the attitude of the high performance boat crowd. Not exactly the image one gets on this forum is it!

However I posted the link to back up my claim that the high speed crowd have devised a plan to skew the MP test area data. It does a pretty good job proving my theory doesn't it?

That thread is all the evidence anyone needs to prove than any data collected on test area speeds is useless.

Yet the MP is still out there every day wasting money collecting "data". Since the test zones are dead why don't they move this data collection effort to an area high speed boats are not avoiding. It's all a sham!

It was my understanding (Laconia Citizen article) that there were(are???) six test zones where speed data has been (is being???) collected. Where the locations of all six disclosed? I only know of the two proposed speed limit areas and only assume that they were two of the six test areas.

I think that website attracts a very different crowd than this website, it's not my scene. I seriously doubt that any "high performance boaters" try to hide the fact that they enjoy high performance boats here. People don't buy those to blend in...

That said, this issue should never be about attitudes. I don't own a high performance boat, probably never will, and I am certain that there are plenty of high performance boaters out there that I would never be friends with. Many I've met strike me as jerks (plenty of good ones too). However, I strongly oppose laws aimed squarely at getting rid of people I don't like or don't share opinions with. To do otherwise would make me a bigot, or at least a snob.

If there were evidence of a need, I'd be completely for a speed limit, I boat with my kids, and I have strong protective instincts. I am 100% certain, based on years of boating on Winnipesaukee, that for the time being, a speed limit will not affect me at all, positively or negatively. All the accident data available clearly can only back up my certainty. I also occasionaly boat in places with speed limits, and can assure you Winnipesaukee boating is vastly less stressful and surely feels safer. Spend a day boating on the CT. River down in MA sometime if you wish to see how well 45 MPH speed limits work. It's an eye opener.

[ITD]

New editorial in Today's Citizen:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/FOSTERS05/708240045/-1/CITIZEN

From the editorial:

"We have said in a previous editorial that we seriously question the need for a boating speed limit law. Stronger enforcement of boating regulations already on the books — like the safe-passage and headway-speed rules — would go a long way toward making a day out on the water more pleasurable for everyone out on the water, regardless of whether they are in a speedboat or a canoe. Also, the need for boaters to exercise courtesy cannot be overstated."

These people speak sense.

[bbarrell]

I just want to second the above poster who provided details on how to contact your local rep. They are getting hundreds of phone calls per week from supporters of this bill. Trust me, I've attended the hearings.
Please, I implore you, contact your rep to let them know how you want them to vote. They are working for YOU! There is strength in numbers and if they only hear from supporters, this bill may pass.

A quick phone call or letter is all it takes. I see many on the board who seem to not agree with the bill, speak your mind to the people that will listen!
The most important folks to contact right now are the ones listed as part of the 'transporation committee'...they are determining the fate of this bill shortly.
Thank You :)

[LocalRealtor]

I just want to second the above poster who provided details on how to contact your local rep. They are getting hundreds of phone calls per week from supporters of this bill. Trust me, I've attended the hearings.
Please, I implore you, contact your rep to let them know how you want them to vote. They are working for YOU! There is strength in numbers and if they only hear from supporters, this bill may pass.

A quick phone call or letter is all it takes. I see many on the board who seem to not agree with the bill, speak your mind to the people that will listen!
The most important folks to contact right now are the ones listed as part of the 'transporation committee'...they are determining the fate of this bill shortly.
Thank You :)I have made several telephone calls to various members of the transportation. Left a couple messages, and spoke directly to a couple. They very much so appreciate hearing from people on this and several other transportation issues that happen to have come up.

I'm glad I did it, and so were they, thanks for the suggestion. :patriot:

[Lakegeezer]

The most important folks to contact right now are the ones listed as part of the 'transporation committee'...they are determining the fate of this bill shortly. Thank You :)Where are their names listed? Perhaps the power of the Winni forum can overcome the power of funded a political action committee. Again.

[Islander]

When you go up against the boating industry, and administrators that are looking for future boating industry jobs, you need professional help.

Don't forget to also contact your State Senator. That is where speed limits lost by just two votes last time. The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ns/billstatus/commdetails.asp?txtcommcode=H27

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate15.asp

[Resident 2B]

When you go up against the boating industry, and administrators that are looking for future boating industry jobs, you need professional help.

Don't forget to also contact your State Senator. That is where speed limits lost by just two votes last time. The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island.

It is refreshing to hear that you admit you need professional help. We finally are in agreement on one point. :laugh:

Hopefully, the new State Senator has much more common sense and is more open minded than his "Island neighbor".

R2B

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The new Senator for this area lives on Bear Island

BTW, the Senate roster doesn't show anyone claiming Bear Island as their residency, also I think they represent a District, not an Island :rolleye2:

[Islander]

BTW, the Senate roster doesn't show anyone claiming Bear Island as their residency, also I think they represent a District, not an Island :rolleye2:

Bear Island is represented by a Senator that lives here. The Senator also represents some off island areas as well.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Bear Island is represented by a Senator that lives here. The Senator also represents some off island areas as well.

You just twist and twist and twist. The roster lists no Senator that claims Bear Island as a residency. Is the roster incorrect? You stated that a Senator lives on the island. Now you say "lives here". Where, in NH? Every District is represented by a Senator that lives here in NH, correct me if I'm wrong Skip but I think residency is a requirement to be a Senator.

Bear in mind (pun indented) that Senators represent a District made up of people who vote. My vote counts as much as yours, assuming you can vote in NH and are a resident of the District your "Senator" represents.

[Uncle Fun]

I wonder if that Senator has a boat??? I am assuming that he does... What if it is a "High Speed Craft"??? Maybe Islander won't vote for him... Oh, I forgot, you actually have to get off the Island to go vote... Right on PBR :) Holy Cow... I just thought of something else... WHAT IF THE SENATOR RAFTS TOO??? If he doesn't, maybe we can invite him to see how much fun it can be with responsible people that lack agendas!!!!!!!!!!!! Moreover, what if that same Senator has a High Speed Personal Watercraft??? Oh my gosh... We better get all the scoop on the yet-to-be-named Senator!!!

[Skip]

You just twist and twist and twist. The roster lists no Senator that claims Bear Island as a residency. Is the roster incorrect? You stated that a Senator lives on the island. Now you say "lives here". Where, in NH? Every District is represented by a Senator that lives here in NH, correct me if I'm wrong Skip but I think residency is a requirement to be a Senator.


Bear Island is located in New Hampshire's State Senate District 2. Senator Deborah Reynolds(D) represents Senate District 2 and is a legal (full time) resident of Plymouth, NH.

[Islander]

Do you people need to make a Federal case out of every comment I make?

I said the State Senator for the area lives on Bear Island. It is the truth. Geeeesh!

Now I got Skip going all legal on me! I guess I screwed up since nobody lives on Bear Island year round, then nobody is a legal resident, therefore nobody actually lives on Bear Island. So I guess I don't live here either.

Yet here I am. And so is Deb, she lives a few houses down from me.

[LocalRealtor]

Do you people need to make a Federal case out of every comment I make?

I said the State Senator for the area lives on Bear Island. It is the truth. Geeeesh!

Now I got Skip going all legal on me! I guess I screwed up since nobody lives on Bear Island year round, then nobody is a legal resident, therefore nobody actually lives on Bear Island. So I guess I don't live here either.

Yet here I am. And so is Deb, she lives a few houses down from me.

I bet you are one of those neighbors that feels the need to bend her ear on a regular basis, even if she is trying to enjoy the nice weather.

I wonder how many registered voters are residents on bear vs the number of registered voters in Deb's district. I bet its a very small percentage. I'll have to give Deb a call and find out her position on this issue, and let her know what mine is. Thanks. :D

Skip, is there a telephone number listed on the roster for Deb, or will we have to flag her down like her neighbors do?

[Islander]

I'm certain the percentage of registered voters is higher on the island than in the rest of her district. We are a very civic minded bunch over here.


I guess you can ask her where she stands on speed limits, but did you miss the part where I told you that she lives on BEAR ISLAND.

[Resident 2B]

I guess I can now say that I live in NH!!

Twisting everything seems to be the new way to go!

Carry on Islander!

R2B

[Skip]

...Skip, is there a telephone number listed on the roster for Deb, or will we have to flag her down like her neighbors do?...

Nope, flagging down won't be necessary as the contact info and a neat little bio on the Senator can be read HERE. (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate02.asp)

Or maybe next time you are in the Plymouth, NH area where the good Senator actually lives, you could take her our for a cup of coffee and feign surprise when she acts surpised that you believe she actually lived in Meredith! :eek:

Politicians get very sensitive about these things....:)

Oh, and expect that she will expect for you to pick up the tab! ;)

[Islander]

The MP have been "testing" speeds again. They place their boat at the narrowest part of the test area, between Camp Monotomy and the shoals off Jerry Point. Boats passing through the area have to go around the MP. Many boats slow down to do this, others have to slow because they slow etc.

They employ a regular MP boat, you know, the distinctive design we all can spot about a mile away. If you are new to the lake there are always the words MARINE PATROL in two foot high letters on each side of the boat.

