Proposed Law

[Lakegeezer]

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

You have the right to enter the scene along with everyone else. Your choice of which freedoms to exercise will be moderated by your personal level and tolerance of fear. Suck it up. Chances are very good that you won't be hit.

[Bear Islander]

Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.



I don't think last July was a long time ago.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I don't think last July was a long time ago.

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!

[chipj29]

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!!

So please don't go there!
And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking. :rolleye2:

[Bear Islander]

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.

[chmeeee]

It is of course not appropriate to pretend it never happened. If anything, attention should be brought to any safety issues related to alcohol. No other factors can really be attributed to an accident once you determine that alcohol was a factor however. If somebody is boating under the influence, its fairly safe to assume that they are ignoring any and all appropriate laws.

Also, regarding the kayak accident, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the kayakers abandoned ship well before they were hit, at a distance such that if they had not jumped out they could have just paddled out of the way. Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened?

[chipj29]

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.
Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.

[Woodsy]

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.

Jumping out of the Kayak just before it gets cut in half comes under any reasonable definition of "run over".


Let me ask. As to drinking... Is it OK to say that a given accident never happened, as long as drinking was involved? If that is true there are quite a few accidents on our highways that never happened.


BI...

The accident did occur.... a powerboat struck an unlit, unmanned kayak! HOWEVER, it is not the fault of the powerboat operator. Under NH Law, USCG rules and COLREGS, the Kayak was a hazard to navigation simply by the virtue of not properly displaying a light. IF you want to go a step further, the paddler was intoxicated! I dont particulalry care that he was nude... although I do think it a bit odd and is probably related to his AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)!

Had the kayaker been sober, he probably would have been displaying the proper lighting, and the accident probably would not have happened, as the operator of the powerboat was SOBER!

Every accident scenario you post seems to have one common thread... Alcohol Intoxication!! I agree with Chmeee... anytime you have an accident and it is determined that alcohol is involved, all bets are off!

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights.

The "Spin" is to post that it didn't happen. I will not defend the naked/drunk/unlit idiot in the kayak. However the accident DID happen.

I don't think Lakegeezer was lying, he probably forgot that last summers accident would apply to his statement.

But don't accuse me of spin when I point out the error. If one of you had pointed out the error would that have been spin?

Woodsy-

When did I blame anyone for this accident. You are going overboard (pun intended). I posted one sentence to remind people that it did happen. After that I was responding to criticism.

[Lakegeezer]

Give all the explanations you want. Lakegeezer's post was incorrect.OK - maybe we can count this one as a kayak accident, but its hard to use it as a reason to impose speed limits, boat size or HP limits - as those issues don't seem to be a factor in this case. This falls into the category of freedom to take risks (boating while dark, no lights, drunk and nude). The kayakers got caught on this one. Have we seen the offical accident report? Perhaps the kayakers abandoned ship as to not get caught nude, and therefore it was not an accident involving people, but just a case of a boat hitting lake debris at night.

[Woodsy]

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!


Evenstar...

You do lots of everyday activites "At Your Own Peril"! Driving a car, crossing a street, riding a bicycle are all everyday activities that put YOU at risk of serious injury or death! A far greater risk than you have paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee on the BUSIEST of summer days! In all of those activities above, a 2000lb+ vehicle is passing within 10' of you at speed. Everyday people get injured or killed in NH as a result of those everyday activities! No kayaker has ever been struck and seriously injured or killed on Lake Winnipesaukee... EVER!

Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports!

You need to come up with a better argument...

Woodsy

[brk-lnt]

I don't think Lakegeezer was lying, he probably forgot that last summers accident would apply to his statement.


It happened, but its relevance as a data point in any way to what is being discussed here is zero. That you bring it up as a "reminder" or "argument" serves only to act as a distraction to a rational discussion.

A powerboat hit an empty, unlit kayak that was floating free in the water at night. The kayak was merely a piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person.

[Bear Islander]

It happened, but its relevance as a data point in any way to what is being discussed here is zero. That you bring it up as a "reminder" or "argument" serves only to act as a distraction to a rational discussion.

A powerboat hit an empty, unlit kayak that was floating free in the water at night. The kayak was merely a piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person.

Wow! Now the kayak is a "piece of debris at that point, left as a hazard by an inconsiderate person".

I posted my reminder to Lakegeezer because what he posted was incorrect, he has since agreed it was incorrect. However you guys have to make a mountain out of a mole hill and not let it go.

There is an unfortunate tendency on this forum to discount accidents. They are excused away for a number of reason, mostly alcohol. ALL accidents need to be considered when it comes to safety. Certainly alcohol abuse and other idiotic behavior must be taken into consideration. But an accident is still an accident.

I'm sorry if you don't like my "reminder". However in the future I will continue to post reminders whenever I think an accident is being overlooked, discounted or forgotten.

I went back to the thread on the accident. SIKSUKR knows the people in the boat. At the time he posted... "The guy saw the boat coming,bailed and swam to the shore." That doesn't sound like the kayak was a floating piece of debris. Sounds more like a close call.


The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that.

[Evenstar]

Evenstar...
Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports! You need to come up with a better argument... Woodsy
Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-Report.pdf)(the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report (http://www.americancanoe.org/safety/fatality-report.lasso): “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”

[SIKSUKR]

I talked to one of the girls who was in the boat.They were traveling well under the proposed 25 mph night speed limit.There were 2 kayaks and a man and a woman operating them.They had no lighting and new the boat could not see them so they bailed out and swam to shore.The boat operaters spent some time trying to find the kayakers and finally found them on shore.They were actually hiding because of their embaressment.the boat finally took them on board and brought them to the camp they were renting.The camp owner had the nerve to try and recoup the damages from the boat operaters.This makes about as much sense as someone using this accident as an example for kayaker's fear for their safety.Pleeease.

[codeman671]

I went back to the thread on the accident. SIKSUKR knows the people in the boat. At the time he posted... "The guy saw the boat coming,bailed and swam to the shore." That doesn't sound like the kayak was a floating piece of debris. Sounds more like a close call.


The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that.

So the kayaker did not see or hear the boat coming ahead of time? A properly lit powerboat with a gas engine? What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement.

They were not in an area where the boat was traveling at excessive speeds by any means and there has been no report to indicate otherwise. I do believe that the boater was not at fault, they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark. Had the person been in kayak I still think that a court would have a tough time finding the boater negligent.

[EricP]

I talked to one of the girls who was in the boat.They were traveling well under the proposed 25 mph night speed limit.There were 2 kayaks and a man and a woman operating them.They had no lighting and new the boat could not see them so they bailed out and swam to shore.The boat operaters spent some time trying to find the kayakers and finally found them on shore.They were actually hiding because of their embaressment.the boat finally took them on board and brought them to the camp they were renting.The camp owner had the nerve to try and recoup the damages from the boat operaters.This makes about as much sense as someone using this accident as an example for kayaker's fear for their safety.Pleeease.

Also, the kayakers were renting a cottage in Fish Cove and were actually in Meredith bay by Spindle Point! All kinds of AIS in those kayaks that night. I meane if you're in Fish Cove kayaking naked, stay close, maybe venture into Tommies Cove, but all the way past Spindle Point! Yea, AIS.

I will agree this was an accident. The cause of which was the 2 kayakers KUI.

[Acres per Second]

"...Have we seen the offical accident report...?"
Because of the $2000 threshold for a NHMP report—and no injury—why would this require a report to the NHMP? Failing that—and that the CG has no jurisdiction on Winnipesaukee—will it even appear in Coast Guard statistics?

''The Coast Guard estimates that only about 10 percent of the boating accidents that occur are actually reported,'' Mr. Potter said. He said many accidents are not reported when boaters are not insured." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7DF123AF932A1575BC0A96E9482 60)
:(

Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.
Interstate analogies again....:rolleye2:

How are the salmon fishermen, fishermen at anchor, kayaks, tubers, floating debris, anchored swimmers, anchored picnickers, and the occasional errant swim float to be accounted for in any Interstate example? :confused:

"...yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be..."
I previously noted here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=51102&postcount=9) that a week before July 4th weekend, I saw a canoe, with a kayak in tow—transporting a solitary toddler—in open water. :eek:

Not exactly a jaywalker strolling out between parked SUVs, was she?

"...And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking..." :rolleye2:
It's not right to "project" a view of a non-participant into this incident. We don't know that to be FACT.

"...Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"

...and...

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!! So please don't go there!

...and...

"...The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that..."
What is being taken for FACT...has only appeared at this forum.

The news article (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=53256&postcount=37) states, "...the kayak had no lights...".

A kayak does not need "lights". A single 360° hand-held light is sufficient. Did the reporter expect to find the "missing lights" in an overturned and abandoned kayak with several feet of its bow missing? :confused:

SIKSUKR's account (DUI, naked, no lights (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=54110&postcount=200)) was 3rd-hand; plus, we don't have any corroborating evidence from the press. The "NH Bass Foundation Nation" account (if there was one) could be parroting what appears anywhere on the Internet!

"...What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement...they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark...."
Unless there is some public document floating around, we don't "clearly know" any of that. Do we "clearly know" of a single citation being issued?

"...Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights..."
At some point after this after-dark encounter, there were one or two swimmers in the water. A swimmer anywhere on the lake after dark—and needing rescue—cannot be expected to have lights.

If "kayaks can't be seen", I will agree with Mee&Mac and Evenstar that a strobe should be allowed for after-dark kayaking.

(Even one that does not meet the on-ON criterion. And yes, we should protect the fool at our own "expense").

(Some PFDs have strobe lights.)

http://www.marisafe.com/img/items/m/104550291.jpg

"...clearly they were naked..."

"...if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"

"...the Nude Kayaker had bailed out

"...he was nude..."

"...drunk and nude...not get caught nude..."

"...in Fish Cove kayaking naked..."

"...drinking and nude...?"

"...Maybe nekkid kayaking should be allowed..."

"...is a canoe, with 2 naked people in it..."

"...he didn't want to be seen naked...?"

"...naked like the other bonehead kayaker...?"

"...and drunk naked kyackers..."

"...naked people were renters and the owner of the property wanted the powerboater to replace the kayak..."

"...these naked midnight [kayakers]..."

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

:rolleye1:

[SIKSUKR]

In the spirit of APS type posts,I offer this one from the WMUR website.


Searchers Look For Missing Kayaker

POSTED: 7:56 am EDT May 2, 2008
UPDATED: 10:17 am EDT May 2, 2008


ORFORD, N.H. -- Authorities are searching for a Vermont man after his empty kayak was found floating in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Lt. Todd Bogardus said 58-year-old Robert Swantak of Bradford, Vt., went out for an afternoon of kayaking and fiddlehead fern picking Thursday.

He started in the Waits River in Bradford, which joins the Connecticut River that separates Vermont and New Hampshire.

Swantak's family called police when he failed to return home.

His overturned kayak was found a few miles down river in Orford, N.H., but there was no sign of Swantak.

Authorities from both states searched until after midnight and will begin searching again Friday morning.

Bogardus said officials remain optimistic that Swantak made it to shore, but he notes that the river is at high flood level with very swift currents and cold water temperatures.

[chipj29]

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

:rolleye1:

The clothes-optional visitors were operating a craft in an unsafe manner. They created the problem, not the boater. Had they been operating within the law, this incident would not have happened. Period.

Oh and regarding the alcohol-induced excess, there is already a BUI law. Enforce it.

[codeman671]

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

:rolleye1:

Boy, who pulled out their Thesaurus the other day?? Quite impressed...:laugh:

This "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd does not condone naked kayaking while drunk and stupid in the dark without any navigation lights, and we do not condone alcohol related stupidity behind the wheel of a boat. We push for better education, enforcement of current laws and promoting a safe lake. We do not promote a fear based campaign full of BS and empty of facts like our opposition.

There is no rampant issue with boats traveling 3 times the proposed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, I am not sure what Winnipesaukee you live on. There is a handful at most that are capable of speeds over 100mph, nonetheless 135mph.

[jeffk]

Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (http://uscgboating.org/statistics/USCG_NRBS%202002-Report.pdf)(the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report (http://www.americancanoe.org/safety/fatality-report.lasso): “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”


Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.

The relative safety of the type of watercraft seems a bit off the topic of the risk to others by boats exceeding 45 MPH. Specifically, your point has been the risk to kayakers by such high speed boats. In Boating Statistics 2006, on page 27, is a chart entitled TYPES OF ACCIDENTS BY TYPE OF VESSEL. There are 3 types of accident that seem pertinent to the discussion, Collisions with other vessels, Struck by boat, and Struck by motor. For 2006 only 2 kayaks and 2 canoes had been involved in collision accidents. This is out of a total of 6753 accidents reported in the U.S. We don't know anything further about the actual speed of the collisions that occurred.

I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.

[Bear Islander]

Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.



Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?

[Evenstar]

Evenstar,
I agree with your analysis that kayaks are a relatively safe way to enjoy the water. Woody did say " kayaks and canoes". Since canoes have about 3 times as many accidents as kayaks lumping them together puts them at "about" the same fatality level as open motorboats. However, lumping them together may not be fair to your point.
I didn't start this argument. Woodsy made false accusations about the safety of kayaks, that I refuted with some actual facts.

If you're going to lump all paddle boats together, you also need to lump all power boats together. Then do the math, and you'll see that I'm still correct.
I can't argue against the physical reality that IF a large fast moving boat struck a kayak or canoe that the small craft would be in great danger and the operator at risk for severe injury or death. However, collisions are extremely rare, even when looking at the whole country. You are not guaranteed you will not be hit but the laws and statistics are strongly on your side. Worrying about any kind of significant collision is like being afraid of being struck by lightening.

I'm not a worrier. But I am a realist. And close calls from high-speed boats have put me in danger.

Boats on Winni that were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violate my 150 foot zone by a considate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me. And this has occurred more than once.

If lightening was striking that close, I wouldn't just sit there, waiting for the next strike . . . regardless of the statistics!

Note: I do know what 45mph looks like on the water. And I'm really good at extimating distance. If a boat is only 3 to 4 kayak lengths away from me, it is way closer than 150 feet.

[parrothead]

APS Said "Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit. "

How frequently does this happen APS that there are paddlers out at night?? I am going to leave the clothing optional part out because that is just and amusing aside. Why is it ok for a small boat to be out at night without lights?
Why are they not subject to same rules as the rest of us? Where in all of this discussion has anyone said outright that operating any motorized vehicle is ok while intoxicated. Apparently I am one of these Live-Free-or-Die" crowd and I don't believe that. I do think that as a responsible person if I decided to paddle at night I would make myself as conspicuous as possible. Reflective tape on my PFD, a 360 degree light, a flash light so if these other things didn't work I could flash it a passing boat. Maybe even an air horn to blast at the boat to let my presence known. I would not decide that it was ok to abandon my vessel and leave it adrift in the path of an oncoming vessel. Where are you coming from with this?

[B R]

Jeff, do you have any idea how many people are afraid of getting hit by lightning?

Before every thunderstorm on the lake I watch boats go through the Bear Island NWZ at full speed. Why do they do that?

How many people stay inside, end the golf game early, cancel little league etc.

Did you ever hear that first boom followed in a heartbeat by a mother screaming "get out of the water"?

let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?

i'm not afraid of speeding boats because a) there aren't a lot of them and b) i've never had an issue with a speeding boat and i've got over 1,000 boating hours on this lake. If you have a fear of being hit by lightning or being run over by a speeding boat, stay inside when it rains and don't venture out on the lake when you see that boat going by your house at 130 mph (and please call me, i've yet to see that).

i don't think many boaters are afraid of the lake. i wonder what a survery would produce if you asked the question to boaters on lake winnipesaukee: are you afraid of boating on the lake? i think you'd find an over-whelming majority say they feel safe on the lake (in my opinion).

[chmeeee]

let's say there are lots of people afraid of getting hit by lighting. do we institute a law saying "no one is allowed outside when there's a chance of a lightning storm?" simply because there are people who are afraid. what about all the people who aren't afraid, do we make them stay inside too? what about the people who look at the statistical chance of getting hit by lightning and take the chance to go outside and stand around in a storm. do we legislate them to stay inside? how would those people feel about a law they don't feel is necessary when they aren't afraid?