I can't imagine any observer seeing this and thinking "real" data is being collected.

If you want a lesson in police presence come on down to the Pine/Bear NWZ and see what passes for no wake speed when the MP are in site and when they are not. The same dynamic is evident in "speed testing".

It's no longer a joke, it is embarrassing and an insult to our intelligence.

[GWC...]

Words to live by... :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!

The MP have been "testing" speeds again.

I can't imagine any observer seeing this and thinking "real" data is being collected.

It's no longer a joke, it is embarrassing and an insult to our intelligence.

When you go up against the boating industry, and administrators that are looking for future boating industry jobs, you need professional help.

I said the State Senator for the area lives on Bear Island. It is the truth.

I'm certain the percentage of registered voters is higher on the island than in the rest of her district. We are a very civic minded bunch over here.

I guess you can ask her where she stands on speed limits, but did you miss the part where I told you that she lives on BEAR ISLAND.

If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!

The MP have been "testing" speeds again.

I can't imagine any observer seeing this and thinking "real" data is being collected.

It's no longer a joke, it is embarrassing and an insult to our intelligence.

[Cal]

The MP have been "testing" speeds again. They place their boat at the narrowest part of the test area, between Camp Monotomy and the shoals off Jerry Point. Boats passing through the area have to go around the MP. Many boats slow down to do this, others have to slow because they slow etc.

They employ a regular MP boat, you know, the distinctive design we all can spot about a mile away. If you are new to the lake there are always the words MARINE PATROL in two foot high letters on each side of the boat.

I can't imagine any observer seeing this and thinking "real" data is being collected.

If you want a lesson in police presence come on down to the Pine/Bear NWZ and see what passes for no wake speed when the MP are in site and when they are not. The same dynamic is evident in "speed testing".

It's no longer a joke, it is embarrassing and an insult to our intelligence.So what do you suggest , everyone fly by the MPs??? Come on , use your head. Where ever you see a cop on land , speeding or not , everybody slows down. It's a natural reaction.
Why don't you be the first to fly past them at a dangerous and totally unsafe speed of , say , 51 or 52 mph and report back to us what happens:D

[LocalRealtor]

I'm certain the percentage of registered voters is higher on the island than in the rest of her district. We are a very civic minded bunch over here.

I guess you can ask her where she stands on speed limits, but did you miss the part where I told you that she lives on BEAR ISLAND.

Civic minded doesn't mean a thing when they are not citizens of the state of NH, and can't vote her out of office(which I've hear you say in the past). I also wonder which two senators you replaced out of how many that voted against it, all the while saying to us you replaced the two that voted against it. LMAO.

LOL... You think the percentage of register voters is higher on Bear Island versus the rest of her district? Let me check with the town of Meredith and Visionappraisal.com about the mailing address of these folks(that would be the first clue that you are very wrong, how stupid do you think we are?). I already know your not from her district. :D

[Islander]

So what do you suggest , everyone fly by the MPs??? Come on , use your head. Where ever you see a cop on land , speeding or not , everybody slows down. It's a natural reaction.
Why don't you be the first to fly past them at a dangerous and totally unsafe speed of , say , 51 or 52 mph and report back to us what happens:D

I think you are absolutely right. Where you see a cop, everybody slows down. And if that cop was recording those speeds to see how fast boats are going on the lake, then his readings would be a lot lower than reality.

I think we are left with three possibilities

1. The MP are absolutely clueless about how to take A sampling of lake boat speeds.

2. The MP are not able to come up with an unmarked fishing boat, aluminum skiff or bowrider to take the readings from.

3. The MP leadership want the data to be low so the legislature will think a speed limit is unnecessary. Then these same leaders will have earned cushy jobs in the boating industry.

[Rose]

The MP have been "testing" speeds again. They place their boat at the narrowest part of the test area, between Camp Monotomy and the shoals off Jerry Point. Boats passing through the area have to go around the MP. Many boats slow down to do this, others have to slow because they slow etc.


You actually think a speed limit will change boaters' behavior? Even with a speed limit in place, they'll see the distinctive MP boats that by your own admission are easy to pick out from a distance, and they'll slow down.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

The MP are absolutely clueless about how to take A sampling of lake boat speeds.

And you are? Of course your are, you're obviously so intellectually superior than the rest of us #$%&^%$# that live here and vote here, but then again you live on an island so of course your are.. All I can say is that it must *^*^ awesome being so superior to the rest of us. In all my years on this board, I have never been so personally affronted by anyone, but you. Your smug, holier-than-thou attitude is really starting to wear. I hope you show your neighbor, the senator, aka summer resident, this thread. By my account, you're pretty much the only one on it supporting a speed limit (on this thread about speed limits). I'm sure you'll correct me as I'm probably wrong. I've never added anyone to my blocked reply list (not even APS :D ) but there's a first time for everything. Someone died, it was a tragic accident that could have been easily prevented, with good judgment and responsibility not a speed limit. Isn't it interesting that the majority of support, locally, for the speed limit, seems to be coming from Bear Island, at least on this forum.

BTW, I should probably thank you because your rants have hopefully gotten more people off their duffs who believe in personal freedom and responsibility and less government intrusion, to take some action. You haven't been a terribly great spokesperson for your cause IMHO. In fact, maybe your a plant for the anti-speed limit cause?

[Airwaves]

Islander:
I think you are absolutely right. Where you see a cop, everybody slows down. And if that cop was recording those speeds to see how fast boats are going on the lake, then his readings would be a lot lower than reality.

I think we are left with three possibilities

1. The MP are absolutely clueless about how to take A sampling of lake boat speeds.

2. The MP are not able to come up with an unmarked fishing boat, aluminum skiff or bowrider to take the readings from.

3. The MP leadership want the data to be low so the legislature will think a speed limit is unnecessary. Then these same leaders will have earned cushy jobs in the boating industry.

You really have crossed the line!

If I were a Marine Patrol officer, trained in the use of radar on the water, I could be stationed on what you some of you folks call the "Battle Cruiser", the rest of us call a " Coast Guard Utility Boat" and I could still get you for violating any law on the NH books.

How Big and visibile is the Marine Patrol Battle Crusier? I think it's a 44 foot USCG Utility Boat is it not? Hard to hide one of them! NOT!

Wanna hide a 44 ' boat? No problem, I will pick a spot where most of us are familar. Let's put the 44 just on the Glendale side of Governor's Island point near the Witches. The 44 would be hidden by the Island and is a stable platform. Certainly big enough for even you to see isn't it? Hell. It's a 44 foot boat! Betcha it can clock all kinds of boats going into Saunders Bay or out toward the Broads! Maybe a few will be doing, 35 or 40 miles an hour!

Any of you can find other spots where these "HIGH SPEED CRAFT" operate, and locate a 44 foot Marine Patrol Boat out of sight if needed and the results will be the same.

Or maybe guess what, the Marine Patrol is currently using smaller boats in the same areas doing the same thing! As I recall the local papers said there are (6) six test areas on the lake. Only two have the "speed limits".

Nope, the 44 isn't going to do a high speed chase. A properly trained crew will get the bow numbers of Islander's 60 mile an hour boat and arrest her later!

:fire:

[Acres per Second]

"...I've never added anyone to my blocked reply list (not even APS :D )..."
I continue to hope that my posts provoke thought.

"...Someone died, it was a tragic accident that could have been easily prevented, with good judgment and responsibility not a speed limit.
Someone ("http://tinyurl.com/293nwh)?

Some want to blame the collision on a waitress for "overserving". :confused:

Had the 36' boat been able to go faster—just as in the recent case at Long Lake, Maine—ejections from the bigger boat would have put everybody in the headlines instead of just one poor guy. In that case, we'd already have speed limits by now.

On many lakes, like Texoma, Travis, Smith Mountain Lake, Long Lake and at Grand Haven, the headlines of those dozen+ recent fatalities are starting the call for speed limits on those lakes.

But everyone's eyes are on Lake Winnipesaukee: what happens here determines the future of a plastics industry that pumps out still-heavier, still-wider, still-longer and still-faster boats.

As examples, what were the biggest Donzis made 15 years ago—or even Cobalt? And look at those today!

Why such inappropriate vessels appear on our narrow, protected waterways remains a mystery to me, just as it is to respected BoatUS moderator Les Hall. He states, "Take it to the ocean". (Les is a New Hampshire resident).

Say, now that "Education" has been extended to nearly all Winnipesaukee boaters, where have the trumpets gone that heralded that answer? :confused:

"...Isn't it interesting that the majority of support, locally, for the speed limit, seems to be coming from Bear Island, at least on this forum..."
How many opposing opinions arrive from California, Florida and Texas—by boaters who have never visited Lake Winnipesaukee nor known the decedent?

This lake shouldn't have a fear factor that has many of us in 20-foot boats looking over our shoulders when we hear that dreaded drone getting louder.

And speaking of headlines, I'll bet even barbecuing near the shoreline has become a concern at Maine's Long Lake! :eek:

[Islander]

You actually think a speed limit will change boaters' behavior? Even with a speed limit in place, they'll see the distinctive MP boats that by your own admission are easy to pick out from a distance, and they'll slow down.

I think the speed limit will change a boaters behavior when they are deciding which lake to trailer their boat to. They will not be trailering their GFBL to lakes with 45 mph speed limits.

I think speed limits will change a boaters behavior when the time comes to buy a new boat. Why spend 500k for a boat that will go 130 mph when there is a 45 mph speed limit.

I think a speed limit will change a boaters behavior just because most people are law abiding. They may push 45 to 50 or 55 but they will not go much faster than that.

And once speed limits are in place it might dawn on the MP that a unmarked boat is the best answer if they want to set up a speed trap.

[Islander]

. Someone died,

More than one person has died. Earlier this summer, during one two week period, three PWC's were involved in fatal accidents that took the lives of two teenagers. Do you people keep up with the news, or just ignore it.

[Islander]

Islander:


You really have crossed the line!

If I were a Marine Patrol officer, trained in the use of radar on the water, I could be stationed on what you some of you folks call the "Battle Cruiser", the rest of us call a " Coast Guard Utility Boat" and I could still get you for violating any law on the NH books.

How Big and visibile is the Marine Patrol Battle Crusier? I think it's a 44 foot USCG Utility Boat is it not? Hard to hide one of them! NOT!

Wanna hide a 44 ' boat? No problem, I will pick a spot where most of us are familar. Let's put the 44 just on the Glendale side of Governor's Island point near the Witches. The 44 would be hidden by the Island and is a stable platform. Certainly big enough for even you to see isn't it? Hell. It's a 44 foot boat! Betcha it can clock all kinds of boats going into Saunders Bay or out toward the Broads! Maybe a few will be doing, 35 or 40 miles an hour!

Any of you can find other spots where these "HIGH SPEED CRAFT" operate, and locate a 44 foot Marine Patrol Boat out of sight if needed and the results will be the same.

Or maybe guess what, the Marine Patrol is currently using smaller boats in the same areas doing the same thing! As I recall the local papers said there are (6) six test areas on the lake. Only two have the "speed limits".

Nope, the 44 isn't going to do a high speed chase. A properly trained crew will get the bow numbers of Islander's 60 mile an hour boat and arrest her later!

:fire:

If they can hide their boats then why don't they? What is your point?

My point is they are displaying their identity on purpose so that boats will slow down. The data they then collect is useless.

If they can hide their boats, why don't they?

BTW, I have no idea what line I have crossed. Will you please explain?

[brk-lnt]

If they can hide their boats then why don't they? What is your point?

My point is they are displaying their identity on purpose so that boats will slow down. The data they then collect is useless.

If they can hide their boats, why don't they?

BTW, I have no idea what line I have crossed. Will you please explain?

Trying to sort through all the noise of your posts, I see two recurring themes:

1) Speed limits are inevitable. Both because the vast majority of people want them, and you live in close proximity (at least part of the year) to a NH senator

2) The efforts of various LE groups to test speed limits are being done in such a way as to skew the data collected, such that it is useless and likely to show that there are no speed issues on the lake.

These points sort of seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. What leads you to believe there will ever be a speed limit on the lake if the efforts to test the need for it are being purposefully mishandled?

Note: if I have misinterpreted your posts, I'm happy to have you clarify these specific points, if it can be done without dragging the issue in 300 non-relevant directions.

[EricP]

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.
Tigershark NEVER made a PWC that did 70. If you saw 70 on a dreamometer that doesn't make it true. Even today there is not a production PWC that will do over 70. Closest right now is the Kawasaki Ultra 250 and the SeaDoo RXPs and RXTs and the Yamahe GPRs, they all come in 68 -70 MPH. Tigershark hasn't made anything in years and the fastest PWC on the water when they quit were in the 60 MPH range. I have done endless GPS tests on man y different PWC so I have first hand experience in this area.

[Islander]

Trying to sort through all the noise of your posts, I see two recurring themes:

1) Speed limits are inevitable. Both because the vast majority of people want them, and you live in close proximity (at least part of the year) to a NH senator

2) The efforts of various LE groups to test speed limits are being done in such a way as to skew the data collected, such that it is useless and likely to show that there are no speed issues on the lake.

These points sort of seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. What leads you to believe there will ever be a speed limit on the lake if the efforts to test the need for it are being purposefully mishandled?

Note: if I have misinterpreted your posts, I'm happy to have you clarify these specific points, if it can be done without dragging the issue in 300 non-relevant directions.

Speed limits are inevitable, but my proximity to a Senator has nothing to do with it. The Senate voted down the previous speed limit bill by two votes. The current Senate has more liberals, more women and more democrats. The numbers are there now to pass this bill.

Plus the death toll is rising. Four in the area just this summer. And Coast Guard statistics show boating accidents on the rise.

Even the organized anti speed limit crowd have given up. Where is NHRBA? Gone from this argument.

The MP have been against speed limits from the beginning. This test area baloney is just their last shot in a losing battle. The Legislative Committee voted unanimously to reject the MP's 8 year delay tactic. Even Barrett now says a speed limit will pass.

Public opinion has also changed with 78% of registered NH voters favoring speed limits.

[EricP]

Speed limits are inevitable, but my proximity to a Senator has nothing to do with it. The Senate voted down the previous speed limit bill by two votes. The current Senate has more liberals, more women and more democrats. The numbers are there now to pass this bill.

Plus the death toll is rising. Four in the area just this summer. And Coast Guard statistics show boating accidents on the rise.

Even the organized anti speed limit crowd have given up. Where is NHRBA? Gone from this argument.

The MP have been against speed limits from the beginning. This test area baloney is just their last shot in a losing battle. The Legislative Committee voted unanimously to reject the MP's 8 year delay tactic. Even Barrett now says a speed limit will pass.

Public opinion has also changed with 78% of registered NH voters favoring speed limits.

I have never seen anyone make up statistics to the degree you have. I have yet to see you post any valid source of these ficticious stats you quote. Meanwhile all research that other people post here is real.

I was involved in voting out a Senator who supported the speed limit, and he doesn't even own a boat! And will continue to not vote for politicians who support laws that remove freedoms.

To everyone else: If we don't post anymore the ONE person who believes there will be a speed limit and defends it here will have no one to argue with.

[KonaChick]

I know the Bear Island contingent and their feelings on PWC's. The funniest thing is that when we go to visit relatives on BI the kids are literally drooling to take a ride on our PWC. It's such a dichotomy to see the NO PWC'S THEY ARE EVIL crowd and the PLEASE PLEASE TAKE US OUT FOR A RIDE ones. I always chuckle each time we see this!

[LocalRealtor]

Speed limits are inevitable, but my proximity to a Senator has nothing to do with it. The Senate voted down the previous speed limit bill by two votes. The current Senate has more liberals, more women and more democrats. The numbers are there now to pass this bill.

All according to your ever present agenda driven opinion.

Plus the death toll is rising. Four in the area just this summer. And Coast Guard statistics show boating accidents on the rise.

Statistic have been repeatedly presented that less than 10% these accidents have had anything to do with speed. Speed is not the issue here nor nationwide.

Even the organized anti speed limit crowd have given up. Where is NHRBA? Gone from this argument.

Seems to me the speed limit side consists of you and your alter ego's previously revealed by the moderator of this forum to all come from the same IP.

The MP have been against speed limits from the beginning. This test area baloney is just their last shot in a losing battle. The Legislative Committee voted unanimously to reject the MP's 8 year delay tactic. Even Barrett now says a speed limit will pass.

Barrett is saying a speed limit will not do anything to change things on this lake.

Public opinion has also changed with 78% of registered NH voters favoring speed limits.

Registered voters in Salem, NH on a Monday evening in July?

Fill us in on the parameters of this so-called poll.

[Cal]

Plus the death toll is rising. Four in the area just this summer. And Coast Guard statistics show boating accidents on the rise.




And of course all are a direct result of speed , correct??? Or are you purposely omittiing the WHOLE truth to lead us to believe it was speed related:rolleye2:

[Resident 2B]

Public opinion has also changed with 78% of registered NH voters favoring speed limits.

Islander,

Where and when was this poll taken?

You could add significant creditability to your statements by providing references.

Making statements without providing references makes you look foolish.

R2B

[Rose]

I think a speed limit will change a boaters behavior just because most people are law abiding.

Thank you for your polite and reasoned response...I was afraid my question might be taken as a bit of a slam...it was not meant that way.

I don't have the faith that you do in my fellow man that a speed limit will make a difference...too much experience on the lake with rude captains of all types of boats. It may remove certain types of watercraft from the lake, but I think the reckless and rude behavior, and the danger inherent when such people operate a boat, will remain.

[Airwaves]

Islander:
I have no idea what line I have crossed. Will you please explain?

Islander:
1. The MP are absolutely clueless about how to take A sampling of lake boat speeds.

2. The MP are not able to come up with an unmarked fishing boat, aluminum skiff or bowrider to take the readings from.

3. The MP leadership want the data to be low so the legislature will think a speed limit is unnecessary. Then these same leaders will have earned cushy jobs in the boating industry.