I would like to propose that a speed limit for lightning be enacted. I think a safe speed would be 45 miles per hour. This would serve multiple benefits:

First of all, most members of the population are quite frightened by lightning and the high speed that it moves at (up to 93,000 miles per second). It can be especially scary if the lightning strikes within 150 feet of a person.

Second, it would reduce noise pollution. The thunder produced by lightning is mainly due to high speed of the electricity traveling through the air. Reduced to 45 miles per hour it would be a quiet buzzing sound.

Third, it could benefit the loon population. They are quite sensitive to sound and motion, so they could get out of the area before being struck as the lightning approached at a reasonable and prudent speed.

Fourth, children's camps could operate on the water with less fear. Think about it!

:look:

[fatlazyless]

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group? :)

[B R]

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group? :)

that's easy, sunshine; it the only thing that isn't "feared" on the lake (sarcasm font applied - i don't want people thinking i'm afraid of a 46 mph boat - geeesh).

[brk-lnt]

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group? :)

Obvious? Your posts are hardly coherent, much less obvious.

[Dave R]

that's easy, sunshine; it the only thing that isn't "feared" on the lake (sarcasm font applied - i don't want people thinking i'm afraid of a 46 mph boat - geeesh).

I'm scared of sunlight. I wear sunblock. People who tan nicely make me look more pasty than I am. There obviously needs to be a law against tanning so that my feelings are not hurt. :D

[Dave R]

Here's a question that is obvious to everyone:


rain, sunshine, lightning, 46mph motorboating, cloudy skies, windy


Which item is exclusive of this group? :)


Wouldn't it be every item you excluded? I'll take a stab or two though, King Tut? A baby's arm holding an apple?

[chipj29]

Wouldn't it be every item you excluded? I'll take a stab or two though, King Tut? A baby's arm holding an apple?

:laugh: Kickstand?

[alsadad]

Now that I've digested the different views in HB 847, I thought I'd offer my opinion -- not that I think anyone will change their mind. I've been boating since I was a child. We've always had sailboats, canoes and powerboats on lakes, big and small. I've been boating here since we bought a home on the lake in 1991. I have to say that in all those years I have never had a close or frightening or even particularly annoying encounter with a so-called GFBL or "ocean racer" or anyone traveling 60, 70, 90 mph or more. I've seen them, I've even been in them on occasion, but I've never been in a position where I felt threatened by one.

Having said that, I don't have any visceral or passionate objection to speed limits, either. A speed limit will not directly affect my boating, for good or for bad. It is seldom enjoyable traveling more than 35-40 mph in my 23 footer and most of my boating is at even slower speeds.

If I had to rank the factors that affect my enjoyment of the lake, I'm not certain that 60 mph boats, or whatever your definition of speeding is, even make the list. Let's face it, the most important factor affecting our ability to enjoy the lake is the weather, at least in some years. If I thought that the NH Legislature could command ideal boating weather all season, I'd be in Concord lobbying right now, but I doubt even they think that they have that much power. And of course there would be multiple threads on this forum arguing about what "ideal weather" is -- warm, hot, windy, calm, etc.

Other than the weather, the two most important factors, in my experience, are the volume of boats and rude, obnoxious, clueless boaters. The volume of boats is a difficult issue for me to address. After all, there were fewer boats on the lake before I arrived, and one more after I did. Who am I to deny someone else the pleasure I have enjoyed just because I got here first?

But we can do something about the rude, obnoxious and clueless boaters. The most frightening experience I have ever had while boating occurred on this lake two years ago. My kids were tubing in the area among Long Island, Little Bear and Dow. Another family in a boat much like mine was towing a child on a tube and there was more than enough room for us to stay out of each other's way, which we did for 30 minutes or so. Then my son fell off of the tube and as I circled around to go back for him I suddenly saw the other boat headed directly for him, on a course approximately 90 degrees from mine. More frightening was the fact that it was obvious that the "driver" (he was hardly a captain at that point) had one hand on the wheel but was facing the stern watching his tuber. Of course that's what spotters are for. Fortunately he was still several hundred feet away and I accelerated and sounded my horn while slightly changing my course to put my boat between him and my son (some might argue with my response, but in the split second I had to decide it's what I came up with). He came within 50 feet before seeing us, veered away and gave me the one-finger salute. He was not traveling more than 15 or 20 mph.

I try to be tolerant, but that's the guy I want off of the lake! Well, okay, we can try to educate him first (with a 2x4?), but people like him are far more frightening to me, and far more numerous in my experience, than the boaters who will leave because of a 45 mph speed limit.

I'm not going to pick up my toys and go home if the speed limit bill passes. I won't even yell loudly or race through the Bear Island NWZ in protest. But I don't expect to feel any safer, either – I don’t feel unsafe now. In my opinion, any serious and sincere effort to improve safety on the lake begins with education and enforcement. The thing I fear more than any speeding boater is that the outcome of this campaign will be followed by…. nothing… while the "winners" rest on their laurels and the "losers" sulk.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaksHowever, that doesn't jive with New Hampshire figures.

In 2006, the last year that NH Marine Patrol statistics are available to my knowledge;
33% of the BOATING FATALTIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE INVOVLED KAYAKS!
The other fatalties were drownings, not boating accidents.

Of the 84 boating accidents in the entire state, .04% involved boats going more than 45mph, and of those THREE only ONE was on Winnipesuakee!

Don't you hate numbers? :laugh:

[Evenstar]

However, that doesn't jive with New Hampshire figures.
Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.

[Mashugana]

Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.

Expanding your policy not to discuss something you can't or haven't viewed for yourself (not just data but claimed boat violators too) would eliminate most of the current debate. How many of those opposed to adding more speed laws have seen boats going so fast that they can not see you until panic time? There is no study or report to show any lapse of proper lookout or safe boating and attribute it to speed over 45 mph?

[boat_guy64]

Alsadad,

I couldn't agree more. A speed limit has no affect on me at all. My boat will barely go that fast and I rarely do. I also have not been affected by those fast scary boats.

I do worry that our understaffed, underfunded, underequipped Marine Patrol will be burdened with yet another job that will make them less responsive in emergency situations. All of their boats are not fully equipped with GPS and other equipment now and forcing them to have RADAR on board will make it even harder for them to afford the other essentials.

[VtSteve]

Now that I've digested the different views in HB 847, I thought I'd offer my opinion -- not that I think anyone will change their mind. I've been boating since I was a child. We've always had sailboats, canoes and powerboats on lakes, big and small. I've been boating here since we bought a home on the lake in 1991. I have to say that in all those years I have never had a close or frightening or even particularly annoying encounter with a so-called GFBL or "ocean racer" or anyone traveling 60, 70, 90 mph or more. I've seen them, I've even been in them on occasion, but I've never been in a position where I felt threatened by one.

Having said that, I don't have any visceral or passionate objection to speed limits, either. A speed limit will not directly affect my boating, for good or for bad. It is seldom enjoyable traveling more than 35-40 mph in my 23 footer and most of my boating is at even slower speeds.

If I had to rank the factors that affect my enjoyment of the lake, I'm not certain that 60 mph boats, or whatever your definition of speeding is, even make the list. Let's face it, the most important factor affecting our ability to enjoy the lake is the weather, at least in some years. If I thought that the NH Legislature could command ideal boating weather all season, I'd be in Concord lobbying right now, but I doubt even they think that they have that much power. And of course there would be multiple threads on this forum arguing about what "ideal weather" is -- warm, hot, windy, calm, etc.

Other than the weather, the two most important factors, in my experience, are the volume of boats and rude, obnoxious, clueless boaters. The volume of boats is a difficult issue for me to address. After all, there were fewer boats on the lake before I arrived, and one more after I did. Who am I to deny someone else the pleasure I have enjoyed just because I got here first?

But we can do something about the rude, obnoxious and clueless boaters. The most frightening experience I have ever had while boating occurred on this lake two years ago. My kids were tubing in the area among Long Island, Little Bear and Dow. Another family in a boat much like mine was towing a child on a tube and there was more than enough room for us to stay out of each other's way, which we did for 30 minutes or so. Then my son fell off of the tube and as I circled around to go back for him I suddenly saw the other boat headed directly for him, on a course approximately 90 degrees from mine. More frightening was the fact that it was obvious that the "driver" (he was hardly a captain at that point) had one hand on the wheel but was facing the stern watching his tuber. Of course that's what spotters are for. Fortunately he was still several hundred feet away and I accelerated and sounded my horn while slightly changing my course to put my boat between him and my son (some might argue with my response, but in the split second I had to decide it's what I came up with). He came within 50 feet before seeing us, veered away and gave me the one-finger salute. He was not traveling more than 15 or 20 mph.

I try to be tolerant, but that's the guy I want off of the lake! Well, okay, we can try to educate him first (with a 2x4?), but people like him are far more frightening to me, and far more numerous in my experience, than the boaters who will leave because of a 45 mph speed limit.

I'm not going to pick up my toys and go home if the speed limit bill passes. I won't even yell loudly or race through the Bear Island NWZ in protest. But I don't expect to feel any safer, either – I don’t feel unsafe now. In my opinion, any serious and sincere effort to improve safety on the lake begins with education and enforcement. The thing I fear more than any speeding boater is that the outcome of this campaign will be followed by…. nothing… while the "winners" rest on their laurels and the "losers" sulk.


Pretty much my experience as well. We were tubing over here last summer, parallel with the shoreline. The very same type of moron did much the same thing, forgetting what he was doing, where his course was, where we were. Same one finger salute.

Most of the real idiots on the lake here are going slower, usually with tubers. There are the real idiots that take their poor car driving experience out on the lake. They never learn what's the proper way to boat, no common sense or courtesy involved whatsoever. The laws all apply to these infractions Now. But alas, they are rarely enforced due to lots of reasons.

Those seeking more rules and regulations rarely mention enforcement. The speed limit crowd doesn't ant to discuss anything not favorable for their agenda, nor do they want to discuss the actual problems on the lakes.

You'll still have 150' violations, idiots in rentals, obnoxious drunks, and naked kayakers with no lights :D

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Evenstar
Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.

I am happy to provide a link;
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4283
The information was posted by Woodsy in February 2007 and as a matter of fact you were the third person to write a response.

Funny you don't remember the things that don't back your claims that every time you're on Winnipesaukee you experience a close call with speeding boats!

[Bear Islander]

Alsadad,

I couldn't agree more. A speed limit has no affect on me at all. My boat will barely go that fast and I rarely do. I also have not been affected by those fast scary boats.

I do worry that our understaffed, underfunded, underequipped Marine Patrol will be burdened with yet another job that will make them less responsive in emergency situations. All of their boats are not fully equipped with GPS and other equipment now and forcing them to have RADAR on board will make it even harder for them to afford the other essentials.

Who is forcing the Marine Patrol to put RADAR on their boats? The MP have been enforcing speed limits on dozens of New Hampshire lakes for decades without RADAR! There are several ways to enforce a speed limit that do not use RADAR.

Plus they have at least two hand held units that were used for a recent survey. I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. If a problem develops they can send out an officer with a hand held to set up a speed trap during a few peek hours.

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?

[jrc]

...

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?

So your asking for a law that will stop something that seldom happens from happening, and we won't have to enforce it because it seldom happens.

Why not stop trying to make your arguements sound logical, it's waste of time.

Just keep saying what you really mean and occasionally admit: You don't want fast boats on your lake and this law will send a message to them and drive them off. You don't want large boats on your lake and this law will provide a stepping stone to that end. Why pretend?

[Bear Islander]

So your asking for a law that will stop something that seldom happens from happening, and we won't have to enforce it because it seldom happens.

Why not stop trying to make your arguements sound logical, it's waste of time.

Just keep saying what you really mean and occasionally admit: You don't want fast boats on your lake and this law will send a message to them and drive them off. You don't want large boats on your lake and this law will provide a stepping stone to that end. Why pretend?

We have laws against lots of things that seldom happen. And it will happen less often when the law is passed. Plus there will be consequences for the few violators. That is why we enact laws!

Who is pretending? I have never "admitted" I want high horsepower boats off the lake. I state it openly and often. Do I have to say it in every post?

[EricP]

Who is forcing the Marine Patrol to put RADAR on their boats? The MP have been enforcing speed limits on dozens of New Hampshire lakes for decades without RADAR! There are several ways to enforce a speed limit that do not use RADAR.

Plus they have at least two hand held units that were used for a recent survey. I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. If a problem develops they can send out an officer with a hand held to set up a speed trap during a few peek hours.

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?

How many times have you driven down Pleasant Street over 25 MPH? I actually find it difficult to keep it under 30, I try to stay between 25-30 MPH and consider that obeying the law. Today I was followed up Pleasant Street by a cruiser and I was doing my normal 25-30 MPH thing. I wasn't pulled over. So I submit that law abiding citizens speed. I consider myself a law abiding citizen and I do speed. I drive 93 south every Monday morning from here to rt 128. average speed for me is 72 and people fly by me all the time. I've even had cops fly by me while I was traveling at 72. Point is we'll still have boats traveling over 45 and we'll still have idiots violating the 150' safe passage law. I am less concerned about the boats going over 45 MPH than I am about the idiots not paying attention. Your entire premise is that passing the speed limit will keep certain people away, I believe it won't. You also think the lake will be safer, I believe it won't. I actually think if the law passes absolutely nothing will change. The problems we face are not speed related they are safety related. Paying attention, 150' safe passage, BUI, driving fast through NWZs, etc.. A speed limit addresses none of those problems.

[jeffk]

... I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. ...


The people I see pulled over regularly on I93 must be getting parking tickets. :D

[B R]

I actually think if the law passes absolutely nothing will change.

I can't agree with that. I predict Bear Island will see a significant increase in boat traffic.

[jrc]

We have laws against lots of things that seldom happen. And it will happen less often when the law is passed. Plus there will be consequences for the few violators. That is why we enact laws!
...


How can there be consequences if there is no enforcement? You say there is no need for enforcement yet you say there will be consequences, this is logically flawed. Without enforcement, the only consequence is a guilty conscience.

...
Who is pretending? I have never "admitted" I want high horsepower boats off the lake. I state it openly and often. Do I have to say it in every post?

Sometimes you openly say you just want high horsepower boats off the lake, sometimes you pretend there is a logical reason to have a speed limit. All I'm saying is stop the pretense.

Just say that you want the high horsepower boats off the lake, because that's what you want. And the speed limit law is just a handy tool.

[Islander]

Cars go a little over the limit, boats will go a little over the limit. So What? Who cares? How often do cars go 70 mph on Pleasant St. or 140 mph on route 93?

Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?

[EricP]

Cars go a little over the limit, boats will go a little over the limit. So What? Who cares? How often do cars go 70 mph on Pleasant St. or 140 mph on route 93?

Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?

Again, this happens so infrequently it's not an issue. Let's compare how many times idiots violate the 150' safe passage law compared to how many boats go over 50. I have no hard facts for that but my personal observations from years of riding around on my SeaDoos leads me to conclude that the violators of the 150' safe passage law far outnumber boats going over 50 recklessly, and they (the 150' violators) are the ones making people feal unsafe. This is unscientific data, wholly my opinion and observations but I would wager a vast majority of people using this forum would agree with me.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I can't agree with that. I predict Bear Island will see a significant increase in boat traffic.

I think you are right. I know that Bear Island is the shortest distance between any two points on Winni. Keep it slow and watch out for kayakers. If I owned Y Landing, I know I'd be offering the cheapest gas on the lake this summer. There is a captive audience just looking for a reason to say hello to everyone on Bear Island this summer.:laugh:

[Islander]

I think you are right. I know that Bear Island is the shortest distance between any two points on Winni. Keep it slow and watch out for kayakers. If I owned Y Landing, I know I'd be offering the cheapest gas on the lake this summer. There is a captive audience just looking for a reason to say hello to everyone on Bear Island this summer.:laugh:

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.




Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.

[GWC...]

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.




Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.
Apparently, the Senators are not the only ones enjoying old timer's (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=63106&postcount=153)...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander
Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?
That’s a very good question, as a matter of fact your good friend Bear Islander can probably answer it since he posted;
Originally posted by Bear Islander
Boats go through the NWZ at high speed, full speed , ludicrous speed, whatever you can imagine.
...snip...
The most common violator is a very large cruise boat that passes more than once a day. I will not guess at its speed, but I have seen boats being overtaken by it have to go full throttle, in the NWZ, to get out of its way.
Then I posted the following as a suggestion since if that happened to me I would certainly be ticked off!
Originally posted by Airwaves
Just a thought, but it that's a problem out in front of your place, and since I beleive you already have a webcamera in operation, why not point it in a direction that would catch the violation on the web, and at an angle that would show the violator's bow number and/or boat name. I'd be willing to be that if you had these violations on tape and the MP could track them down a visit by a law enforcement officer would help your situation.

Then Bear Islander posted a response via VtSteve (BI doesn’t post responding directly to me any longer since I was so bold as to bring his credibility into question after he claimed time and again not to have posted something that he wrote and he denied it so BI took his bat and ball and went home :laugh::laugh:

Originally posted by Bear Islander
I'm surprised you people are surprised. I suppose I have seen it for so many years it doesn't surprise me anymore. PWCs go through full speed the most, we don't even blink when they do it. I'm sure some have no idea it's a NWZ. One beautiful Cigarette (a real one) would go through at about 90. I thought maybe he was clueless. Then I found out he was from Cooks Point. That is within sight, so he must have known about the NWZ.

We had a neighbor that would throw tennis ball at them, but he is gone now.

A have a few videos but you can't read bow numbers from that distance. I have been thinking of setting a camera up with motion detection. Take a picture of every boat that goes through.

So Islander, that’s a long way to say that you folks that say you have problems with speeding boats don’t have a track record of reporting them!!!!!

Call the Marine Patrol and even if they don't show up you will have a record! In BIs case he knows where one of the offenders docks...yet he certainly didn't say he did anything about it!

I’ll betcha the only thing that gets reported if this bill becomes law is the continued 150 foot violation…but gee, isn’t that already law? BTW, they are NOT going to put a radar post at the NWZ near Bear Island :eek:

[fatlazyless]

As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Today's www.citizen.com has an article on boating and the Marine Patrol and mentions that the MP may be required to enforce a speed limit this summer, depending on what the legislature does. Could the Senate change HB 847 so it becomes effective immediately? Like, why wait till January 1, 2009?

Three cheers to Tuffy and the Y-Landing for operating their little grocery, beer, milk, newspaper, hi-test gasoline, diesel fuel, boat accessories like air horns, bilge pumps, bow eyes, lines, and Suzuki outboards biz.

Do 250hp Merc two-strokes run better hole shots on high-octaine gas? :D

[Island Lover]

As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Today's www.citizen.com has an article on boating and the Marine Patrol and mentions that the MP may be required to enforce a speed limit this summer, depending on what the legislature does. Could the Senate change HB 847 so it becomes effective immediately? Like, why wait till January 1, 2009?

Three cheers to Tuffy and the Y-Landing for operating their little grocery, beer, milk, newspaper, hi-test gasoline, diesel fuel, boat accessories like air horns, bilge pumps, bow eyes, lines, and Suzuki outboards biz.

Do 250hp Merc two-strokes run better hole shots on high-octaine gas? :D
Some Senators have an amendment for immediate enactment. It would have to go back to the House for approval.

[VtSteve]

Some Senators have an amendment for immediate enactment. It would have to go back to the House for approval.

Did the amendment include the restrictions for Kayaks? They really should be lit and have flags. It's just not safe having a floating log out there, colored or not

[CaptDan]

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/COMMUNITY/805120326/1029/OPINION03

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Fatlazyless
As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if because of the need for boats and crews to set up radar posts that they decide the Bear Island Post Office stake out spot would be one of the areas boats and crews are diverted away from? :eek::laugh::laugh:

[VtSteve]

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/COMMUNITY/805120326/1029/OPINION03

More single-minded crap there than you can shake a stick at.

I might add, don't forget the big, big wakes.

[SIKSUKR]

I wouldn't call that an update.That's one person's opinion in a letter to the editor.Does the Monitor publish opposing views?

[Seeker]

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

[ITD]

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.


Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

[hazelnut]

Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70115&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. It would be wonderful if you could just live in a laboratory and assume that there were exactly that many boats on the lake exceeding 50mph in a given time period but even the staunchest scholar would concede that it would merely be speculative based on hundreds of variables. I pray to god that the Senators are reading every shred of debate on this forum. I firmly believe that they would see through the ridiculous claims made by proponents.

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

[Evenstar]

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=70115&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. . . .

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

[RTTOOL]

The Senate Transportation committee voted on HB847. The vote was 3-2
"Ought to Pass", which mean a recommendation
to pass the bill. The full senate will mostly likely vote on HB847 next
week. So continue to keep up the pressure. Your help is needed.

Thank you,


John Gallus
292 Prospect Street
Berlin, NH 03570-2137
(H) (603)752-1066
(O) (603)271-3077

Deborah Reynolds
5 Chaddarin Lane
Plymouth, NH 03264
(O) (603)271-3569

Joseph Kenney
PO Box 201
Union, NH 03887-0201
(H) (603)473-2569
(O) (603)271-3073

Kathleen Sgambati
25 Pine Street
Tilton, NH 03276
(H) (603)286-8931
(O) (603)271-3074

Peter Burling
20 Lang Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4209
(O) (603)271-2642

Jacalyn Cilley
2 Oak Hill Road
Barrington, NH 03825
(H) (603)664-5597
(O) (603)271-3045

Harold Janeway
225 Tyler Road
Webster, NH 03303
(O) (603)271-3041

Bob Odell
PO Box 23
Lempster, NH 03605-0023
(O) (603)271-6733

Sheila Roberge
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, NH 03110-4816
(H) (603)472-8391
(O) None Specified

Molly Kelly
89 Colonial Drive
Keene, NH 03431
(H) (603)352-5605
(O) (603)271-7803

Peter Bragdon
P.O. Box 307
Milford, NH 03055 (H)
(603)673-7135
(O) (603)271-2675

David Gottesman
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, NH 03063-1308
(H) (603)889-4442
(O) (603)271-4152

Joseph Foster
9 Keats Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2509
(H) (603)891-0307
(O) (603)271-2111

Robert Clegg
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, NH 03051-5120
(O) (603)271-8630

Sylvia Larsen
23 Kensington Road
Concord, NH 03301
(H) (603)225-6130
(O) (603)271-2111

Theodore Gatsas
20 Market St
PO Box 6655
Manchester, NH 03104-6052
(H) (603)623-0220
(O) (603)271-8567

John Barnes
PO Box 362
Raymond, NH 03077-3062
(H) (603)895-9352
(O) (603)271-6931

Betsi DeVries
14 Old Orchard Way
Manchester, NH 03103
(H) (603)647-0117
(O) (603)271-2104

Robert Letourneau
30 South Avenue
Derry, NH 03038
(O) (603)271-8631

Lou D'Allesandro
332 St. James Avenue
Manchester, NH 03102-4950
(H) (603)669-3494
(O) (603)271-2600

Iris Estabrook
8 Burnham Avenue
Durham, NH 03824-3011
(H) (603)868-5524
(O) (603)271-3042

Michael Downing
7 Darryl Lane
Salem, NH 03079
(H) (603)893-5442
(O) (603)271-2674

Margaret Hassan
48 Court Street
Exeter, NH 03833-2728
(H) (603)772-4187
(O) (603)271-4153

Martha Fuller Clark
152 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306
(O) (603)271-6933


http://www.opposehb847.com

Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our
rights. The more letters and phones the the bigger the impact.

[Airwaves]

Actually they are scheduled to vote on the bill the day after tomorrow the 15th. Not next week. Next week will be too late.

[brk-lnt]

[B] BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

Show me what is wrong with my analysis...

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered.

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

[hazelnut]

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.
You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.
So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.
My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.


*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.:rolleye2:

For the record, my friend has a Ph.D in Mathematics. If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

You are taking a RECREATIONAL activity and trying to extrapolate data based on individual results. I will show you how and why you can not apply the same methodology used in traffic studies to a RECREATIONAL activity. In the interest of time I will try to hold it to just a few examples. Let me first start by simplifying your claim. You claim that over roughly a 10 week period if one boat was traveling 50+MPH then there were other boats at the same time traveling over 50MPH. You also state that we need to multiply that over a set of weeks, lets say 10 weeks. Therefore according to you there were roughly 50 boats elsewhere on the lake doing 50+MPH. That is a loose interpretation of your argument. Your numbers ended up claiming over 2,000 boats in roughly a 10 week period were exceeding 50MPH. Here are just a few reasons why you can not treat this like a typical traffic study.

#1 Unlike a highway people do not boat in the same pattern every day.
This is not I-93 during rush hour where you can make the assumption that the same people are traveling the same route every day. In highway analysis one can reasonably assume within a small margin that the traffic pattern would be similar on any given day within a set number of days, I.E. Monday through Friday. Therefore you could measure speeds in a set test area and then you could extrapolate that data to infer that the same numbers (Speed, Car Counts etc.) would apply to another zone taking into account variables such as road topography and such.

#2 Boating is a leisure activity
Applying finite math to a leisure activity to determine how many boats are in a set area traveling at a set speed is impossible. Boat A never left the dock because they decided to go swimming. Boat B left the dock but decided to slow cruise because they wanted to look at the McMansions. Boat C is setting up to waterski. Boat D is actually prepping for a high speed run across the broads but Boats E,F,G,H,I are waiting in line for a dock space. That is just day one. Day two, it is windy out and Boat A is cruising at 25MPH because Aunt Ann has a bad back and hates the waves. Boat B thinks it is too windy to boat today. Boat C is not about to waterski in this mess. Boat D is not at the lake because he is working. etc. etc. Day 3 is a rainy Monday and the only boats on the water are the Mount, Marine Patrol, the lone fisherman and a few hearty Islanders trying to get the kids off of the island.

Those are two examples for you to chew on as to why it is impossible to apply traffic study methodology to a LEISURE activity. You are also leaving out the human nature aspect of the equation. Commuting by car is an entirely different subject matter with an entirely different set of variables that are much more predictable. You are trying to apply logic to leisure and the best scientists in the world can't come up with a formula for that. Over a 10 week period people will boat thousands of different ways. To try and make a math equation that states One Boat traveling 50MPH in Meredith equates to 4 boats traveling 50MPH one in Alton one in Wolfeboro one in Center Harbor and one in the broads is ludicrous and down right laughable.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

[bilproject]

This discussion of statistical value of this study is academic for the reasons Hazelnut pointed out. Most people who say the study was not valid point out the fact that the marine patrol used marked boats and announced the areas to gather data. I would suggest that a large majority of the boaters were unaware of the study and could not tell you what a marine patrol boat looked like from a half mile away. Those of us that are on the lake a lot were very aware of both, but we are the minority of boaters. The 2 areas where a limit was announced showed no difference in stats from the areas that were sampled unannounced. This could support the idea that most boaters were unaware and going about their business as usual. The study is what was found at those places, at that time, for those boats. That is not and can not be disputed (unless we get into a discussion of the effectiveness of radar operated from a moving and rocking boat. If we go there then I'm afraid those for a speed limit would have to make a good case for not being able to enforce this law) This is the only data we have. It can be twisted and spun anyway you want when you talk about the whole lake on any given day at any given time.
I for one think that the State is writing a bad law. I believe that for 2 reasons. First, having the law at all is being based on emotion and individual observation not fact, scientific or other. Second, recording speed on water with accuracy from a small floating platform is at best effective only a small part of the time. There are simply too many variables that are effecting the readings. I would like to see the Senate back off and do a meaningful study of both speed and enforcement issues. Then if a law is needed pass one.

[Evenstar]

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?
Yes, I believe that the speed study was flawed in how it was done, so I don’t believe that the data produced is at all accurate. But that is a separate issue, from the methodology of doing statistical analysis. Many of the speed limit opponents use the data from the speed study like it is gospel – so they obviously believe that it is viable.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.

You can’t argue that the study was done correctly and then say that my statistical analysis is incorrect merely because it used the data from that study.


*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.
I did not “lash out.” Please explain how asking for you colleague’s qualifications is a personal attack on you or on anyone.

But having a PHD in mathematics does not make you colleague more qualified than my professors who happen to be very qualified in their knowledge of statistical analysis.

If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.
I don’t lie. My GPA was published in both the Concord Monitor and in the Manchester Union leader when my speech at my graduation from NHTI was covered last May. Goggle Arwen RWU and you’ll see that I really and a student there and really am a member of the sailing team.

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed. The purpose of the speed study was to the record speeds of boats on a lake over 11 weeks of summer boating. If the speed study was done correctly, the study areas should have been selected to accurately represent boat traffic on the lake (that is the goal of study areas), and the time periods in which they took the readings should have been selected to accurately represent the average activity that is going on during the day.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.
If you accept that the study is valid – you have to accept that the data collected represents the average conditions on the lake on the average day. If this is not true, then the data and the study are invalid. You can’t have it both ways, not matter how much you try to spin this.

There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)

[hazelnut]

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed.
There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)

Nice try Evanstar but NO. It absolutely changes the way the data is analyzed. Even a moderate scholar would understand this concept. Please stop arguing that point it's just a fact not an opinion no matter how many times you say it it is not going to make it true. I don't care what your GPA is. I agree there is nothing complicated with what you did. It was a fun math problem and you get good marks for completion. However when applied to the real world it does not hold even an ounce of water. If you can't see this you never will. Often times the problems with being a student is putting the book down and seeing the forest for the trees.

[brk-lnt]

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.



I have made no personal claims about the validity of the study. I find it one of many interesting points of reference.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1) If you disagree with it, then do not attempt to use it in some manner to support your position, as this just makes you look silly and irrational.

2) If you agree with it, and choose to apply some method to extrapolate data from it, be prepared for other people to point out why your conclusions, and therefore your overall position, are incorrect.

[Dave R]

I have used power, sail and human powered boats on Winnipesaukee often for 30+ years. I have boated on the lake in ALL kinds of conditions. I have no stake in this game since my boat will barely exceed the speed limit and I will never own a GFBL boat.

I am certain that the speed data collected by the marine patrol last year is accurate. It mirrors my own speed observations perfectly. Boats going over 50 MPH really are few and far between.

You can argue about the legitimacy of the study, and manipulate the data all you want, but the fact that it accurately portrays boat speeds on the lake makes all the arguments and manipulation moot.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

But the whole, survey, and polls thing brought this to mind. My father once told me "Figures don't lie, But LIARS, figure!" Now I understand what he meant, the MP survey figures, don't lie, they show there is no speed issue. But the LIARS keep trying to confuse the general public with Figures, to make their point sound legit! :laugh:

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I dont quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!

It was an UNFUNDED survey conducted by the NHMP designed soley to take a snapshot of the lake focusing mostly on weekends. Most reasonable people would agree that most of the issues occur on busy summer weekends, friday afternoon to sunday afternoon! The study was conducted during regular NHMP patrols with the help of NHMP Auxillary volunteers! Because it was conducted as part of a regular patrol schedule, it is actually a VERY ACCURATE snapshot as to what the NHMP would encounter if there was a speed limit enacted this year. Assuming of course that the NHMP are level funded and patrols are not reduced due to budgetary constraints.

There were 9 sampling areas, only two of which were known to the General Public. The selection of areas was based on TOPOGRAPHY, BOAT VOLUME, SAFETY CONCERNS and TRAFFIC PATTERNS. All of these areas were chosen to MAXIMIZE the radar units effectiveness! To simplify for you, they chose areas in which the radar unit would work the best!

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?

The boat volume of Lake Winnipesaukee is not a linear equation as you would apply to, say a roadway in a town or a highway! There are way too many variables, and very few predictable traffic/usage patterns. The NHMP picked the busiest areas of the lake during the busiest times (emphasis on weekends) to conduct the survey sample. If they picked the busiest areas for the sample, at the busiest times it would stand to reason that the other areas of the lake had less/slower boat traffic! In fact a greater sampling of the lake would have yielded slower average speeds!