You've made some pretty serious accusations by implying the Marine Patrol is:
Stupid, sabotaging data and misuse of power for private gain.
Yep, you've crossed the line.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

{cut}
Public opinion has also changed with 78% of registered NH voters favoring speed limits.

2 Calmly asked questions.

Do you happen to know the exact question that was asked which yielded a 78% affirmative response?

Do you "think" that if the question had been:
Would you favor a state wide lakes and ponds speed limit system in NH that is similar to the roads where the speed limit is proportional to the ability of the road to handle vehicles of a certain speed?

This is not a trick question, just wondering if 79% would agree to this question?

Now I have to drive home on 93 at 65 mph+ with inattentive drivers who try to break the 1 foot rule. Now that's scary.

[Islander]

Thank you for your polite and reasoned response...I was afraid my question might be taken as a bit of a slam...it was not meant that way.

I don't have the faith that you do in my fellow man that a speed limit will make a difference...too much experience on the lake with rude captains of all types of boats. It may remove certain types of watercraft from the lake, but I think the reckless and rude behavior, and the danger inherent when such people operate a boat, will remain.

You are unfortunately correct, speed limits will not "fix" the lake. However it is a step in the right direction. Other lakes that have enacted speed limits have had positive results without the dire consequences predicted in this forum. And law enforcement officials from those lakes report few enforcement problems.



Resident 2B - The study was done by the American Research Group in February of 2007. Please look up the data yourself. Anything I post will be discounted anyway.



Instead of beating up on me the opposition could take their issues to some of the local marinas that have signed on to support speed limits.

Fay’s Boatyard, Thurston’s Marina, Meredith Marina, Trexler’s Marina, Paugus Bay Marina, Y-Landing Marina, Glendale Marine, Lands End Marine, River Edge Marine

I applaud the courage of these Marina owners in standing up to the we need speed crowd. Clearly they see that speed limits will be good for the lake and the lakes economy.

[GWC...]

Islander,

Where and when was this poll taken?

You could add significant creditability to your statements by providing references.

Making statements without providing references makes you look foolish.

R2B
The 2005 Speed Limit Poll:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/

The pen is mightier than the sword…

[tis]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Why does anyone who does not live on the lake or use the lake CARE if there is a speed limit or not? People in Manchester who have never seen the lake would have no idea what to say in a survey response, nor should they be asked!

[Bear Islander]

I have said it before and I will say it again. Why does anyone who does not live on the lake or use the lake CARE if there is a speed limit or not? People in Manchester who have never seen the lake would have no idea what to say in a survey response, nor should they be asked!

Except they own the lake.

(The people of New Hampshire that is)

[Resident 2B]

Resident 2B - The study was done by the American Research Group in February of 2007. Please look up the data yourself. Anything I post will be discounted anyway.




Islander,

I went to the web site for the American Research Group and learned they do consumer research. I searched for "lake speed limit" looking to match any word (Lake, Speed or Limit) and I got the following response:

America's Research Group > Home

Match: Any Format: Short
Refine search:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents 1 - 3 of 3 matches. More 's indicate a better match.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furniture Buying Index: America's Research Group
... news for furniture retailers, The Furniture Buying Index continues to hold steady this month. * APRIL -FURNITURE BUYING INDEX UP ONE POINT Full speed ahead, Furniture Buying Index back up to 90 in April * FEBRUARY -FURNITURE BUYING INDEX UP TWO POINTS Furniture Buying Index gives retailers momentum ...
http://americasresearchgroup.com/furniture_buying.html 08/08/07, 27853 bytes
America's Research Group

FURNITURE BUYING INDEX UP ONE POINT --Full speed ahead, Furniture Buying Index back up to 90 in April -- Charleston, SC April 1, 2004 – The Furniture Buying Index is up one point this month to a reading of 90. This is good news for furniture retailers because this means the Index is holding ...
http://americasresearchgroup.com/fbi_0404.html 04/08/04, 10551 bytes
America's Research Group

America's Ten Most Budget-Conscious Cities 1. Orlando, Florida 2. Buffalo, New York 3. Salt Lake City, Utah 4. Youngstown, Ohio 5. Johnstown, Pennsylvania 6. Toledo, Ohio 7. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 8. El Paso, Texas 9. Rockford, Illinois 10. Odessa, Texas Selling Business Books to Businesspeople ...
http://americasresearchgroup.com/mr_archive_7_8.html 04/23/02, 12658 bytes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot verify your data or your statement. Would you please back-up your reference to this interesting data. If you are unable to, it would appear to all normal people that the "78% of NH voters favoring a speed limit" statement is just another of your fabrications.



R2B

[Skip]

...the study was done by the American Research Group in February of 2007...


...Islander...Where and when was this poll taken...


In late June of 2005 a poll of six hundred randomly telephoned New Hampshire residences resulted in 64% of the respondents in favor of the question, 22% opposed and 14% undecided.

The exact wording of the question was:

Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?

The American Research Group conducted a poll, not a study. The poll was conducted in 2005, not 2007 and those supporting the question posed totaled 64%, not 78%.

Perhaps these mistakes are why Islander did not supply the following LINK (http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/) to verify her claims?

Ah, maybe we should poll our readers to study this issue further! :D


There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and then there are statistics - Mark Twain

[jrc]

...
Why such inappropriate vessels appear on our narrow, protected waterways remains a mystery to me, just as it is to respected BoatUS moderator Les Hall. He states, "Take it to the ocean". (Les is a New Hampshire resident).
...

If you respect the guy so much, you should try to remember the name of his forum, it's not BoatUS, it is:

BoaterEd, Dedicated to Boater Education

I send money to BoatUS every year and they would never support a boat banning bill. Even if you put a bow on it and call it a speed limit.

[Islander]

Do you people know why you are arguing every little point and finding fault when someone uses "study" instead of "poll"?

It's because you have lost the main argument and you know it.




There was a study done in 2005, the result was 64%. It was done again in February of 2006 and the result was 63%. They also asked again in February of 2007 and the result was 78%. This is not listed on the main web site, I have no idea why. I could probably find it somewhere else but why should I bother, you will find some other fault with it or decide it doesn't count for some reason.

Just take my word for it, or call me a liar. But if you call me a liar be sure and come back later and apologize when you find out I am right.

[Skip]

...Just take my word for it...

That's the same line the good folks over at the Flat Earth Society foist upon their critics....:D

[Islander]

That's the same line the good folks over at the Flat Earth Society foist upon their critics....:D

Call me a liar or drop it!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I am looking but have not found how to do one. I think its time we polled winni.com. I think we can prove to Islander that she is losing the battle! And before we do, is there anyway to prevent one poster from submitting their choice more than once? Cause I know Islander would spend the next millenium up all night posting, posting, posting......

[Airwaves]

Islander, do you know the difference between the two?

Do you people know why you are arguing every little point and finding fault when someone uses "study" instead of "poll"?

It's because you have lost the main argument and you know it.

There was a study done in 2005, the result was 64%. It was done again in February of 2006 and the result was 63%. They also asked again in February of 2007 and the result was 78%. This is not listed on the main web site, I have no idea why. I could probably find it somewhere else but why should I bother, you will find some other fault with it or decide it doesn't count for some reason.

Just take my word for it, or call me a liar. But if you call me a liar be sure and come back later and apologize when you find out I am right.
Islander, I think you have proven your point. You don't know the difference between a poll and a study.

You have exaggerated and twisted the facts. You have accused the leadership of the Marine Patrol of abusing their office for personal gain.

Islander, you really need to chill. The facts don't back up your statements and your accusations are getting annoying and could be considered slanderous.

Step back my friend.

[jrc]

I am looking but have not found how to do one. I think its time we polled winni.com. I think we can prove to Islander that she is losing the battle! And before we do, is there anyway to prevent one poster from submitting their choice more than once? Cause I know Islander would spend the next millenium up all night posting, posting, posting......


A poll on this site will make life tough for our webmaster. There will be a flood of new members on both side as everyone gets there friends and relatives to sign up. After the poll we will never hear from them again. If you look at the old posts on this site you will see a lot of one topic posters.

[Cal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander

Plus the death toll is rising. Four in the area just this summer. And Coast Guard statistics show boating accidents on the rise.


And of course all are a direct result of speed , correct??? Or are you purposely omittiing the WHOLE truth to lead us to believe it was speed related:rolleye2:


Like I said , are they ALL related to speed??? Huh , huh...inquiring minds want to know:confused:
Or would you say that just to make it SOUND like speed was the cause?

[Islander]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander

Plus the death toll is rising. Four in the area just this summer. And Coast Guard statistics show boating accidents on the rise.


Like I said , are they ALL related to speed??? Huh , huh...inquiring minds want to know:confused:
Or would you say that just to make it SOUND like speed was the cause?

I do not know the speed of the boats involved. I don't think it matters all that much. The two fatalities in Maine obviously involved high speed, the exact numbers are not important.

Two separate PWC accidents killed two teenagers and badly injured two more. Again I don't know the speeds, but teenagers going fast on a PWC is not unusual. And a crash at low speeds is not as likely to kill.