Ultimately your positon is untenable! You have only emotion, not facts to bolster your position. You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises! Perhaps if American Research Group had conducted the study the results would have been more to your liking!


Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!
I've never paddled on Lake George, in MA or in ME, but no power boat has ever come within 15 feet of me that was going faster than headway speed. But we're talking about NH laws here.

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?
Yes I did and why is it that so many of you think that is ok to insult me? I don't have any problem comprehending things.

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I don't quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!
I'm a full-time out of state college student - I would have been there if I could have, but that was not possible. I did testify at the House Transportation Committee Hearing in March of 2007 when the speed study was used to derail the bill last year.

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. And it doesn’t include the margin of error."<O:p</O:p

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!
Then why were 29% of the total boats (1,121 out of 3852) recorded in AREA 1 (Light 60 to Weirs Channel)? This is not exactly a high-speed section of the lake.

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!
Look, I haven't kayaked on Winni enough to memorize all the light numbers, and I don't take my map of the lake to my university. I asked if the broads were covered and no one ever stated that they were, so I figured that they were not. My error - but it was an honest one.

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?
I don't consider myself to be brilliant - all I've done is stood up for myself when people here have insulted my intelligence.
No. That's not what I am saying at all. If the study was as accurate as you and others here are claiming, it would have represented the average condition found on the entire lake over this 11 week time period. If that is not true, then the study is not accurate. So point out what is wrong with my logic and/or math:

Taken directly from page 3 of the report: “This sampling was conducted on Lake Winnipesaukee from the period 07/01/07 through 09/16/07. Sample data was collected on 55 days and nights during the 11 week period.”

11 weeks = ~ 770 day light hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week). So where is my error here?

Taken directly from page 3 of the report: “Marine Patrol officers spent a total of just over 135 hours clocking powered vessels, including PWC’s.” And a bit further down: “A total of 9 sampling areas were selected.”
Since all the study areas are included in the percentage of the lake covered by this study, you have to determine the average amount of time spent at each area (since they weren’t recording the speed of boats at all areas at once).

So you have to divide the 135 total hours by the 9 areas. 135 / 9 = 15 hours. So the average number of hours recording speeds at each site was 15 hours. So where is my error here?

The 15 hours spent recording speeds at each site is less than 2% of the total daylight hours in the 11 week period. (15 / 770 = 0.19, which is 1.95%) So where is my error here?

The chart on page 6 of the report gives that 11 boats were going at speeds over 50 mph, during the time that the MP were recording speeds.
Since they were only recording speeds for ~2% of the total daylight hours in these 11 weeks, you have to divide these 11 boats by 2% (I’m rounding to keep things simple), which gives you that an estimated 550 boats were traveling over 50 mph in the study areas over the entire 770 daylight hours of this 11 week period. So where is my error here?

But the study did not cover the entire lake, but only a percentage of it. The report does not give what percentage of the total lake was covered – so I guessed high and used 25% which I feel is more than fair, as I don’t believe that the actual percentage was nearly this high. So you have to take the estimated number of boats and divide by 25% (which is the same as multiply by 4). 550 / .25 = 2200 boats. So, according to the data from the study approximately 2200 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over this 11 week period.

So where is my error here? Do you believe that the study covered more than 25% of the lake?

You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises!
No, that's not true all. Despite what you and others here may think of me, I am a very honest person. If the study was done correctly than I would have accepted it. And if I was not taking a university course in research methodology when the report was released, then I would not have realized that it was done in a way that would not produce accurate data.

[VtSteve]

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

That's not the most ridiculous use of forecasting I've seen, hey, the Guvmint pretty much has that tied up. Obviously, parts of the lake are far less traveled than others. Perhaps you should stake out some territory not covered by the MP in the study, and get a hint as to what's wrong with your attempts to extrapolate the data.

[Bear Islander]

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I dont quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!

It was an UNFUNDED survey conducted by the NHMP designed soley to take a snapshot of the lake focusing mostly on weekends. Most reasonable people would agree that most of the issues occur on busy summer weekends, friday afternoon to sunday afternoon! The study was conducted during regular NHMP patrols with the help of NHMP Auxillary volunteers! Because it was conducted as part of a regular patrol schedule, it is actually a VERY ACCURATE snapshot as to what the NHMP would encounter if there was a speed limit enacted this year. Assuming of course that the NHMP are level funded and patrols are not reduced due to budgetary constraints.

There were 9 sampling areas, only two of which were known to the General Public. The selection of areas was based on TOPOGRAPHY, BOAT VOLUME, SAFETY CONCERNS and TRAFFIC PATTERNS. All of these areas were chosen to MAXIMIZE the radar units effectiveness! To simplify for you, they chose areas in which the radar unit would work the best!

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?

The boat volume of Lake Winnipesaukee is not a linear equation as you would apply to, say a roadway in a town or a highway! There are way too many variables, and very few predictable traffic/usage patterns. The NHMP picked the busiest areas of the lake during the busiest times (emphasis on weekends) to conduct the survey sample. If they picked the busiest areas for the sample, at the busiest times it would stand to reason that the other areas of the lake had less/slower boat traffic! In fact a greater sampling of the lake would have yielded slower average speeds!

Ultimately your positon is untenable! You have only emotion, not facts to bolster your position. You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises! Perhaps if American Research Group had conducted the study the results would have been more to your liking!


Woodsy

Woodsy, I have it on good athority that radar just doesn't work well on the water. Plus any speed reading will be lower the the actual speed of the boat.



"You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.
There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded."

[Islander]

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

[brk-lnt]

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

You're like the little dog that comes along behind all of BI's posts and adds a "yip yip yip" to the conversation. Try contributing something unique and valuable once in a while.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

I heard a rumor that a few PRO SPEED LIMIT people got together to call the Senators to urge them to vote NO SPEED LIMITS. Did they come to their senses at the last minute?

I can't believe that they conspired to call them with an ANTI-speed limit message on their HOME phones - at 3:00 in the morning.

They didn't do that, did they?

There is no speed problem on the Lake. We need more enforcement of the current rules!

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que The only way my boat can approach 40mph is downhill.


Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people
.

[ITD]

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.


You obviously don't understand, this argument has been disproven previously....

I quote myself, from a previous thread on this subject.....

"Now the SL crowd is crying about readings being slower if the boat is travelling at an angle to the radar. Well let's see, if the angle is 10 degrees the error would be about 1.5% if the angle is 30 degrees the error would be about 13%. The MP said that they only included measurements that were straight on, I believe them. Let's say for arguments sake that all the readings were taken at 30 degrees, that would skew the data to 13% faster. Even at that 97% of the boats would be travelling less than 45 mph. LEGISLATORS THERE IS NO SPEED PROBLEM ON THE LAKE."

[Woodsy]

BI...

Thanks for cutting and pasting one of my older posts!!! I should have done that as it would save me ALOT of time typing!!! :D:D

The MP chose the test zones as places where they thought the radar units worked best! In fact the NHMP testimony at the House Transportation Committe meeting in Franklin completely corroborated what I posted way back when!!

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

Islander...

Thats funny that if BI posts it... it must be true! LOL!!

Its a cut and paste of one of my old posts way back on HB-162! You look like a fool!

THE NHMP testified in Franklin that the radar worked best when the targeted boat traveled on a direct bearing either towards or away from the NHMP boat... perhaps you werent there to witness this testimony? In any case the NHMP testimony completely corroborated what I posted so long ago!

Woodsy

[hazelnut]

Woodsy, I have it on good athority that radar just doesn't work well on the water. Plus any speed reading will be lower the the actual speed of the boat.



"You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.
There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded."

BEAR ISLANDER? Does this represent a change of heart on your part?

[Bear Islander]

BEAR ISLANDER? Does this represent a change of heart on your part?

The quote was written by Woodsy way back BEFORE the speed limit study. At that time it was to the opponents advantage to argue that RADAR doesn't work on the water, and that the speed would read considerably LOWER than reality.

But when the speed study seemed to favor the oppositions position (IT DOESN'T), suddenly RADAR became incredibly reliable and accurate. And the lower speed reading, caused by the angle, became unimportant.

I posted Woodsy's pre-study, and post-study opinions on RADAR so we can compare. The highlighted sections show clearly the change in position.

[Islander]

The MP said that they only included measurements that were straight on, I believe them.

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

[brk-lnt]

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but you're living in a fantasy world if you actually think there were boats traveling at 160MPH on the lake. Even 90 or 100MPH seems highly doubtful, but we'll share your lunacy for a moment and allow the assumption that it is possible, although not probable.

Everything you post seems to be this Chicken Little fantasy mis-interpreted hype-drivel. If you're a proponent of the speed limit law, that's fine, but support your position with something that is factual and possible. The stuff you're spewing out here makes me wonder if you make your own tinfoil hats, or get them custom made at a haberdashery.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

OH MY HEAD! Where do I begin???

I've never paddled on Lake George, in MA or in ME, but no power boat has ever come within 15 feet of me that was going faster than headway speed. But we're talking about NH laws here...

So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?

Look, I haven't kayaked on Winni enough to memorize all the light numbers, and I don't take my map of the lake to my university. I asked if the broads were covered and no one ever stated that they were, so I figured that they were not. My error - but it was an honest one..

If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey.....

Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake! There are two big yacht clubs, a huge development and 3 of the lakes biggest marinas are at the end of Paugus Bay.... Irwin Marine, Lakeport Landing Marina, and Paugus Bay Marina!

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. And it doesn’t include the margin of error."<O:p</O:p.

The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be! This survey was UNFUNDED and conducted during regularly scheduled patrols on the busiest sections of the lake! It is a very accurate measure of what a NHMP officer might encounter on any given day during a regular patrol shift!

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!

Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....

3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund! :laugh::laugh:

Woodsy

[Ryan]

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund! :laugh::laugh:

Woodsy

Long time reader, first time poster.

I have been actively reading this debate for over six months now. I have seen arguements both logical and illogical, factual and opinionated being tossed around by both sides of the speed limit debate. I have seen facts and numbers being manipulated to support each side of the arguement.

I have wanted to chime in many times when I read opinions, lies, and
arguements that do not hold water.

As this debate comes to an end, I just want to say Bravo to Woodsy's last post. It clearly outlines the "fuzzy math" the proponents have been using on this forum, op ed pieces in the local papers and before the house committees.

- No matter how you spin the numbers, at any point in time, there are WAY less than 1% of the boats on the lake exceeding the 'proposed' speed limit (it is not speeding yet)
-Education not regulation
-I love my 150 ft rule - please enforce it!!!!

RJ

[Woodsy]

The quote was written by Woodsy way back BEFORE the speed limit study. At that time it was to the opponents advantage to argue that RADAR doesn't work on the water, and that the speed would read considerably LOWER than reality.

But when the speed study seemed to favor the oppositions position (IT DOESN'T), suddenly RADAR became incredibly reliable and accurate. And the lower speed reading, caused by the angle, became unimportant.

I posted Woodsy's pre-study, and post-study opinions on RADAR so we can compare. The highlighted sections show clearly the change in position.

BI...

Clearly the change in what position?

My post study comments in no way contradict my pre-study comments! I have never argued that marine radar is reliable or accurate... I pointed out the flaws of marine radar prior to the Speed Survey, and the Speed Survey Report and the Testimony of the NHMP @ the House Transp. Committe hearing in Franklin confirm my statements! If you were there, you would have known this! I also point out that the NHMP was/is concerned with meeting the burden of proof required of HB-847 in the NH Courts!

Perhaps you dont quite understand it... at least you posted the whole post and didn't take the highlighted sentences out of context!

Woodsy

[MAINLANDER]

Evenstar...

OH MY HEAD! Where do I begin???



So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?



If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey.....

Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake! There are two big yacht clubs, a huge development and 3 of the lakes biggest marinas are at the end of Paugus Bay.... Irwin Marine, Lakeport Landing Marina, and Paugus Bay Marina!



The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be! This survey was UNFUNDED and conducted during regularly scheduled patrols on the busiest sections of the lake! It is a very accurate measure of what a NHMP officer might encounter on any given day during a regular patrol shift!

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!

Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....

3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund! :laugh::laugh:

Woodsy

Thank you for taking the time needed to show people how "scare tactics" work.
You did a great service.

[chipj29]

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

Speaking of scare tactics!!

[Ryan]

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

...but according to those that say the study was flawed, the general boating public knew the MP was out casting radar for the study AND slowed to the speed limit when they noticed an MP present.

This brings up another question I've had for a while. If there is currently no speed limit, how did ALL of these (2000+) speeding boats know to slow to a speed under 45MPH when an MP was present to invalidate the speed study? If 60mph is not an infraction of boating regulations, why slow down?

(pre spin assumptions - there were no other boats within 150ft of the 'speeding' vessel, they were not 150ft from the shoreline, they were not operating in a NWZ)

[SIKSUKR]

This brings up another question I've had for a while. If there is currently no speed limit, how did ALL of these (2000+) speeding boats know to slow to a speed under 45MPH when an MP was present to invalidate the speed study? If 60mph is not an infraction of boating regulations, why slow down?


Exactly Ryan.But not according to the highly educated proponents.There just has to be something wrong with that study doesn't there?

[hazelnut]

Evenstar...
However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!
Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.
Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....
3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund! :laugh::laugh:

Woodsy

HURRAY HURRAY BRAVO WOODSY!:cheers:
I'm thinking that should be the end of this debate about the "extrapolation" of data on the speed survey.

[chipj29]

HURRAY HURRAY BRAVO WOODSY!:cheers:
I'm thinking that should be the end of this debate about the "extrapolation" of data on the speed survey.

Good luck with the ending of the debate. :rolleye1:

[ITD]

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. :laugh::laugh::laugh: Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

I'm not surprised that the reported speeds are low. Especially when you consider the boats that can go 130 mph probably cost $500,000. Not many of those around, never mind on the lake. That's the problem when you exaggerate, it's so easy to point out how ludicrous your views are.

Islander, you are so far out in left field it's not even funny. If I follow your logic, then a speed limit cannot be enforced. That's just what we need, a law that can't be enforced. Fits right in with the rest of your logic, or lack thereof.

[Evenstar]

So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?
I thought this was supposed to a discussion on a NH speed limit – but I have paddled in Rhode Island, since my university is located right on the coast – on Mount Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay – this is also whereI have sailed the most, but I've also sailed in Boston, in races. And I only live 3 miles from Vermont – so I have kayaked there as well.

If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey..... Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake!

Why do you feel this constant need to insult me, just because you disagree with me? I stated that I read the report and that I understood it – and I don’t lie. One of the most congested and “busiest areas of the lake” is not going to be where boats are going to be found traveling the fastest. 29% of the boat speeds in the survey were recorded in this area, which represents a tiny percentage of the lake, with conditions that at not the average lake conditions. This throws the averages way off by adding such a large number of boats that are traveling at slower speeds than they would be in a less congested area.

The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be!
I know that. But it was a snapshot of only a percentage of the lake (less than 25%) and it was a snapshot of what was happening during a tiny percentage of the time in those 11 weeks (1.9%).

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! … You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!! … I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund!

Again you throw insults at me.

What I stated was: “according to the data from the study approximately 2200 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over this 11 week period.” I never once stated that these were all different boats!!! And I never stated that the percentages would change. So don’t accuse me of stating something that I didn’t!

If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate. Boats were not recorded over the entire lake, so the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake, and the data was collected during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – so this needs to be factored in as well.

The results (which you seem to have so much trouble accepting) gives that if the MP was recording speeds of boats on the entire lake, and were doing so over all 770 daylight hours of these 11 weeks, that they would have recorded approximately 2,200 boats traveling over 50 mph. This is NOT the number of boats – this is the number of OCCURRENCES!!! I thought that was obvious to everyone – but apparently it wasn’t.

But this is a significant number, because it represents an average of 28 boats (occurrences) per day (during this 11 week period) where boats are traveling at speeds above 50mph. The chances of me encountering a high-speed boat is directly connected to how much time I spend out on the water. If I’m out on the lake in my kayak for 8 hours (which is typical for me), I’m going to encounter a number of these 28 high-speed boats. And this just represents an average day. On nice days and on weekends this number of high-speed boats (and high-speed occurrences) will increase. Most high-speed boats do not violate my 150 foot zone, but some do – so this is a problem for me.