However the real benefit of a speed limit will be that less people will be putting high speed craft on the lakes of New Hampshire. When the speed limit passes families will purchase fewer PWC's. Some teenagers might even be forced to move from a PWC to a kayak.

A popular movie once quoted "if you build it, they will come". I would paraphrase that to "if you don't buy it, they can't ride it" or even "if you don't buy it, they can't be killed on it".

[GWC...]

I do not know the speed of the boats involved. I don't think it matters all that much.

A popular movie once quoted "if you build it, they will come". I would paraphrase that to "if you don't buy it, they can't ride it" or even "if you don't buy it, they can't be killed on it".
This should make the Lake safer for all...

Drain the Lake...

If there's no water; nobody can drown...

P.S.- No need for a boat speed limit, either
and the GFBL crowd will be elsewhere,
as will the large cruisers and their big wakes.

[GWC...]

I am looking but have not found how to do one. I think its time we polled winni.com. I think we can prove to Islander that she is losing the battle! And before we do, is there anyway to prevent one poster from submitting their choice more than once? Cause I know Islander would spend the next millenium up all night posting, posting, posting......
A poll has already been done...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2764

Guess who was the first to protest its accuracy...

[Cal]

I do not know the speed of the boats involved. I don't think it matters all that much. The two fatalities in Maine obviously involved high speed, the exact numbers are not important.



A popular movie once quoted "if you build it, they will come". I would paraphrase that to "if you don't buy it, they can't ride it" or even "if you don't buy it, they can't be killed on it".


Ooooooooooooohhh , I understand now. That's not lying , the original statement was just a little miss leading:rolleye1: .
As for your quote please let me appologize , I forgot we are no long responsible for our actions and require laws to protect us from ourselves.
MY gawd woman , what's next , rubber rooms for all of us:laugh: :laugh:

FYI , kayaks by themselves (with out any other boats around) aren't 100% safe either.

[tis]

Bear Islander. Yes, I know the people of NH own the lake. Just as we own the roads. But I don't really care what the speed limit is in Andover NH because I never go there. It doesn't really bother me if it is 20 or 70. Why should I care. It is just not relevent to me personally. So again, why should people who don't use the lake care???

[Lakegeezer]

The current Senate has more liberals, more women and more democrats. The numbers are there now to pass this bill.Is this attitude any hint of the nanny laws we should expect from a Hillary presidency?

[Bear Islander]

Bear Islander. Yes, I know the people of NH own the lake. Just as we own the roads. But I don't really care what the speed limit is in Andover NH because I never go there. It doesn't really bother me if it is 20 or 70. Why should I care. It is just not relevent to me personally. So again, why should people who don't use the lake care???

The citizens of NH have the responsibility to set certain limits for public safety. This is done through elected representatives, but the final responsibility is with the people.

Ultimately it's the responsibility of the citizens to determine if a speed limit is needed on NH lakes.

Also consider the speed limit will be state wide, including any lakes in Andover. Most citizens live near a lake, have been on a lake or will be on a lake.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

The MP have been "testing" speeds again. ...
They employ a regular MP boat, you know, the distinctive design we all can spot about a mile away. If you are new to the lake there are always the words MARINE PATROL in two foot high letters on each side of the boat.

I can't imagine any observer seeing this and thinking "real" data is being collected.

It's no longer a joke, it is embarrassing and an insult to our intelligence.

Islander: I don't feel that NH Marine Patrol has either embarrassed me or insulted my intelligence. I know I've said that I studied French for 4 years in school and then I was allowed to take French II - but seriously Islander, what joke and etc. did I miss?

Remove your blinders and try to look at speed limit discussions and this test rationally, objectively and intelligently, if you can. "Real" data was collected during these tests. This was a fact-finding experiment. Collecting data on measuring boat speed using various methods and equipment. It was not just about setting up a marked speed trap but I'm sure it was a part of the overall experiment. Maybe they were collecting data on the difference between those same boats inside and outside the speed limit test areas? I don't have experience or a degree in this field but I can imagine there are people who do. Are you one of them?

I think you are absolutely right. Where you see a cop, everybody slows down. And if that cop was recording those speeds to see how fast boats are going on the lake, then his readings would be a lot lower than reality.

I think we are left with three possibilities

1. The MP are absolutely clueless about how to take A sampling of lake boat speeds.

2. The MP are not able to come up with an unmarked fishing boat, aluminum skiff or bowrider to take the readings from.

3. The MP leadership want the data to be low so the legislature will think a speed limit is unnecessary. Then these same leaders will have earned cushy jobs in the boating industry.

IMHO There are more than 3 likely possibilities different from the ones you "think" are the only possibilities we are left with. Each one of the three POSSIBILITIES you present here and have eluded to in other posts need some explaining.

Do you really believe there is NO ONE around that misses the concept that boaters (and car drivers) behave better when the "COPS" are in sight? I don't have statistics to back me up but I'd guess at least a few at MP and in government are aware of this phenomenon - but that might be a low estimate.

1. You really think that the Marine Patrol and Dept of Safety are are "clueless"? Your desire to want us to believe this does not make it true. What are your credentials or sources that allow you to present this as a possibility?

2. The MP can not come up with an unmarked boat? How you could consider this a possibility. How many UNmarked boats might you miss seeing?

3. Corruption as a possibility. Hmmm what do you know and are you in the witness (or forum :laugh: ) protection program?

All three of the possibilities you claim we are left with appear to be simply agenda driven rather than a productive discussion of the issues.

This style of debate really does detract and distract from the main topic: Speed Limits.

I could go on but as other have pointed out, this is getting tedious.

[Acres per Second]

"...If you respect the guy so much, you should try to remember the name of his forum, it's not BoatUS, it is:

BoaterEd, Dedicated to Boater Education
Oops...You're right of course. :blush:

One relies on waterway fate, and the other relies on waterway education—how can those two get mixed up? :confused:

As to respect, Silver Duck and I are both BoaterEd forum members and are very respectful of Les Hall's expertise: when Les Hall does chime in, somebody will change the subject!

That Les Hall's take on Winnipesaukee speed limits echoes my own must be a coincidence of the first order. ;)

Les and I are not alone (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforum/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=45951) about Lake Winnipesaukee, however. :look:

[Islander]

Skipper

I did not mean to say that all three options where true, just one of them. I think clearly the truth is number three.

The MP have opposed speed limits from the beginning.

The Committee was all set to send speed limits to the floor, when Barrett pulled this test zone idea out of his hat. Nobody had asked him to do it, he thought it up by himself.

He then went ahead announcing it, purchasing equipment to do it and in fact started the program without legislative approval or even knowing if what he was doing was legal. How do you announce the date you are going to start issuing violations when the legislature has not even approved your idea?

The legislature now knows what he is all about, and the committee shut him down with a unanimous vote.

I doubt that any "real data" was obtained. The purpose was never to collect any "data". The purpose was to delay the speed limit bill.

You may have a different opinion, this is America. I respect that you may have an alternate opinion. It is not necessary for you to insult me because you do not agree with mine.

[BroadHopper]

You may have a different opinion, this is America. I respect that you may have an alternate opinion. It is not necessary for you to insult me because you do not agree with mine.


Then quit insulting those who are in support of exercising the rights to be boaters.

The marinas who have listed are from Winnfabs webpage back in 2005, have 'jumped ship'. You will see them opposing the speed limits on the opposehb847 web site. I wish you would be more up to date on your facts.

[LRSLA]

This accident occurred on the ocean this past weekend/

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695

Direct link to video.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

These guys are running the same way on the inland lakes.

[Islander]

The numbers of these "water rockets" is growing all the time. (term used in the opinion part)

The number of idiots with the deep pockets to buy them, and not enough training or experience in their operation, is also growing.

Woodsy is a sensible responsible person that can operate a performance boat with safety. This is also true of many others. But some are knuckleheads with a large bank account and an online certificate.

Until we realize these facts the accident rate and death toll will continue to climb.





GWC - My post is number 20, where you will notice I am arguing against Island Lover!

Sorry if that screws up a conspiracy theory.

[KonaChick]

This accident occurred on the ocean this past weekend/

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695

Direct link to video.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

These guys are running the same way on the inland lakes.

So are you implying this is happening on Lake Winni?? I've yet to see it in the 7 summers I've been here. :rolleye2:

[ITD]

Skipper

...snip.....

I doubt that any "real data" was obtained. The purpose was never to collect any "data". The purpose was to delay the speed limit bill.

.....snip......



The only data you will call real is data that which reinforces your position. Unfortunately for you there is no data to support you. The data you use is data that you twist or to which you draw illogical, erroneous conclusions. There were six test sites, of which two were announced. The fact is that the data from these tests does not support the need for a speed limit. You've been waiting for a couple of years for a speed related death, ghoulish in my opinion, to bolster your position. It hasn't happened so you make it up as you go. You insult professional law enforcement officers and as far as I am concerned have written libelous things about Mr. Barrett. You don't have the data, when the data comes out not supporting you, you say it is bogus.