There is nothing wrong with my statistical analysis. The problem is that you don’t understand my analysis – and this seems to be true of several other forum members.

Whenever I post something that is not in line with the views of powerboat owners, you guys are like a bunch of sharks having a feeding frenzy – which really isn’t a very nice way to treat another member – even if you happened to disagree with her. Give a girl a break! I’m not your enemy – I just have a different point of view, which is base on my own personal experiences – which happen to be different from yours.

I really don’t deserve this treatment, nor do I deserve the insults. There is nothing “fuzzy” about my math; I’m not “spinning” numbers; I’m not trying to use “scare tactics”; or do anything else that I’ve been accused of. I am a very honest person and am not trying to distort the truth in any way.

You guys insist on using the speed study report to “prove” your points. I’m just trying to explain that you can’t just use the raw data without including any statistical analysis – and I’m trying to show what the study actually shows. (Although I still think that the number of high-speed occurrences or artificially low, because of the way that the data was collected).

You don’t have to like my conclusions – and I’m totally willing to discuss anything that you believe I made an error with. But you and others here do not have the right to insult me, just because you don’t agree with me or because you don’t understand what I posted.

Oh, and Skipper of the Sea: I don't apprectiate you using a distorted verison of my signature as another way to insult me. That is wrong. I haven't done anything to you.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

It is truly amazing to me how you just do not get the math... I have quite the grasp on your analysis! In fact I understand it completely and quite possibly better than you do. You used a relatively standard formula to extrapolate data! Not really a big deal, but the formula is flawed in this application and that is shown by the extraordinarily LARGE number of boats. To be clear, when I say boat I meant singular instance as I assumed did you. In no way did I mean to infer that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee!

REMEMBER THIS IS THE FORMULA YOU USED!

Using YOUR formula YOU extrapolated 2200 boats going over 50 MPH or approximately 28.5 per day over the 77 day period!

Using YOUR formula I extrapolated 768,200 boats going under 50 MPH or approximately 9976.6 per day over the 77 day period!

28.5/9976 = .0028

Essentially you have less than 1/3 of 1% chance of coming into contact with a boat traveling over 50! What part of this math dont you understand? I am using YOUR formula! No matter how you extrapolate & multiply the numbers, the ratio/percentage doesnt change.

If YOUR formula is being applied correctly (and I do not think it is.. But I will get to that) your chances of running across a boat doing over 50MPH are essentially nil... .0028! If I were to extrapolate further, your chances of encountering a boat going over 60 MPH are for all intents and purposes non-existant!

But lets go one step further and say that of the boaters 2% are Capt. Boneheads who have a complete disregard of the rules & regs!

9976*.02 = 199.5 Capt. Boneheads!
28.5*.02 = .6 Capt Boneheads!

So every other day, 1 of the 28.5 boats going over 50 MPH is being driven by a Capt. Bonehead! While everyday 200 boats going under 50 MPH are being driven by a Capt. Bonehead!

Who do you think your going to have an encounter with? Need I calculate that for you too?

Now... on to the flaws with your formula!

By using YOUR formula we can extrapolate that the NHMP would have clocked 770,400 boats over the 11 week survey.

Good luck trying to get ANYONE to believe that number!!! There is no way that number could be remotely accurate and here is why...

The reason your formula/logic is flawed is because you are taking a blanket approach. If you knew the lake better, perhaps you would understand the flaws in your formula.

1. Lake Winnipesaukee has very little boating activity between Ice Out and Memorial Day and between Labor Day and Ice In.

2. The lake is really only "busy" boatwise (only in certain areas) during the nice (weatherwise) summer WEEKENDS between June 20th (roughly when the kids get out of school) and Labor Day (roughly when the kids go back to school). The NHMP speed survey was conducted during this time, only missing 1 or 2 weeks. When the weather is bad boat traffic decreases signifigantly!

3. Weekends are measured from Friday 2pm to Sunday 2pm, unless its a Holiday weekend such as July 4th & Labor Day. Before Friday 2pm the lake is relatively quiet, although usually a little busier than a thursday. Boat traffic picks up noticeably friday afternoon. Sunday afternoon sees sharp drop off in boat traffic as people are packing up to head home!

4. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday are EXTREMELY low traffic boat days, unless the monday is a holiday, then the sunday boat traffic is busier and monday tapers off after noon.

5. All boat traffic on the lake is not equal... so your blanket approach of multiplying to cover the entire area of the lake is inherently flawed. For example areas such as the Weirs and Meredith see alot of boat traffic, while areas off the beaten path such as Moultonborough Bay and all of the little coves see very little boat traffic.

6. There is no reason to adjust the raw data at all. It was taken by NHMP Officers & volunteers during REGULAR PATROL SHIFTS in the areas of the lake where the boat trafiic is higher. They are obviously not going to waste thier time & effort trying to clock boats in the smaller coves & bays! You need to remember, this was an UNFUNDED study!

Hope this helps you to better understand why your formula is flawed in this instance!

Woodsy

[hazelnut]

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?

[VtSteve]

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?

Extrapolation can, and usually is, the absolute killer in analysis. Especially true for non linear data. Take this in a real world example.


One of the most congested and “busiest areas of the lake” is not going to be where boats are going to be found traveling the fastest. 29% of the boat speeds in the survey were recorded in this area, which represents a tiny percentage of the lake, with conditions that at not the average lake conditions. This throws the averages way off by adding such a large number of boats that are traveling at slower speeds than they would be in a less congested area.

Of course it throws off the averages. When dealing with Winni, it should be rather obvious that congested areas would result in lower speed, that's what the skippers Are Supposed To Be Doing!

I would expect that at random, conditions aside, boats would be clocked at a higher average speed out in the Broads than around the Weirs. I would also expect boaters to be going slow in a NWZ. So you argue that by having a larger percentage clocked in congested areas throws off the averages? The look at the raw numbers of boats. I'd expect the number of boats in the Broads to be less than Paugus Bay on the weekends, that might just be why those areas are called congested in the first place.

I also think the subsequent extrapolations you did prove out this point. If you did a study of boats randomly out on the "less congested" area, I'd think you'd find out what's really going on. Not that many boats, and yes, a higher percentage going faster, depending on conditions, than they are in the busy areas. That would not shock most people, as it didn't shock anyone that's been out on the lake that speed generally goes down given the amount of boats in the area. For those that are running to close to others, well, there are rules about this are there not?

If your intent was to show that the average speed increases somewhat by throwing a larger percentage of boats from say, the Broads, into the mix, well I'd have to say how many D's in Duh?

[SIKSUKR]

Would you guys stop picking on me?Anytime you disagree with me you have to attack me even though I know I'm wrong.I can call you guys out and sling dirt around but that doesn't count cuz I said it.I am never wrong,I am very smart,probably smarter than most of you.I am highly skilled in paddling crafts so you can not question my point of view even if you have the same interest.You opponents are always attacking me and I don't deserve it.Wa Wa Wa.

[GWC...]

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?
Evenstar...

REMEMBER THIS IS THE FORMULA YOU USED!

Using YOUR formula YOU extrapolated 2200 boats going over 50 MPH or approximately 28.5 per day over the 77 day period!

Using YOUR formula I extrapolated 768,200 boats going under 50 MPH or approximately 9976.6 per day over the 77 day period!

768,200 + 2,200 = 770,400 boats in 77 days

or...

770,400 / 77 days = 10,005.2 boats per day

Phew, so many boats, little wonder the Senate voted to pass HB847... :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Now, if only the House and Senate would pass a Bill requiring all vessels, be they wind, power, or paddle, to pay a registration fee to help fund the NHMP.

Remember: Civil Liberties and Equitable treatment for all... ;)

[Ryan]

That would not shock most people, as it didn't shock anyone that's been out on the lake that speed generally goes down given the amount of boats in the area.

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!

[Resident 2B]

I sure hope that the folks moving into the old Waldo-Peppers offering seafood with dock service did not calculate the boat traffic using 'kayak math' in their business model. If they did, they will be wondering where all the boats went.:)

R2B

[Evenstar]

It is truly amazing to me how you just do not get the math... I have quite the grasp on your analysis! In fact I understand it completely and quite possibly better than you do. You used a relatively standard formula to extrapolate data! Not really a big deal, but the formula is flawed in this application and that is shown by the extraordinarily LARGE number of boats. To be clear, when I say boat I meant singular instance as I assumed did you. In no way did I mean to infer that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee!

I “get the math” just fine – and I seriously doubt that you understand this better than I do.

Have you recently (or ever) taken a college level course in Research Methodology? Have you ever done statistical analysis on the data from a municipal survey (that you helped design, and spent time collecting the data on), to aid a town in putting together their comprehensive plan? So don’t be so quick to dismiss me as someone who does not know what she is doing. The problem is that you are still looking at the data wrong – and you are still not getting my conclusions.

And you did post:
” Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? Which is inferring “that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee.”

Essentially you have less than 1/3 of 1% chance of coming into contact with a boat traveling over 50! What part of this math dont you understand? I am using YOUR formula! No matter how you extrapolate & multiply the numbers, the ratio/percentage doesnt change.
My chance of encountering a high-speed boat is way higher than what the static snapshot and you calculations suggest – because all the boats are moving – and what I didn’t factor in (and could have) were the boat speeds.

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.

Now... on to the flaws with your formula! By using YOUR formula we can extrapolate that the NHMP would have clocked 770,400 boats over the 11 week survey. Good luck trying to get ANYONE to believe that number!!! There is no way that number could be remotely accurate and here is why… The reason your formula/logic is flawed is because you are taking a blanket approach. If you knew the lake better, perhaps you would understand the flaws in your formula.
As far as your points 1 through 4: I clearly stated that my analysis only covers the 11 weeks of the study – that’s what the 770 hours represent.
I also clearly stated: “If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate.” My conclusion is and has always been that this study was not done correctly – and that data which was collected is flawed. And once anyone takes the data and tries to do statistical analysis on it they get some really strange results.

The problem is that the data collected does not accurately represent the average boat traffic on the entire lake over the entire 11 week period. The MP purposely used areas of the lake where boat traffic was high in order to record a large number of readings over a relatively short period of time. In 135 hours, they RECORDED the speeds of 3852 power boats – that’s more than 28 boats per hour or 1 every 2 minutes! And this is just the boats that they were able to record, not the total number of boats that went by them.

My contention is that, by using the busiest areas of the lake for the study, the study did not represent the average condition on the entire lake. Boats are going to travel at slower speeds in areas where the boat traffic is high.

5. All boat traffic on the lake is not equal... so your blanket approach of multiplying to cover the entire area of the lake is inherently flawed. For example areas such as the Weirs and Meredith see alot of boat traffic, while areas off the beaten path such as Moultonborough Bay and all of the little coves see very little boat traffic.
There is nothing wrong with my approach – that is exactly how statistical analysis is done. But (and this is a really important but) any statistical analysis is only as good as the data that was collected.

The speed study is being used as “proof” that few boats on the lake are traveling at speeds over 45 mph – so there’s no reason to enact a speed limit. What it actually shows is that on areas of the lake where boat traffic is the highest, there are only a small percentage of boats that are traveling over 50 mph on the busiest times of the highest boat traffic days.

Had the study areas actually represented the average conditions on the lake, on an average day during these 11 weeks, the data collected would have been totally different. And statistical analysis of that data would have given very different results. But then the data may have supported the need for a speed limit - which is why the study was not done correctly.

6. There is no reason to adjust the raw data at all.
Yes there is. Even the report is called “RECREATIONAL BOAT SPEED SAMPLING.” A sampling results in raw data that is supposed to accurately represent the overall population/area/time period/condition. Since boats were not recorded over the entire lake, but only in sample areas, the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake. And since the data was collected only during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – the total hours need to be factored in as well. This is what statistical analysis does.

I see the forum sharks are still circling. I'm sooo impressed . . . it takes . . . let's see . . . 5 of you guys (at this point) to debate (or to try to intimidate) just one college girl.

[brk-lnt]

I sure hope that the folks moving into the old Waldo-Peppers offering seafood with dock service did not calculate the boat traffic using 'kayak math' in their business model. If they did, they will be wondering where all the boats went.:)

R2B

It's all good. They did a test market during Bike Week, whereby they made a $8900 profit for the week. Therefore, their overall annual profit should extrapolate out to $56,098,211.18.

[Resident 2B]

Great news!

Thank God someone will be making money.

Love the math!!:)

R2B

[VtSteve]

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!


I was coming over for a rally this July. But once I heard that the number of boats had exceeded 643,668, I canceled my plans. That's just way to dangerous for me. I like to go out in the middle, jump off the boat, then cleand the bottom off with a mop. With boats traveling around at 130mph, I just couldn't deal with it.

[hazelnut]

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!

Hilarious... new term "kayak math" :laugh::emb::D:laugh::emb::D

[Seaplane Pilot]

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.

Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.

The grapes must be from the same vineyard from which WINNFABS gets its grapes to make its "whine". :emb:

[hazelnut]

I “get the math” just fine – and I seriously doubt that you understand this better than I do.

Have you recently (or ever) taken a college level course in Research Methodology? Have you ever done statistical analysis on the data from a municipal survey (that you helped design, and spent time collecting the data on), to aid a town in putting together their comprehensive plan? So don’t be so quick to dismiss me as someone who does not know what she is doing. The problem is that you are still looking at the data wrong – and you are still not getting my conclusions.

And you did post:
Which is inferring “that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee.”


My chance of encountering a high-speed boat is way higher than what the static snapshot and you calculations suggest – because all the boats are moving – and what I didn’t factor in (and could have) were the boat speeds.

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.


As far as your points 1 through 4: I clearly stated that my analysis only covers the 11 weeks of the study – that’s what the 770 hours represent.
I also clearly stated: “If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate.” My conclusion is and has always been that this study was not done correctly – and that data which was collected is flawed. And once anyone takes the data and tries to do statistical analysis on it they get some really strange results.

The problem is that the data collected does not accurately represent the average boat traffic on the entire lake over the entire 11 week period. The MP purposely used areas of the lake where boat traffic was high in order to record a large number of readings over a relatively short period of time. In 135 hours, they RECORDED the speeds of 3852 power boats – that’s more than 28 boats per hour or 1 every 2 minutes! And this is just the boats that they were able to record, not the total number of boats that went by them.

My contention is that, by using the busiest areas of the lake for the study, the study did not represent the average condition on the entire lake. Boats are going to travel at slower speeds in areas where the boat traffic is high.


There is nothing wrong with my approach – that is exactly how statistical analysis is done. But (and this is a really important but) any statistical analysis is only as good as the data that was collected.

The speed study is being used as “proof” that few boats on the lake are traveling at speeds over 45 mph – so there’s no reason to enact a speed limit. What it actually shows is that on areas of the lake where boat traffic is the highest, there are only a small percentage of boats that are traveling over 50 mph on the busiest times of the highest boat traffic days.

Had the study areas actually represented the average conditions on the lake, on an average day during these 11 weeks, the data collected would have been totally different. And statistical analysis of that data would have given very different results. But then the data may have supported the need for a speed limit - which is why the study was not done correctly.


Yes there is. Even the report is called “RECREATIONAL BOAT SPEED SAMPLING.” A sampling results in raw data that is supposed to accurately represent the overall population/area/time period/condition. Since boats were not recorded over the entire lake, but only in sample areas, the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake. And since the data was collected only during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – the total hours need to be factored in as well. This is what statistical analysis does.

I see the forum sharks are still circling. I'm sooo impressed . . . it takes . . . let's see . . . 5 of you guys (at this point) to debate (or to try to intimidate) just one college girl.


Seriously though? You are still defending your math? I weep for the college graduates of this era. Evanstar you really need to take your head out of the book. There are many forum members who are MUCH smarter and MUCH more educated than you. I know that is difficult for you to comprehend but it is true. Please stop trying to suggest the 1/4 of a million vessels were traveling on the lake in an 11 week period. You are looking sillier and sillier by the day. Notice absolutely nobody on this forum backs up one single claim that you have made.... EVER. Even the staunchest proponents have distanced themselves from you. You have done a wonderful job showing a simple math equation... bravo. The end result is that you are trying to suggest that there were 2,200 violations in an 11 week period. With that (according to percentage) you need to accept that there were 770,000 non offenders. So please I have asked you and I ask again. Do you really think that there were that many craft on the lake during the time frame? Does this need to continue? This is getting silly. Please stop.