There is no need for a speed limit, it won't help the lake, it won't reduce wakes, it won't reduce the number of boats, it won't turn your waterfront into "On Golden Pond". It will detract from the many successful efforts of the MP who will have to spend countless hours trying to catch the small to non existent minority who may occasionally go above 45 mph. You watch, if the speed limit passes the number of deaths on Lake Winnipesaukee will increase. This is only your selfish agenda that is driving this and it is not right. You've pointed out that the state has more liberals in government now, well let's see if liberals succumb to fear mongering and lies or if they use common sense.

[Resident 2B]

This accident occurred on the ocean this past weekend/

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695

Direct link to video.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

These guys are running the same way on the inland lakes.

If that is so, when has it happened here? Show us some local video, please!

Your twisting of facts and embellishment of situations is totally out of control and approaching immoral!

We boat on this lake, not in the ocean. Kayakers are breaking the rules in our lake more often that boats capable of going faster than 45 MPH and other boaters in "slow" boats are grossly disregarding the good rules that are already in place, but those of you that think you are "so special" want to impose a speed limit.

Let the MP do their jobs and get behind existing safe boating rules if you really want to make the lake safer!

Stop the bombardment based upon fictional "facts" and the embellishment of things only remotely related to support your view of how life should be on our lake.

Free speach is very dangerous when it is not representing reality or is purposely biased to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

A wise American once said: "You can fool some people all of the time, and all people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time." I see his wisdom applying very well here.

R2B

[Islander]

The only data you will call real is data that which reinforces your position. Unfortunately for you there is no data to support you. The data you use is data that you twist or to which you draw illogical, erroneous conclusions. There were six test sites, of which two were announced. The fact is that the data from these tests does not support the need for a speed limit. You've been waiting for a couple of years for a speed related death, ghoulish in my opinion, to bolster your position. It hasn't happened so you make it up as you go. You insult professional law enforcement officers and as far as I am concerned have written libelous things about Mr. Barrett. You don't have the data, when the data comes out not supporting you, you say it is bogus.

There is no need for a speed limit, it won't help the lake, it won't reduce wakes, it won't reduce the number of boats, it won't turn your waterfront into "On Golden Pond". It will detract from the many successful efforts of the MP who will have to spend countless hours trying to catch the small to non existent minority who may occasionally go above 45 mph. You watch, if the speed limit passes the number of deaths on Lake Winnipesaukee will increase. This is only your selfish agenda that is driving this and it is not right. You've pointed out that the state has more liberals in government now, well let's see if liberals succumb to fear mongering and lies or if they use common sense.

That you think my statements constitute libel only proves that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Look it up.

There were six test sites, of which two were announced. The fact is that the data from these tests does not support the need for a speed limit.

I was not aware the data had been released. Where can I get a copy?

Is it available online?

[Skip]

...and as far as I am concerned have written libelous things about Mr. Barrett...
...That you think my statements constitute libel only proves that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Look it up...

I'm afraid she may have you here ITD. One of the elements the Director would need to clearly articulate in a Libel case would be proof that the accuser had enough credibility within the community to inflict harm. IMHO not sure if that would be the case here.....:confused:


...I was not aware the data had been released. Where can I get a copy?

Is it available online?...

If I may be of assistance, I think you answered this very question in an earlier post of yours:

...why don't you just give them a call, they are very nice people there!...

Don't bother thanking me, just trying to help!;)

Skip

[LocalRealtor]

I was not aware the data had been released. Where can I get a copy?

Is it available online?

You already attempted to discredit it, and now it seems as though you have yet to see it. Very interesting indeed!!

[jrc]

Oops...You're right of course. :blush:

One relies on waterway fate, and the other relies on waterway education—:

BoaterEd is a club of people talking about boats, it's education is answering questions posted on the wesite. A worthy effort but hardly in the same class as BoatUS:

Since its founding in 1966, BoatUS has been the voice of recreational boat owners on Capitol Hill and before the federal agencies in Washington. With the strength of 650,000 members behind us, our mission has been to fight unfair federal taxes, fees and regulations that single out boat owners and to work with state agencies to promote boating laws that make sense.



As to respect, Silver Duck and I are both BoaterEd forum members and are very respectful of Les Hall's expertise: when Les Hall does chime in, somebody will change the subject!



I'm a member as well. If Les has an opinion on Winnipesaukee speed limits, why doesn't he log on here and make it known? Your out of context quote doesn't convince me.

[Islander]

I'm afraid she may have you here ITD. One of the elements the Director would need to clearly articulate in a Libel case would be proof that the accuser had enough credibility within the community to inflict harm. IMHO not sure if that would be the case here.....:confused:




If I may be of assistance, I think you answered this very question in an earlier post of yours:



Don't bother thanking me, just trying to help!;)

Skip

And Skip don't forget, it also must be false!

But thanks for the reminder about how nice they are, however I just called the MP and they don't have any data available for release.

ITD - Where did you get this data? You claim to know for a fact that the data doesn't support speed limits. I am trying to keep an open mind about the data (it's not easy) so I want to go over it.

Or did you just make up the entire thing?

[ITD]

......and they don't have any data available for release......

ITD - Where did you get this data? You claim to know for a fact that the data doesn't support speed limits. I am trying to keep an open mind about the data (it's not easy) so I want to go over it.

Or did you just make up the entire thing?


Come on Islander, I'm sure that's the last thing you want is for the MP to release the results of their tests. Since you have a selective memory I will put the post here again for you. The "data" clearly exists and is referenced by the guy you are working diligently to discredit.




From the Concord Monitor Article

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic," he said. (Marine Patrol Director David Barrett)

From the Citizen Article http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070730/CITIZEN_01/107300226/-1/CITIZEN)

"One thing he (Barrett) is confident in is that many unexperienced boaters who are viewing vessels from shore, are likely believing boats are going faster than they are."

This whole issue is a sham, we are going to end up with a law that isn't necessary. Stop this madness legislators.




That you think my statements constitute libel only proves that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Look it up.


Looked it up, yep, it applies. Slander might work a little better though.

In case you forgot what you posted, here's a gem:


I hope this doesn't effect any of those big money jobs in the boating industry he has been preparing for.<!-- / message -->


Where's your data for that statement? Pretty strong accusation of a public employee. S-L-A-N-D-E-R, L-I-B-E-L


<!-- / message -->

[overlook]

If I remember correctly the test zone idea was generated as a result from the September 25, 2006 Meredith gathering. Not from the proposed HB-847.

The data collected was published through local media. From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph. Readings were taken from several locations and not just within the proposed test areas. Another conclusion is that boats observed were thought to be traveling faster than they actually were. The actual number of radar hits was not stated, though the observation has been most of the boating season.
This is what I have read so far.
It is clear to me that people who do not know what speed really is like (observation) assume that boats are constantly going over 45 where in fact they are most likely traveling much slower.

When I was ten years old I thought the family boat ( 16' Thompson/ 40hp Scottatwater) could go 60mph. It actually could only muster 22-25mph.

As I grew older I got accustom to what speed is, Too bad others are not, especially RENTERS.

Islander: Just so you know the fastest I have been on the water was 140mph. It was a 17' tunnel with 300 hp. So your next agenda to limit hp and size will come up to that logic.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I do not know the speed of the boats involved. I don't think it matters all that much. The two fatalities in Maine obviously involved high speed, the exact numbers are not important.

Two separate PWC accidents killed two teenagers and badly injured two more. Again I don't know the speeds, but teenagers going fast on a PWC is not unusual. And a crash at low speeds is not as likely to kill.

However the real benefit of a speed limit will be that less people will be putting high speed craft on the lakes of New Hampshire. When the speed limit passes families will purchase fewer PWC's. Some teenagers might even be forced to move from a PWC to a kayak.

A popular movie once quoted "if you build it, they will come". I would paraphrase that to "if you don't buy it, they can't ride it" or even "if you don't buy it, they can't be killed on it".


Actually I tend to think that any speed limit will have a zero to positive effect on the numbers of PWCs on Winni. Let's say people forgoe the big fast boats for "lesser" craft, what do you expect they'll be ? Frankly I'd expect them to be PWCs as they're relatively cheap bang for the buck. Gas prices will drive their sales more than any SL. Anybody know what the RCS of a typical PWC is ?

Again if the purpose of the speed limit is to reduce the "high speed" boat collisions, I don't see why you're mentioning accidents where such collisions didn't occur and you don't even know the speeds involved. For you I guess it is all about ridding the lake of those people you deem undesirable.

[Gavia immer]

From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph.

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

[Islander]

ITD - So there is no data! You made the whole thing up!!!

You said the data proves speed limits are not needed, now you have nothing but a weak quote from Barrett?

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic,"

Spoken like a true political hack. He leaves himself a couple of back doors to get out when things go against him. What constitutes a "sense" how much is "a lot".

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

[codeman671]

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

Barrett's background is in law enforcement, not the boating industry. Unless you have some proof that he is lobbying for a job in the boating industry you are making false claims (certainly not unlike you :laugh: ) and should move on. Who cares if he is??? He has a right to work when at some point he does leave MP. He has a pretty big job to fill and i do not think he is doing a bad job. He deals with hundreds of bodies of water, he deals with constantly changing help, he deals with thousands of boaters and one island full of whiners. Give the guy a rest and let him do it! If you think that you can do better go file an application...

If you would really like to know what his plans are after MP I'll ask! I don't expect it to matter anyhow because no matter what he says you will discount it and crap on him.

[Airwaves]

Here are some definitions without all the legalize.

The following partial definitions are taken from
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Public Figures:
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[ITD]

ITD - So there is no data! You made the whole thing up!!!

You said the data proves speed limits are not needed, now you have nothing but a weak quote from Barrett?

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic,"

Spoken like a true political hack. He leaves himself a couple of back doors to get out when things go against him. What constitutes a "sense" how much is "a lot".

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

I feel like I am in bizarro world when I read your posts. So let's use your logic on your statements. According to you, since there is no published data on speed then there is absolutely no need for a speed limit because there is no proof that boats are speeding. If we need proof that boats aren't speeding, then we should have proof that boats are speeding before we legislate a major change in the law and how the lake is patrolled. There have been no deaths on Winnipesaukee attributed to speed in years, if ever, so there is no need for a speed limit. Your case is beyond weak, it is non-existant. Just applying your train of thought.

"And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true", just the fact that you try to destroy someone's character based on this line shows that anything you write is suspect, how about just sticking to the truth instead of your twisted "beliefs", honestly, I'm not sure you can tell the difference.

[Dave R]

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

To use your logic, one could say: "A study was performed for the month of July and revealed that not a single canoe was seen going accross the broads. Therefore, we've deemed it illegal for canoes to be in broads".

Just becuase people tend not to go terribly fast in boats is no reason to limit them if they want to and can do it safely (history has shown they can).

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

[Acres per Second]

"...BoaterEd is a club of people talking about boats, it's education is answering questions posted on the wesite. A worthy effort but hardly in the same class as BoatUS..."
It's like here, but bog-slow and for cruiser captains.

I read today a current topic on how cautious they are around the many unlighted boats in their various after-dark cruising environments.

They don't have naked Brattleboro kayakers (http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6967043&nav=4QcS)—the cruisers all have radar and it's far worse for them! :eek:

"...I'm a member as well. If Les has an opinion on Winnipesaukee speed limits, why doesn't he log on here and make it known? Your out of context quote doesn't convince me..."
Les already moderates at least two forums and manages a related business.

He stepped into BoaterEd's Winnipesaukee speed topic in 2005. My brief summary appears HERE. (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24152&postcount=26)

And from our own archive in full, HERE (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4095.html).

Minus the map of Lake Winnipesaukee which heads his post, I've quoted Les' entire post below:

"Has any one here actually looked at a map of the lake?

"At best there's a nine or ten mile stretch down the middle. At 75, that's a good six minute ride. As most of you know, I'm very much opposed to additional marine regulation. However, just because of the sheer numbers and varieties of boats on inland waters, sometimes a quantifiable limit is a good idea.

"Operating to endanger" is far too subjective and, without a speed limit, virtually unenforcable. Florida has a 25 MPH speed limit on long stretches of the ICW that seems to work well. New Hampshire as a 55 MPH limit on long stretches of I93, as well as minimum speed limits, where all of the vehicles on the road have been inspected and are capable of reaching that speed.

"In my opinion, it would be far better to impose a reasonable speed limit now than wait until a couple of kids in a kayak are killed by someone doing 80 on the lake. Then you'll have the public screaming for a much reduced limit.

"There's an ocean not an hour's drive from the lake. That's a great place to run a boat at 75."

Les Hall, ATC Forum Host


Sounds sensible, huh?

[MAINLANDER]

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.
Are you kidding?
A rational thinking person would deduct that if the MP's didn't write any tickets (and no they will not ticket for 1 mph over limit as boat speedos are usually far from accurate) Than there is NO SPEEDING PROBLEM on the lake therfore there is no need for an additional law that would do nothing but pull valuable MP resources away from FAR more serious problems such as safe passage and alcohol based violations. Oh yeaa, and drunk naked kyackers, which apparently we do have a problem with.:D

[winnilaker]

Even the organized anti speed limit crowd have given up. Where is NHRBA? Gone from this argument.

http://www.opposehb847.com/opposehb847/testimonials.htm

... more and more as each day passes!

[bbarrell]

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

This supports the fact there is no need for a speed limit. And since I pay taxes in 2 NH towns....I REALLY don't want anymore of my money wasted on this effort! There are waaayyyy more important things to worry about in NH and I want my tax dollars and lawmakers efforts going towards those. This bill is unfounded and UNFUNDED. Money will fly out of your pockets to pay for it if it passes. Also, instead of marine patrol doing their jobs looking out for intoxicated drivers and helping boaters in need....they will be sitting in coves with radar guns. It's ridiculous. And of course you're right, it's some of my freedom being taken away....but there's more at stake here than that.

I really don't understand the supporters. The whole test pilot was a result of their request in a Meredith hearing when they petioned the DOS for a speed limit. Then because it wasn't going their way they bag on the pilot and call it a joke? And you also are now complaining about people actually slowing down so they can't be caught by radar???? Isn't that what you wanted, for people to slow down?

I'm picking up the phone to call my local reps again today to tell them how mad I am that time and money is still being wasted on this useless battle. We don't need a speed limit.

[Gavia immer]

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

[KonaChick]

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.


Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

Now that you mention it….

Actually the founding fathers were most concerned about maintaining the “most” unpopular rights. Freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular speech for it does not need protection. It is meant to protect your speech in this discussion. I think you would find old Ben to be quite squarely against your position to limit the rights of a small group.

Benjamin Franklin wrote
Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania</ST1:p (1759)

[Dave R]

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.


My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.

[Dave R]

Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

[codeman671]

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

He was definitely showboating for the camera a bit and caught a wave the wrong way. His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead. Compare it to rear ending another car when you are moving along, the force involved certainly does not leave you sitting in your seat. Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds.

The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.

[KonaChick]

[QUOTE=Dave R]Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.[/QUO


Yes I would agree there are injuries from operating too fast for conditions on the lake in bow riders. In fact we've had a few ourselves when we were newbie boaters. A speed limit will NOT stop that...you can dictate the law but you can't dictate common sense. I was specifically referring to the video of the GFBL boat's racing at high speeds across the ocean. I've yet to see that happen here but I understand the broader meaning of the video and how it relates to us boats on Lake Winni. I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

[Dave R]

I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

Not that I'm aware of. Those boats handle typical Winni chop with ease and I rarely see more than 2 together.

[Islander]

My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.


What law are you referring to?

[Skip]

What law are you referring to?


TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

[Dave R]

What law are you referring to?

Skip beat me to it.

[Acres per Second]

"...Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it..."
If you're in a sailboat, you'll have the perspective to see that it's pretty common—especially on weekends.

They often observe the "Safe Passage" rule—so they're racing—but "legally".

His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead...Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds...The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.
1) The boat was "in a collision with itself", which wouldn't have happened going at a reasonable speed.

2) If it's "we can't see kayaks", can speeders also not see waves? :confused:

3) The boat is built to take it "at those speeds", but people aren't. The video shows that the boat wasn't "almost stopped", but still traveling fast—thankfully for the passengers. (And thankfully there's a video to demonstrate the bone-breaking physics at work at extreme boat speeds).

4) Remember that New Hampshire only requires Marine Patrol reports within 24-hours of a fatality and don't require any report of property damage under $2000. (A recent change from just $500, which statistically improves New Hampshire's widely-touted 2005 Coast Guard statistics for boating accident safety). :rolleye2:

5) Because of a lack of requirements regarding injuries, there's no consistent way to determine how often "falls in boat" will appear in Coast Guard statistics. Most boaters would just transport injured parties to an Emergency Room.

Benjamin Franklin wrote
"Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty."

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)
That title page statement includes the phase "essential liberties".

Rocketing along at 70+MPH isn't an essential liberty.

Although the "unlimited speeds crowd" is willing to give up their liberty to go fast:

"I wouldn't mind speed limits (I wouldn't mind speed limits)in several portions of the lake where you can't go fast anyway."

[Islander]

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

If the law enforcement agent considers the boater's speed "careless and negligent", then he can stop the boater and issue a citation. See - the law already exists to cite speed if it is careless and negligent. WE NEED NO MORE LAWS (or taxes)!

[Skip]

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

As my grandfather used to say... "Oblivious to the obvious". :rolleye1:

[Islander]

270:29-a is a "catch-all" If a MP officer was foolish enough to use it to charge a boater with speeding, the defense would be simple. "You honor, The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat. The officer has exceeded his authority and replaced the legislatures judgment with his own!"