[Evenstar]

Seriously though? You are still defending your math? I weep for the college graduates of this era. Evanstar you really need to take your head out of the book. There are many forum members who are MUCH smarter and MUCH more educated than you. I know that is difficult for you to comprehend but it is true. Please stop trying to suggest the 1/4 of a million vessels were traveling on the lake in an 11 week period. You are looking sillier and sillier by the day. Notice absolutely nobody on this forum backs up one single claim that you have made.... EVER. Even the staunchest proponents have distanced themselves from you. You have done a wonderful job showing a simple math equation... bravo. The end result is that you are trying to suggest that there were 2,200 violations in an 11 week period. With that (according to percentage) you need to accept that there were 770,000 non offenders. So please I have asked you and I ask again. Do you really think that there were that many craft on the lake during the time frame? Does this need to continue? This is getting silly. Please stop.
You need to stop judging me and refrain from attacking me for what you think I wrote. Personal attacks are against forum rules! Yet you just continue to insult me whenever you reply. Go back and read my post again. I am done replying to your personal attacks.

[CaptDan]

good spirits level = 0

:argue:

:sleeping:

:idea: --> closed

[Dave R]

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.




If you are going 5 MPH and the motor boat is going 50 MPH, it's only going to pass you once as you both go from one end of the lake to the other. If the motor boat is going 30MPH, or 130 MPH, it still only passes you once. The speed of the boat does not change the number of times you'll encounter it.

[VtSteve]

If you are going 5 MPH and the motor boat is going 50 MPH, it's only going to pass you once as you both go from one end of the lake to the other. If the motor boat is going 30MPH, or 130 MPH, it still only passes you once. The speed of the boat does not change the number of times you'll encounter it.

You're just forgetting the world of extrapolation Dave. :laugh:

Imagine over 700,000 boats passing her continuously, 24/7. It's numbers like those that give us the weather forecasting we have today. Chance of accuracy, about 12.5%

[Mashugana]

I must agree with Ryan.

I have been actively reading this debate for over six months now. I have seen arguements both logical and illogical, factual and opinionated being tossed around by both sides of the speed limit debate. I have seen facts and numbers being manipulated to support each side of the arguement.

I have wanted to chime in many times when I read opinions, lies, and
arguements that do not hold water.

As this debate comes to an end, I just want to say Bravo to Woodsy's last post. It clearly outlines the "fuzzy math" the proponents have been using on this forum, op ed pieces in the local papers and before the house committees.

- No matter how you spin the numbers, at any point in time, there are WAY less than 1% of the boats on the lake exceeding the 'proposed' speed limit (it is not speeding yet)
-Education not regulation
-I love my 150 ft rule - please enforce it!!!!

RJ

It would appear that the Senate would rather have the Marine Patrol concentrate on enforcing the proposed speed limits rather than the current 150 foot law.
:(

[Gilligan]

If this becomes law it starts in 2009, correct? There will be no 45/25 speed limit anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee this season 2008, is that right?

If that's right then this summer will be the last one for statistical data before the 45/25 limits are in place. If there is some anomaly this year and then normal in 2009, they then might claim that the 45/25 law was the reason.

I've heard about people defrauding insurance companies by arranging auto accidents. Is it possible someone could arrange a few boating accidents to help their cause and make a point? :confused:

[Chris Craft]

If this becomes law it starts in 2009, correct? There will be no 45/25 speed limit anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee this season 2008, is that right?

If that's right then this summer will be the last one for statistical data before the 45/25 limits are in place. If there is some anomaly this year and then normal in 2009, they then might claim that the 45/25 law was the reason.

I've heard about people defrauding insurance companies by arranging auto accidents. Is it possible someone could arrange a few boating accidents to help their cause and make a point? :confused:

Would highly doubt that. Plus there is no way they will get a speed boat owner to help them out. Well I should never say never but.... That would be getting into insurance fraud with the claim afterwards and while I think that the Winfabs people tend to lets just call it missinform, I would not think that they are criminal....

Lets just hope that everyone has a very safe and happy summer. My guess is that fuel costs will keep the lake fairly light on the traffic side.

[Lakegeezer]

...and as my previous posts infer, what the speed limit proponents also find distasteful is the premise made by people like you that this "agenda" of concern for their family is so inherently evil and self-serving.Concern for family is honorable. Asking others to restrict their activity for no useful purpose is not. Its the draconian attitudes that is felt to be evil and self-serving.

[VtSteve]

Concern for family is honorable. Asking others to restrict their activity for no useful purpose is not. Its the draconian attitudes that is felt to be evil and self-serving.


Never the pragmatic approach to issues like this. What causes the accidents? How can we reduce them?

Accidents are usually caused by.

1) Drunks
2) Wild driving and inattentiveness
3) No Lights at night
4) Poor visibility
5) Submerged objects
6) Driving too close
7) Large Wakes

[chipj29]

Never the pragmatic approach to issues like this. What causes the accidents? How can we reduce them?

Accidents are usually caused by.

1) Drunks
2) Wild driving and inattentiveness
3) No Lights at night
4) Poor visibility
5) Submerged objects
6) Driving too close
7) Large Wakes
And don't forget #8, mechanical failure.

[Bear Islander]

Never the pragmatic approach to issues like this. What causes the accidents? How can we reduce them?

Accidents are usually caused by.

1) Drunks
2) Wild driving and inattentiveness
3) No Lights at night
4) Poor visibility
5) Submerged objects
6) Driving too close
7) Large Wakes


Is that your personal list? Because the US Coast Guard also has a list.

And you will notice that New Hampshire has boating regulations to cover all of the primary causes except excessive speed.




United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary
...
Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.
...
US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

[Ryan]

Is that your personal list? Because the US Coast Guard also has a list.

And you will notice that New Hampshire has boating regulations to cover all of the primary causes except excessive speed.




United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary
...
Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.
...
US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

Which law covers Passenger/skier behavior? What about No Proper lookout?

With all due respect, these statistics have nothing to do with Winni, nor does the US Coast Guard operate on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Which law covers Passenger/skier behavior? What about No Proper lookout?

With all due respect, these statistics have nothing to do with Winni, nor does the US Coast Guard operate on the lake.

These are National statistics that do include Winnipesaukee. The Marine Patrol reports lake statistics to the Coast Guard.

For "No Proper Lookout" read paragraph 6 here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/littl071.htm

Passenger/skier behavior could be anything, but it comes AFTER excessive speed.

[Ryan]

These are National statistics that do include Winnipesaukee. The Marine Patrol reports lake statistics to the Coast Guard.

For "No Proper Lookout" read paragraph 6 here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/littl071.htm

Passenger/skier behavior could be anything, but it comes AFTER excessive speed.

I've learned a lot about negligence. The law broken was homicide (no link required).

To avoid another circular arguement about which statistics apply to Winni and what is "excessive" speed, we'll just agree to disagree at this point.

[Lakegeezer]

We're missing the Coast Guard's definition of excessive speed. The NH lawmakers have had their take at it, but it would be nice to understand what definition the pros use when they check that box.

I still think it would be interesting to know how many lawmakers have a boater's certificate. There is no doubt that excessive speed is the cause of accidents, but there is signficant doubt that 45/25 is always excessive speed. Sometimes, like at night and in the fog, excessive speed may mean anything over headway. That's why previously existing laws mentioned reasonable and prudent.

[Island Lover]

That's why previously existing laws mentioned reasonable and prudent.



That's just not true.

The anti-speed limit folks have repeated this lie so many times that many well meaning people, like yourself, think its true.

There is no reasonable and prudent speed regulation in New Hampshire. There never has been.

[GusMan]

And when the Governor signs the new speed limit bill...

We *still* won't.

Gusman

[VtSteve]

That's just not true.

The anti-speed limit folks have repeated this lie so many times that many well meaning people, like yourself, think its true.

There is no reasonable and prudent speed regulation in New Hampshire. There never has been.

There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.

But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Chase%3A+Boat+speed+lim its+will+make+summers+on+big+lake+better&articleId=3b029326-689a-4510-9407-789376f5182b

"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?

John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."

Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.

One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2004/12/21/48902.htm)

So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.

[Coastal Laker]

Although you won't be able to hear us, we will be cheering like crazy when you go by.

Live free or die.

Wish I had a chance to visit this thread sooner. This is the first time in long time I've laughed out loud. The visual did it for me. Thanks :laugh:

[flyry49]

There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.

But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Chase%3A+Boat+speed+lim its+will+make+summers+on+big+lake+better&articleId=3b029326-689a-4510-9407-789376f5182b

"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?

John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."

Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.

One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2004/12/21/48902.htm)

So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.{I disagree.} i have investigated this incident pretty well and cant seem to find it saying that speed was the direct link. and another thing, media is BIAS. i have taken a whole class at PSU on how the media is bias so never use or quote a newspaper when your trying to prove a point. all you people hear is "speed boat" killed whoever on the lake and you immediately think the person was speeding and thats why there was an accident. o yeah and by the way that supreme justice that made that comment has never seen this lake nor knows how big it is or how popular it gets. therefor he doesn't have an educated opinion with this matter.

[2Blackdogs]

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.
As one of the longest running threads on this issue, this thread starter's last two sentences above can't be ignored now that I'm catching up on this issue.

Back when HB164 was started, this thread starter also wrote,

The majority of performance boaters are courteous,law abiding proffessional people whom are not to blame.Most of us treat our boats and equipment very seriously.One inexperienced or foolish drunk boater does not mean that we all are like that.

Is this funny or sad?

[pm203]

As one of the longest running threads on this issue, this thread starter's last two sentences above can't be ignored now that I'm catching up on this issue.

Back when HB164 was started, this thread starter also wrote,

Is this funny or sad?It is sad that needless legislation has gone so far based on nothing other than discrimination and fear spread by a small group of people. I have always been super courteous on the water and will always remain so. If speeding in the broads makes me a criminal ,so be it. That is what is sad. But, I bet close to 100% of the members of this forum are criminals as well, by exceeding the posted highway speed limit on the roads .Does that make us all criminals? I will always place safety as my highest priority whether on land or water and will always be one of the lake's most courteous boaters.

[EricP]

I'd say it's frustration at how long this has dragged out and how unnecessary the proposed law really is.

[The Big Kahuna]

The Salem Witch Trials! That worked really well! Jim Crow Laws! Needed those didn't we! The list goes on and on, add the Speed Limit Law to those and you just came full circle of creating laws out of fear of what might happen!

[COWISLAND NH]

Is the 2007 Marine Patrol accident log available to the public? Has anyone been to the WINNFAB website!??....if I'd never boated on Winni it would make boaters that can travel faster then 45mph sound like evil, family hating, nature hating, crazy people. I just can not understand why or how a small group of people who (as they say on their website) are scared of boating in crowds (reason=bc of other boats...:confused:)decide how other people should go boating. Please lets have a contest and see who has better boating skills...I bet 100 to 1 that I'd smoke anyone of the WINNFAB crew. Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro docks and see the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants:emb: AND THEIR SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!:rolleye1:

[Bear Islander]

Is the 2007 Marine Patrol accident log available to the public? Has anyone been to the WINNFAB website!??....if I'd never boated on Winni it would make boaters that can travel faster then 45mph sound like evil, family hating, nature hating, crazy people. I just can not understand why or how a small group of people who (as they say on their website) are scared of boating in crowds (reason=bc of other boats...:confused:)decide how other people should go boating. Please lets have a contest and see who has better boating skills...I bet 100 to 1 that I'd smoke anyone of the WINNFAB crew. Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro docks and see the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants:emb: AND THEIR SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!:rolleye1:


You are about as wrong as you can be. Perhaps you have not considered that people afraid of boats don't live on islands. Or that when you live on an island your boating skills improve rapidly. I take a boat to get the morning paper. Islanders boat in all kinds of weather, including conditions where most boats don't leave the dock.

I'm not sure what your definition of "smoke" is. But if it involves boat handling expertise, I wouldn't bet against WinnFABS. You can be sure that family at the Wolfeboro docks did not come from an island.

Every WinnFABS person I know has at least one boat capable of going well over the proposed limit. So do I.

Sorry if this ruins your stereotyped image.

[Turtle Boy]

Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro(sic)docks and see(sic) the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then(sic) can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR(sic) SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!




I hope your boating skills are better than your spelling skills.

[chipj29]

Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro(sic)docks and see(sic) the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then(sic) can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR(sic) SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!




I hope your boating skills are better than your spelling skills.

Who gave you the spell checking responsibilities? :emb: :rolleye2:

[flyry49]

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

[VtSteve]

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

It's pretty simple really, "They" want to see the GFBL boaters go away. It really is that simple, in spite of their continued lies about the reasoning.

[Turtle Boy]

lies about the reasoning. ????? VtSteve....lies about reasoning by speed limit proponents?


The premise that the GFBL's don't need speed limits because they can be trusted to do what is "reasonable and prudent" ?
Remember your high school Latin...res ipsa loquitur...the thing speaks for itself. Now the very visible spokesperson for the GFBL crowd appears to have done something very much less than reasonable and prudent resulting in a passenger's death. The other passenger states they were drinking at the Wolftrap. Formula boat planing at 02:30 in dark foggy conditions. " Hey, we don't need no limits".

Lies about reasoning huh?

[2Blackdogs]

It's pretty simple really, "They" want to see the GFBL boaters go away. It really is that simple, in spite of their continued lies about the reasoning.

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

[chipj29]

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

Yawn. Spare me.

[SIKSUKR]

Oh I see.2Bd and TB have already figured out that speed greater than 25 mph was the factor in the Diamond Island crash.And they are here to tell you that this accident would not have happened if there was a speed limit.Do you guys really believe the crap you spew here?

[Bear Islander]

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

First, you are assuming a speed limit is only about safety. I support the speed limit but safety is not my first concern. Children's camps on the lake have had to curtail their boating at times do to the confusion and congestion on the lake. Talk to any camp director about the situation on the lake and will get a totally different take on the problem. The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports HB847. That is good enough for me.

Winnipesaukee is one of the few lakes in the area that do not already have restrictions. As time passes more and more high performance boats will be forced to the fewer and fewer lakes that allow unrestricted speed. I do not want this lake to be "the destination" for high performance boats.

The growing tendency toward bigger, faster and more horsepower is increasing pollution on the lake. The water quality, particularly in our bays, is dropping. We need to move toward less horsepower, less wake, less speed, less pollution. Winnipesaukee is a community drinking water supply.

Tourism has been negatively effected. Local businesses complain that the situation on the lake is keeping away families. Kayakers and other small boaters complain they have been forced off the lake by congestion and high speed. Several large marinas on the lake support speed limits as well. They make their living by selling and servicing boats, when they tell you there is a problem it's time to listen.

As to safety, and your question. You admit there is a problem in certain places at certain times. It would be difficult to have a speed limit that was only on weekends or in some parts of the lake. However I would support a reasonable compromise along those lines.

There was a lot of talk about an exception for the broads, but the opposition took a "no limits" attitude so a compromise solution was not possible.

[brk-lnt]

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.


I'm not in favor of the speed limit bill, but I want to address your comment above. I would argue that a poorly articulated, poorly written comment never "stands strong".

When all you have is the written word to convey your competence and convince people to believe in you, it is somewhat important to present an educated and supportable appearance.

[VtSteve]

????? VtSteve....lies about reasoning by speed limit proponents?


The premise that the GFBL's don't need speed limits because they can be trusted to do what is "reasonable and prudent" ?
Remember your high school Latin...res ipsa loquitur...the thing speaks for itself. Now the very visible spokesperson for the GFBL crowd appears to have done something very much less than reasonable and prudent resulting in a passenger's death. The other passenger states they were drinking at the Wolftrap. Formula boat planing at 02:30 in dark foggy conditions. " Hey, we don't need no limits".