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones


"What happened to the speed limit test? I've been avoiding those two test zones like everyone suggested - Going extra slow when I had to use the Bear channel a couple of times to visit a buddy. But I'm constantly seeing patrol boats out in the open water in other parts of the lake pointing radar guns around this year. What's the deal with that?
For instance, I was out last weekend for an early run before the lake kicked up. Way up ahead, near Round Island (no where near the test areas) I see a boat with a big "MARINE PATROL" on the side and a cop standing in it pointing a radar gun at me. What do they expect me to do? I knew I was way too far away for him to get a reading, so I just slowed down. We waved and smiled to each other as I passed him at about 35. His grin was bigger than mine. What a joke. They might as well have their blue lights flashing. It's pretty clear that they want us to see them and slow down. I guess, in a sense, it works just like when they leave unoccuped cruisers on the sides of the road, as it got me to slow down. I have to admit I have been going a lot slower this summer when I'm on Winnipesaukee, knowing that the radar guns are everywhere. Bu this is getting old. Will we be able to start having fun again next year? When do all these summer cops go back to their real jobs?"

[jrc]

Islander, you're pretending right?

[Islander]

Islander, you're pretending right?

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

[LocalRealtor]

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones

You forgot to mention your source for this information was not winni.com, but I'm sure you prefer others think it was from here.

[jeffk]

Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

We were out riding recently in our 22 ft bow rider. We were in the broads traveling about 25 – 30 MPH. The chop was moderate to light. I caught a single rouge wave and it threw us up and dropped us down. My wife, riding in the bow, got slammed hard and was sore for a couple of days. I usually see these coming and slow down but I missed this one. It can happen to anyone unless you decide to travel everywhere at headway speed.

The guy in the video was being a hot dog. He pushed his luck and it ran out. Unfortunately his passengers also paid the price. Is there anything wrong in hot dogging per say? Most of the moments in sports or history that we celebrate (and relish) probably involved some pushing of the envelope. Sometime this is done for a good cause, sometimes just for fun. Explorers set off into an unknown ocean to discover foreign lands. More explorers roamed this country, poking into every nook and cranny. Families traveled West through mountains, deserts, and Indian attacks to reach new homes. We invented jets and some crazy people were the first to test pilot them. We landed on the moon. Firemen rush into burning buildings. Policemen face down armed criminals. An outfielder slams into a wall to catch a fly ball. We climb mountains. We sky dive, scuba dive, ski (water and snow), and race horses. We ride roller coasters, really big and crazy ones. We have Iron Man competitions that would grind most average people into jello. I took a teenager for a tube ride and snapped around a turn and he flew off. I was worried if he was OK. He gave me a huge grin and asked if we could go faster. Aren’t these all forms of hot dogging? For every one of these endeavors people have died or been seriously injured from time to time. Yet most people either participate in some of these activities or live vicariously through the participation of others.

The boat driver in the video decided to take others along for his ride. He was cited for “operating at an unsafe speed for the conditions”. This is a great 20/20 hindsight citation, as some boating laws are. If you had asked boaters or authorities in the area what the “safe” speed was before the accident I doubt you would have gotten a consistent answer. The reason his speed was “unsafe” was because something bad happened. Therefore it must have been unsafe. Were his passengers avid power boaters that understood the risks? I don’t know? If they were then they willingly participated in a risky ride. Even so, if he was careless, as it appears he was, he exposed them to more risk than they expected. Had they ridden with him before and knew he was a hot shot? Well…. If I go for a ride in your car and your tires are going bald or your brakes are shot you are exposing me to more risk than I expect as well. Maybe you didn’t sleep well last night and you’re not as alert as you should be. It would be wonderful if these things didn’t happen to those along for the ride but they do; sometimes because of negligence and carelessness, sometimes because of bad luck. When people are negligent or careless they should be prosecuted.

What level of risk are you willing to accept? If you require high levels of safety you better not get into a car (40,000 deaths a year in the US) or most other forms of motorized transport. Airplanes are the safest forms of transport but some do crash, usually with 100% fatality. Bicycle riding results in some nasty falls. Even walking, especially in the winter, can lead to serious injury and even death. Shoveling snow can lead to heart attacks. Do you go out when it is about to rain? Better hope you don’t get hit by a bolt out of the blue that can hit 10 miles from a storm center. Do you worry about electrocution when you use electrical appliances? Watch out for skin cancer from being out in the sun. There are hurricanes on the coast, tornadoes in the Midwest, blizzards in the north, and severe thunderstorms and flooding almost everywhere. In 2003, 35.000 people died in Europe because of a heat wave. There are insect borne fatal illnesses, tainted food, sexual predators, and internet identity thieves. My God, I am terrified to get out of bed in the morning. But then I need to worry about obesity and blood clots from being sedentary. And, and, and, … :(

You know, the problem is that life is risky. The solution is to realize that the likelihood of being a serious victim of any of these risks, including being in a boating accident, is very small. Take reasonable steps to carry out your activities safely, like having your lights on while boating at night, and Get On With Your Life. :D

[LocalRealtor]

Jeff, very well put.

Lets not forget Islander, of WINFABS fame, freely admits she would choose a higher speed than the 45 mph proposed limit, as she has a boat capable of 60mph+ and regularly travels at those speeds on this lake.

Therefore she must consider that speed safe, due to the fact that she operates regularly at that speed in her own boat willingly and by her own admission.

[Skip]

...The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat...

...Islander, you're pretending right?...

...you can't make up stuff that good!...

Well jrc, she could be right. Legislative intent can be the affirmative defense employed by a savvy defense attorney.

Unfortunately Islander has a fatal flaw in her latest legal rambling. In order to offer the theory she espouses, the record surrounding the debate of the House Bill that was defeated would clearly need to articulate that the Legislature clearly stated the there be "no limit on the speed of a boat". Additionally the Attorney would need to offer into proof, either by deposition or direct testimony, a significant number of the legislators present voting down the Bill clearly stating that their intent, whether implied or not, was to allow unfettered speeding on New Hampshire waterways.

The record is available on-line, we should anxiously await Islander's direct quotations of pertinent legislative testimony that confirms her theory.

Remember, Islander used the phrase "clear legislative intent" in her latest diatribe. Clearly she can easily reference us to the source that verifies such a bold legal claim! :)

[jrc]

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

[Islander]

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.


But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

[KonaChick]

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.


But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

I feel Mike is lucky to own a formula! :laugh:

[Gilligan]

I'm not sure responding to the "we need speed" crowd is worth the trouble anymore.

"I still believe a statute is going to pass," said Barrett.

I try to stay out of this thread but I am against more speed limits on the lake.

I am not a member of a "we need speed" crowd. To make such a statement shows your obvious bias. Are you trying to persuade people that anti-speed limit means we want lots of speed? There are more choices and opinions.

[jrc]

My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread

[Islander]

My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread

For once I must agree with you!

This thread is about test zones. And as Mike61965 has pointed so eloquently, they are a joke!

I declare victory!




Mike - The LRGH can get that bullet out of your foot.

[Skip]

...I declare victory!...

Boy did I get a good chuckle out of that line! :laugh:

Many years ago when it had become apparent to all (but a handful) that the war in Vietnam had been lost, a then Republican Senator from Vermont named George Aiken advised Lyndon Johnson and subsequently Richard Nixon to retreat by boldly stating "declare victory, and then get out".

You aren't related to the good Senator by any chance? :confused: :D

[Airwaves]

Islander wrote:
I declare victory!
Mr. President! I thought it was your father that owned the boat! :D

[Islander]

Boy did I get a good chuckle out of that line! :laugh:

Many years ago when it had become apparent to all (but a handful) that the war in Vietnam had been lost, a then Republican Senator from Vermont named George Aiken advised Lyndon Johnson and subsequently Richard Nixon to retreat by boldly stating "declare victory, and then get out".

You aren't related to the good Senator by any chance? :confused: :D

I'm sorry to say I am not. It sounds like he gave great advice!

See you at ForumFest!

[Skip]

...See you at ForumFest!...

You're the main reason I'll be there! ;)

[Cal]

You're the main reason I'll be there! ;)


I wish I could make the Forum Fest. I would volunteer a ride for Islander , from whatever island she's on to Wolfeboro. Only stipulation is I cover the speedo and GPS.
I think she might be surprized;)

[Dave R]

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!



Good point. I don't think we need the 150 foot law between power boats. It's a good idea regarding swim lines, the shore, docks, etc. but rather silly when it comes to power boats passing power boats. I would not attempt to vote it out though, the courtesy of it makes the lake nicer, we just don't "need" it.

[VitaBene]

DaveR, you are right on with the 150' rule. The funny thing is the people I was scared to have within 150' of me last year either don't know there is a rule this year or have chosen to ignore it!

See you on the lake!

[Lakegeezer]

Good point. I don't think we need the 150 foot law between power boats. It's a good idea regarding swim lines, the shore, docks, etc. but rather silly when it comes to power boats passing power boats. I would not attempt to vote it out though, the courtesy of it makes the lake nicer, we just don't "need" it.Agreed. The law is OK, but often it provides a rule of courtesy more than addressing a safety issue. It can increase safety risk too. Forcing similar sized boats to come off wake and back on again creates more wake for kayaks and canoes, increasing the chances they will be swamped - even 150 feet away. But, with the hypersensitive attitude on the lake these days, its best to keep your distance.