Lies about reasoning huh?

There have been two separate and distinct arguments on these threads, one for the GFBL focus and the others focused on safe boating in general. I understand some people's gpointing out in the irony of the tragedy that occured this month, but in reality, nothing that's been reported thus far makes your case for anything. I refuse to engage in speculation because anything could change in the next week or so. No sense making painful specualtion. I know you think drinking and boat accidents make a case for speed limits, and I generally have no idea how you get there except as an act of desperation. Your comment about "Formula boat planing at 02:30 in dark foggy conditions. " Hey, we don't need no limits", makes little sense. Passing a speed limit law would have changed what exactly in this case? If it was a 20' Bayliner what would have changed exactly?


"Reasonable and Prudent" is always what most of us hope for. If my boating experience of more than 40 years counts for anything, I would arrest all the drunks, ban PWC's, wakeboard boats, vessels trolling across channels widthways, and all cruisers making a wake I don't approve of. But alas, this will not happen. As much as we'd all like to see human behavior change so that we're all safe and happy, there is no magic wand. Boaters can help by calling in and reporting problems, especially repeated violations from the same people. Without the public's support, it's highly unlikely things will change.

I'd also like to add this. Between you and the other hack here. Continually pointing out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held, put you in the category of pond scum IMO. I know very well what your responses would be had a pontoon boat out partying late at night in the same circumstances would have been, and so do you. It's human nature for some folks to get so caught up in their crusading causes, just or not, to lose sight of the big picture.

Try to reflect upon what it is you're motivated in here. I'm primarily interested in boating safety, accident causes, and generally enjoyment of boating. I have no desire, nor the budget to go 100mph in a boat, not my thing. I'm also not into late night binge drinking on boats, and am scared as heck of those people, whether they are in a kayak or a 50' Outer Limits. The circumstances revealed thus far in this case have started to paint a picture, both of the events surrounding the accident, and of the posters on this forum.

I can honestly say that I have a great deal more respect for many on this forum now than when we were fiercely debating the SL topic. Congrats to the many that have shown the respect and humanity that has made boating such a great way of life for many. Regardless of differences, we share far more in common than we have differences. Some others have simply lost sight of the primary issues, and hopefully at one point, we can all become part of the solutions, or at least do our little part in reducing the problems.

[VtSteve]

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others. I didn't care what kind of boat it was that ran up on an island this year on Lake George, but what caused it. Same old things. I don't remember what year it was, many, many years ago, a boat in Merideth Bay ran aground and hit a house well onshore. The driver was drunk.

Something tells me drunks don't pay attention to speed limits, or much anything else for that matter.

[parrothead]

There is a lot of concern of what might happen. The concerns voiced can happen, but aren't very likely. I am concerned that my house may get hit by lightening, but I know it "most" likely won't happen. There are far more likely things that will happen to you while at the lake than these. And the concerns that have been voiced could still happen after a speed limit is enacted.

As I stated before I understand the point of view of both sides of the speed limit debate. I hold no stake in either side, because our boat runs at around 30mph, and we don't go out after dark. But I still don't think a speed limit is going to provide the dividends that WINNFABs hopes for. I still fervently believe that the main "problem" that affects the lake is congestion. And ignorance of the current laws. Will the trailered in GF boater not go to the lake, probably? Will a family decide to trailer their boat to the "New and Improved" Winnipesaukee, maybe? But the boater that owns a house and a boat on the lake is not going to move just because of the speed limit. So I don't think that the congestion is going to get better because of this speed limit. Hopefully the fact that everyone needs a boating certificate this year will help with the ignorance issue.

As for the accident that just occurred and the accident in VT. A drunk boater is not going to care about a speed limit. Not saying that Erica was drunk, because I don' know. The pro-speed limit crowd just keeps fixating on the speed of the boat. But it is not as cut and dry, and other factors contributed to this accident. And some of those factors are more likely the cause of the accident than the rate of speed. And when the investigation is complete we will find out the contributing factors in the Diamond Island accident. Speed may be one of the factors, but it may or may not be the cause.

BI, I commend your support of Summer Camps. Some of my fondest memories are of the times that I spend on the lake at camp. But congestion is the reason for curtailed boating by camps. I still don't think that the speed limit is going to change the number of boats on the lake. They will be going slower, but still there none the less. And due to congestion, the camps will still limit the boating programs to when the lake is less busy. Just my opinion, and I know you disagree. I just don't think that slower speeds are going to scare away enough boats to make a difference.

So I still don't think that this proposed law is going make a difference in the long run. Enforcement would make a difference, but we all know that isn't going to happen. So it is up to the operators to "police" their actions, which hasn't always worked. The current laws are "self policed" due to not enough LEOs around. BWI, 150' violations, NWZ infractions, as well as others happen all the time. Why would the speed limit be different? Just my two cents.

[Turtle Boy]

VtSteve: "Continually pointing out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held, put you in the category of pond scum IMO".

I have never pointed out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held....only the driver. The driver in this case was an outspoken critic of any one who wanted in any way to interfere with her fun and freedom. Then factor in a family's multi-million dollar stake in said scenario.
Now present her as the champion of all the "little people who just want to enjoy their boats who are being made unwelcome by those mean,rich, lakefront property owners".
Everyone can feel for the victims and the driver. It's a tragic situation especially for the Beaudoin and Blizzard families. No one questions that.
As far as the pond scum statement...oh no please take it back. Seriously though it comes across badly by a minority of posters like yourself who make the driver and her family a forbidden topic on a forum like this such that dissenting opinion might be stifled. It's kind of like a kid who is hiding behind his mother's skirt only to pop his head out from behind now and then and stick out his tongue. When someone sticks theirs out at the kid, he yells "Mommy, he just hurt my feelings". Well I'm not one to bring in the web master because you violated forum rules by posting personal insults, but I do want to point out to you that your aggressive if not intimidating replies with phrases like "you ought to shut your mouth" and the above one seriously diminish any intellectual impact you hope to put forth. As far as the later comment that speed limits don't slow down drunks...talk to any police officer who has pulled over a drunk. Often these people are going less than the speed limit...these guys don't want to call attention to themselves and risk a DUI. Are you proposing that we remove all speed limits from our highways because drunks don't obey them? Call me crazy but if I have to get sideswiped by a drunk, I think my chances of survival are better if it's a 30 MPH drunk than a 60 MPH drunk.
Anyway...I hope in your inevitable reply that you're able to tone it down a notch...for your sake and the sake of your argument.....TB

[codeman671]

Are you proposing that we remove all speed limits from our highways because drunks don't obey them? Call me crazy but if I have to get sideswiped by a drunk, I think my chances of survival are better if it's a 30 MPH drunk than a 60 MPH drunk.
Anyway...I hope in your inevitable reply that you're able to tone it down a notch...for your sake and the sake of your argument.....TB

TB- The problem is that with or without a speed limit, a drunk is still a drunk. They are breaking the law (a much more serious charge than a few points on a license and a small fine) in the first place so why do you think that a speed limit will control them?

Yes, some drunks slow down as not to be noticed. These are probably the slightly innebriated whereas the more liquored up are a bit more brazen, bold and are more likely to show off behind the wheel of a boat.

A speed limit won't prevent drunks from doing what they do, which is drive drunk. It is the consequences of the drinking, not the speed that are the root of the problem.

[Dave R]

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

This topic has been debated for years on this forum. Read some of the older threads and you will have a better understanding of why some people want a limit and some people don't.

The only good argument for a speed limit, thus far, has been from Bear Islander. He pointed out that boats that are driven from the lake, can't have accidents here. It's valid... Terrible reason to pass a law, but it's a valid point.

[Dave R]

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

You do realize that the boat that was in the accident is not a GFBL, right? It's just a big, quiet, family, day-boat with limited overnight accomodations, a head, and a galley, that barely exceeds the 45 MPH day limit. The speed limit will do absolutely nothing to drive boats like that from the lake. It ENCOURAGES them.

When you consider the boat was a 2008 model and the season is still young, I bet that boat was not used for many weekends at all.

If you feel threatened by boats, living on an island is really a bad idea.

[VtSteve]

VtSteve: "Continually pointing out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held, put you in the category of pond scum IMO".

I have never pointed out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held....only the driver. The driver in this case was an outspoken critic of any one who wanted in any way to interfere with her fun and freedom. Then factor in a family's multi-million dollar stake in said scenario.
Now present her as the champion of all the "little people who just want to enjoy their boats who are being made unwelcome by those mean,rich, lakefront property owners".
Everyone can feel for the victims and the driver. It's a tragic situation especially for the Beaudoin and Blizzard families. No one questions that.
As far as the pond scum statement...oh no please take it back. Seriously though it comes across badly by a minority of posters like yourself who make the driver and her family a forbidden topic on a forum like this such that dissenting opinion might be stifled. It's kind of like a kid who is hiding behind his mother's skirt only to pop his head out from behind now and then and stick out his tongue. When someone sticks theirs out at the kid, he yells "Mommy, he just hurt my feelings". Well I'm not one to bring in the web master because you violated forum rules by posting personal insults, but I do want to point out to you that your aggressive if not intimidating replies with phrases like "you ought to shut your mouth" and the above one seriously diminish any intellectual impact you hope to put forth. As far as the later comment that speed limits don't slow down drunks...talk to any police officer who has pulled over a drunk. Often these people are going less than the speed limit...these guys don't want to call attention to themselves and risk a DUI. Are you proposing that we remove all speed limits from our highways because drunks don't obey them? Call me crazy but if I have to get sideswiped by a drunk, I think my chances of survival are better if it's a 30 MPH drunk than a 60 MPH drunk.
Anyway...I hope in your inevitable reply that you're able to tone it down a notch...for your sake and the sake of your argument.....TB

In my mind, anyone involved in an accident and injured, is a victim. You think your positions are bolstered by the linking the driver with her positions that you don't agree with. I would agree if the problems on the lake had anything to do with those positions, IMO, they do not. But your positions have to be continually massaged and tweaked to make up for the lack of relevance.

My positions are only changed if there is supportive evidence that shows my thinking is wrong. If there are accidents galore at high speeds, and the vast majority are a particular group or boat class, I'd have no alternative but to include the facts in my decision making. You and BD take a different route altogether. Accidents involving PWC's or smaller runabouts are ignored, drinking is only beaten to death if the accident involved a GFBL boater. They are the Party Hearty crowd, nobody else is. I have witnessed a far higher percentage of the Party Hearty crowd amongst smaller bowriders and such than the GFBL crowd. And as Dave R so aptly put, the recent accident did not involve a GFBL boat. More aptly defined as an express cruiser. If it was someone from Bear that was in a 32' Carver, we wouldn't be having this type of discussion.

Between you and BD, your continued distortion of the facts in many cases, re-defining of terms, and obvious disgust in devoting your sole attention to a specific group leaves you two with no useful positions. It's similar in many respects to people that don't like loud motorcycles. Their tone builds to a feverish pitch, such that any and all facts outside of their limited field of visions distorts reality to a degree of uselessness.

You and I both know that the public stands and position of the driver involved made it irresistible for you two not to comment in such an I Told You So manner. I'm sure you have even hoped that the facts would be the boat was doing 70 when the accident took place. That's bitter for sure, and it seems to fit given the posts on this board. You've tried to portray a milder form of bias and at least make it Appear that you want civility and thoughtful discussion. My view is that you're just more politically-minded than BD is, who is more to the point with his prejudiced view.

But since you just can't bear to look at this accident for whatever it is, without referencing political positions held, I just can't offer any opinion of you two other than what I've posted. It's certainly not based on your SL views, I have a lot of respect for others that share your view of that particular issue. Some close to the family had requested that personal issues be off limits for now. The point was well taken by most posters here. It does not add to the discussion, is not particularly germane to the accident at hand, and is mean and spiteful to those suffering from this tragedy. My personal references to both you and BD on this board, reflect my assessment of your posts here, some of which are mean and vindictive, and reveal your characters most of all. They show no humanity, no respect, and most of all, point out that your agenda on a particular issue is far more important to you two than anyone or anything.

Maybe others on this board can point out to me that I'm way off base, and should do dome soul-searching to find my way. But for now, my characterization of you two remains as stated.

[flyry49]

First, you are assuming a speed limit is only about safety. I support the speed limit but safety is not my first concern. Children's camps on the lake have had to curtail their boating at times do to the confusion and congestion on the lake. Talk to any camp director about the situation on the lake and will get a totally different take on the problem. The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports HB847. That is good enough for me.

Winnipesaukee is one of the few lakes in the area that do not already have restrictions. As time passes more and more high performance boats will be forced to the fewer and fewer lakes that allow unrestricted speed. I do not want this lake to be "the destination" for high performance boats.

The growing tendency toward bigger, faster and more horsepower is increasing pollution on the lake. The water quality, particularly in our bays, is dropping. We need to move toward less horsepower, less wake, less speed, less pollution. Winnipesaukee is a community drinking water supply.

Tourism has been negatively effected. Local businesses complain that the situation on the lake is keeping away families. Kayakers and other small boaters complain they have been forced off the lake by congestion and high speed. Several large marinas on the lake support speed limits as well. They make their living by selling and servicing boats, when they tell you there is a problem it's time to listen.

As to safety, and your question. You admit there is a problem in certain places at certain times. It would be difficult to have a speed limit that was only on weekends or in some parts of the lake. However I would support a reasonable compromise along those lines.

There was a lot of talk about an exception for the broads, but the opposition took a "no limits" attitude so a compromise solution was not possible.



my biggest disagreement is when your trying to argue that businesses around the area are hurting because of performance boats, the only type i can think of that may be hurting are those who focus sales on kayaks and paddle boats... what your missing is the majority of businesses that benefit from performance boats, remember these people are the people with money and they come up from all over and spend it here. and when i say performance boaters I'm talking about boats capable of going over 45 mph. i myself have a 20 foot 1979 slicraft than can hit 50 mph. so there are PLENTY of boats on the lake that will be affected by this and not in a good way

another disagreement i have is when you say several large marinas are in favor of this bill. I do know a couple that possibly are but the majority of their business is cabin cruisers that just plow through the water and wont be affected by this. i have worked at a marina for 5 years we store over 400 boats and i can tell you right now maybe 10-15 of them cant do over 45 mph I have talked to many customers about this bill and more than half tell me they will take their business elsewhere if this bill passes, big loss in revenue for the state.

when you talk about the camp directors yes you are talking about safety because that is "what your telling me" they're reason to stay off the lake

my last concern is about pollution. these "performance" boats don't run wide open all day long, in fact well less than half the time. gas is so expensive now most people cant afford to. i was at the gas dock for 3 years and i can tell you right now cabin cruisers go through way more gas than "performance" boats

If there haven't been any speed linked accidents during the day on the lake why is there a threat posed? are they speeding too close to you, is the 150 foot rule not far enough?

[2Blackdogs]

You do realize that the boat that was in the accident is not a GFBL, right? It's just a big, quiet, family, day-boat with limited overnight accommodations, a head, and a galley, that barely exceeds the 45 MPH day limit. The speed limit will do absolutely nothing to drive boats like that from the lake. It ENCOURAGES them.

When you consider the boat was a 2008 model and the season is still young, I bet that boat was not used for many weekends at all.

If you feel threatened by boats, living on an island is really a bad idea.

It might come as a surprise to you, but Google the attempts to exceed 61mph in this Formula.

Or read this test result of an equivalent Formula 37,
On a 94-degree day, the boat reached 58 mph at 5,100 rpm on GPS. Our lead test driver thought the boat with Mercury Bravo Threes may have been a little underpropped and with the right set could have topped 60 mph. Formula likely picked props that were best for overall performance and not just for top speed.
This is so typical of Formula and other GFBLs to look for that extra 3 mph, when it is so unnecessary to push something so big on this lake.

Or worse yet for us boaters on Winni,

"It has manners like a smaller boat but it's like driving a condo around,"

The larger and more comfortable a boat, the more insulated you are from this lakes many igneous realities. (See the "condo" reference.)

Encourages?

Yes, we will probably see more GFBLs this year. With the possible exception of member Cal, they are accustomed to trading gasoline for thrills. Some will want to rub our noses in the new law by showboating their skills at the excess speeds allowed this season.

Now go ask someone living on your state's Long Lake if they feel threatened.

Expect residents on Long Lake's shores to disagree with that "bad idea". You don't even have to go to an islander to ask.

Neither you or VtSteve live on Winni. Do you hide personal concerns that Winni's worst offenders might trailer to your own states' waters to ruin your concept of paradise?

VtSteve writes,
That's what bothers me the most. Such a transparent agenda was masked by safety. A cowardly fight against a group of people.
As long as A.I.S. is used to excuse bad boaters, we can never know the benefits to boating safety this new law could provide.

VtSteve also wrote,
I'm sure you have even hoped that the facts would be the boat was doing 70 when the accident took place. That's bitter for sure, and it seems to fit given the posts on this board.
That is a totally unfair accusation, when my own opinion of terminal speed is 30. You are accusing many New Hampshire members with the remark, "some will hope for 70."

I'm starting to feel like Evenstar. :(

[VtSteve]

Hmmm, 30 ey? I was out last night, a beautiful night for a change. A pontoon boat, a small bowrider, wandering around the bay, no lights. Two other boats heading for me, but slightly off to port, stated to head directly towards me as though I was their waypoint :eek:

There were several GFBL boats out and about last night, as well as quite a few cruisers. Except for the cruiser wakes, no issues at all. Kind of a typical scene over here, and from the various boards I'm on, many other places. There are those that simply not mature enough to handle any boat, and those that do stupid things in GFBL boats.

I drove last night according to conditions. It was bright enough, calm enough, beautiful. On an otherwise perfect night, I went between 10mph and 20mph due to captain bonehead issues. Take your GFBL bias and try to relate to something useful. Your comments on a Formula 37 are immature, irrelevant, and take place when there are many dangerous 25mph boaters endangering the public.

Obviously a personal issue for you, and you even take offense at the suggestion that AIS be used to point out accident issues. If your own opinion is the boat was going 30, what does that mean in your world? You hate them more for having money and piloting a 37' boat? 60mph is neither a GF or a BL boat generally. I doubt many would want a 37' express type cruiser making loud exhaust noise.

Occasionally, your real opinions come out, and they revel you really have nothing to pick on but those type of boats. Now we have to ban Cobalt bowriders in NY due to their driving up on the mainland, and breaking the speed limit and distance limits as well. Guess what? AIS again. Perhaps we could get the drunks to only have boats you like, and limit them to 10mph. That wouldn't have aided me last night, they still would aim for me and have no lights on.

Yes, I did radio them in.

[Bear Islander]

my biggest disagreement is when your trying to argue that businesses around the area are hurting because of performance boats, the only type i can think of that may be hurting are those who focus sales on kayaks and paddle boats... what your missing is the majority of businesses that benefit from performance boats, remember these people are the people with money and they come up from all over and spend it here. and when i say performance boaters I'm talking about boats capable of going over 45 mph. i myself have a 20 foot 1979 slicraft than can hit 50 mph. so there are PLENTY of boats on the lake that will be affected by this and not in a good way

another disagreement i have is when you say several large marinas are in favor of this bill. I do know a couple that possibly are but the majority of their business is cabin cruisers that just plow through the water and wont be affected by this. i have worked at a marina for 5 years we store over 400 boats and i can tell you right now maybe 10-15 of them cant do over 45 mph I have talked to many customers about this bill and more than half tell me they will take their business elsewhere if this bill passes, big loss in revenue for the state.

when you talk about the camp directors yes you are talking about safety because that is "what your telling me" they're reason to stay off the lake

my last concern is about pollution. these "performance" boats don't run wide open all day long, in fact well less than half the time. gas is so expensive now most people cant afford to. i was at the gas dock for 3 years and i can tell you right now cabin cruisers go through way more gas than "performance" boats

If there haven't been any speed linked accidents during the day on the lake why is there a threat posed? are they speeding too close to you, is the 150 foot rule not far enough?

I was answering your original question as to why people want a daytime speed limit. I gave you the answer to your question. You may not find them valid, however we do have reasons and data.

There have been many daytime accidents involving speed. Don't believe the opposition rhetoric. They only want to count boat to boat accidents, in daytime, at speeds PROVEN to be over 45 mph and that do not involve alcohol. The problem is very few accidents have a specific speed attributed to them by the Marine Patrol. Without a number over 45, once again, an accident just doesn't count in their opinion.

The list of HB847 supporters is not just kayak and canoe dealers. Some of the largest hotels and restaurants and tourist businesses are on the list.

And the list also contains marinas that deal in "regular boats" like Trexlers. Smart businesses realize there is a lot more money coming in from families than from the performance boat crowd. When families are afraid to go out on the water, the lake economy is in serious trouble.

I don't understand how you can discount the complaints of the local children's camps so easily. It makes me think you original question was not really a question, and you are against speed limits no matter who gets hurt.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
There have been many daytime accidents involving speed. Don't believe the opposition rhetoric. They only want to count boat to boat accidents, in daytime, at speeds PROVEN to be over 45 mph and that do not involve alcohol. The problem is very few accidents have a specific speed attributed to them by the Marine Patrol. Without a number over 45, once again, an accident just doesn't count in their opinion.
You keep posting that fallacy and continue to refuse to back it up. When I compared the article you posted from a business magazine claiming NH was not a safe place to boat because of all the reported accidents in 2006, I presented the stats from the Marine Patrol, offered by Woodsy, from the same year as quoted in the article 2006 and I even broke them down for you but you certainly can do that for yourself. There was a single accident involving a craft above 45mph on Lake Winnipesaukee and it involved a PWC not a High Performance boat and did not involve any other vessel.

So I ask you again, what daytime accidents involving speed are you talking about?

One of your supporters claimed to have found 47 speed related accidents in the NH 2006 stats and when I asked her to identify them (the information is even on a spreadsheet so she could have just made not of the number) and we are still waiting.

The fear mongering continues.
Originally posted by Bear Islander
I don't understand how you can discount the complaints of the local children's camps so easily. It makes me think you original question was not really a question, and you are against speed limits no matter who gets hurt.
Even according to your own words, speeding boats is not the problem near children's camps...
Your response to flyry49
Children's camps on the lake have had to curtail their boating at times do to the confusion and congestion on the lake
So the problem is congestion and "confusion" :confused:...that would be violation of the safe passage rule, not something the HB847 will address. As a matter of fact HB847 will make things worse since enforcement will require diverting crews to radar patrols leaving fewer to enforce things like "safe passage"!

[Skip]

...that would be violation of the safe passage rule, not something the HB847 will address... As a matter of fact HB847 will make things worse since enforcement will require diverting crews to radar patrols leaving fewer to enforce things like "safe passage"!...


Two points:

HB 847 indeed will address "safe passage" (RSA 270-D:2 VI (a) 6) and a host of other general operating guidelines by making a conviction for those offenses reportable to the NHDMV, not only on Winni but for the temporary two years any public water body.

Secondly, at no time has the Director or any official spokesperson for Safety claimed that enforcement of this temporary section will result in diverting crews. There are a number of times that the oft suggested two officers are routinely manning a craft and they can easily incorporate occasional radar pickets into their routine patrol. Additionally, the addition of radar will authorize the NHMP to apply for and implement "radar grants" which will allow them the opportunity to employ additional patrols while not requiring an increase in their original budget.

Land based law enforcement officers have made radar a regular part of their daily routine. The NHMP will easily be able to incorporate the same principles.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Skip
HB 847 indeed will address "safe passage" (RSA 270-D:2 VI (a) 6) and a host of other general operating guidelines by making a conviction for those offenses reportable to the NHDMV, not only on Winni but for the temporary two years any public water body.
How is making a conviction for violationg HB 847 reportable to the RMV and tied to your drivers license remotely connected to the safe passage law?
Originally posted by SKIP
Secondly, at no time has the Director or any official spokesperson for Safety claimed that enforcement of this temporary section will result in diverting crews. There are a number of times that the oft suggested two officers are routinely manning a craft and they can easily incorporate occasional radar pickets into their routine patrol. Additionally, the addition of radar will authorize the NHMP to apply for and implement "radar grants" which will allow them the opportunity to employ additional patrols while not requiring an increase in their original budget.

Land based law enforcement officers have made radar a regular part of their daily routine. The NHMP will easily be able to incorporate the same principles.
And no public official will ever say publically that they have to divert crews, but there is no additional funding under HB 847 so in order to enforce it, and they will enforce it especially the first summer because of the hot button political issue that it has become, it will require crews to be certified and deployed (diverted). I have never been a public employee so I can only use as an example what would happen to my business if I were forced to expand a service with existing personnel and no additional funding source. You have to prioritize and for 2009 radar posts will be the political priority.

As you know many of the Marine Patrol officers utilized during the summer are seasonal employees. I seriously doubt that the Marine Patrol will send seasonal employees through the training necessary to earn the certification needed to use radar that can be presented in court. I could be wrong about that but it would seem to me that permanent officers would be the ones they would certify.

The NHMP could apply for radar grants, but wouldn't they have to show a need and the ability to use the additional equipment? Again I doubt that seasonal officers would be a plus when applying for a grant like this since they are unlikely to be certified in the use of radar.

Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees.

[Bear Islander]

You keep posting that fallacy and continue to refuse to back it up. When I compared the article you posted from a business magazine claiming NH was not a safe place to boat because of all the reported accidents in 2006, I presented the stats from the Marine Patrol, offered by Woodsy, from the same year as quoted in the article 2006 and I even broke them down for you but you certainly can do that for yourself. There was a single accident involving a craft above 45mph on Lake Winnipesaukee and it involved a PWC not a High Performance boat and did not involve any other vessel.

So I ask you again, what daytime accidents involving speed are you talking about?

One of your supporters claimed to have found 47 speed related accidents in the NH 2006 stats and when I asked her to identify them (the information is even on a spreadsheet so she could have just made not of the number) and we are still waiting.

The fear mongering continues.

Even according to your own words, speeding boats is not the problem near children's camps...

So the problem is congestion and "confusion" :confused:...that would be violation of the safe passage rule, not something the HB847 will address. As a matter of fact HB847 will make things worse since enforcement will require diverting crews to radar patrols leaving fewer to enforce things like "safe passage"!

Lake Winnipesaukee is not a special case. It has no magic spell that protects its boaters from accidents. There is no reason to limit statistics to one small statistical inverse.

The opposition keeps making this insane "no accidents" claim yet we have three deaths in 6 years. Two deaths in the last 12 months. Wake up and smell the coffee.

In the statistics you mention, how many accidents have specific speed, by number, as part of the data?

[Skip]

...How is making a conviction for violationg HB 847 reportable to the RMV and tied to your drivers license remotely connected to the safe passage law?...

Easy question, easy answer.

But first, you cannot be convicted of "violating HB 847". HB 847 was a bill designed to temporarily ammend RSA 270-D:2. Part of that ammendment is that during the two year trial period, any violation and conviction of any subsection of RSA 270-D:2 on any public waterway results in automatic notification to NHDMV. Since the so called "safe passage" rules are a subsecetion of RSA 270-D:2 then any conviction for "safe passage" violations will become part of your driver's record. This is a new temporary feature designed to serve as an added deterrence. That's a definite and direct tie.

...And no public official will ever say publically that they have to divert crews, but there is no additional funding under HB 847 so in order to enforce it, and they will enforce it especially the first summer because of the hot button political issue that it has become, it will require crews to be certified and deployed (diverted). I have never been a public employee so I can only use as an example what would happen to my business if I were forced to expand a service with existing personnel and no additional funding source. You have to prioritize and for 2009 radar posts will be the political priority...

So you have no evidence of this oft repeated claim. So is it fair that you continually badger the opposition for direct evidence of their claims????

...As you know many of the Marine Patrol officers utilized during the summer are seasonal employees. I seriously doubt that the Marine Patrol will send seasonal employees through the training necessary to earn the certification needed to use radar that can be presented in court. I could be wrong about that but it would seem to me that permanent officers would be the ones they would certify...

Once again, conjecture with no basis for statement other than uninformed opinion.

There are two classifications of NHMP officer, full time & part time. Under NH Law there is absolutely no legal distinction in law enforcement capabilities or authority between the two classifications other than retirement and hours worked classifications. While some part time NHMP officers are indeed "summer seasonal" looking to start a law enforcement career, a number of others are retired full time officers with years of experience. Additionally, only one officer needs to have certification, the officer signing the ticket. A two man team could easily consist of a spotter that requires no certification, and the issuing officer. And surprise, surprise. Even amongst the ranks of fulltime land based officers, many are not radar certified and do not operate radar units, or only specific types. During the two year trial period there will be some boats with a radar unit & certified officer, and many boats with neither. It will all be rolled into their daily routine.

...The NHMP could apply for radar grants, but wouldn't they have to show a need and the ability to use the additional equipment? Again I doubt that seasonal officers would be a plus when applying for a grant like this since they are unlikely to be certified in the use of radar...

How familiar are you with New Hampshire? We only have a handful of cities and large towns, mostly in central and southern areas. The vast majority of the State and its police departments are small, rural in nature and mostly comprised of part time chiefs & officers. Yet these departments with their part time employees successfully employ radar and radar grants, intoxilizer (breathalyzer) and DWI grants and a host of other training and supplemental funding opportunities. The NHMP will be no different.

...Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees.

Completely incorrect. The majority of law enforcement officers in this State are part time. See my preceding paragraph.

Its simple. As I stated before, if you are going to demand that Bear Islander and his supporters provide proof of their positions, it is only fair of you to offer the same. And quite frankly you've waded way out past the swim line with your positions in reference to the above cited matters. ;)

Hope this clears things up for some...as always, feel free to PM me if you have any additional questions!

Safe boating, :)

Skip

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Lake Winnipesaukee is not a special case. It has no magic spell that protects its boaters from accidents. There is no reason to limit statistics to one small statistical inverse.
The new law applies only to Lake Winnipesaukee, so review the data where the law is being implemented and you have nothing to stand on except fear mongering.

Originally posted by Bear Islander
The opposition keeps making this insane "no accidents" claim yet we have three deaths in 6 years. Two deaths in the last 12 months. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Them's pretty good odds, and none have been linked to speed although the latest is still an open investigation
Originally posted by Bear Islander
In the statistics you mention, how many accidents have specific speed, by number, as part of the data?
All of them, you didn't bother to look?
Originally posted by Skip
But first, you cannot be convicted of "violating HB 847". HB 847 was a bill designed to temporarily ammend RSA 270-D:2. Part of that ammendment is that during the two year trial period, any violation and conviction of any subsection of RSA 270-D:2 on any public waterway results in automatic notification to NHDMV. Since the so called "safe passage" rules are a subsecetion of RSA 270-D:2 then any conviction for "safe passage" violations will become part of your driver's record. This is a new temporary feature designed to serve as an added deterrence. That's a definite and direct tie.
That is a stretch...linking a boating violation to your drivers license won't have any impact on Capt Bonehead violating the 150' rule. First off they have to be caught something that even now is a problem.
Originally posted by Skip
So you have no evidence of this oft repeated claim. So is it fair that you continually badger the opposition for direct evidence of their claims????
Are you seriously trying to make us believe that with no additional funding but the political pressure to enforce the law that crews will magically appear to save the day? No, the proof that I have is experience in the private sector in which similar mandates without funding or personnel increases have resulted in changing priorities. Priorities are priorities. It's not rocket science. As for putting any stock in the fact that no administrator has said there will be a diversion of crews. No administrator is going to commit professional suicide by doing that, so I wouldn't put any stock in the fact that no one has said the law will required diverting crews.
Originally posted by Skip
There are two classifications of NHMP officer, full time & part time. Under NH Law there is absolutely no legal distinction in law enforcement capabilities or authority between the two classifications other than retirement and hours worked classifications. While some part time NHMP officers are indeed "summer seasonal" looking to start a law enforcement career, a number of others are retired full time officers with years of experience. Additionally, only one officer needs to have certification, the officer signing the ticket.
The "classification" may be part time, or even fulltime parttime, the fact is that the Marine Patrol would be hard pressed to explain why a seasonal employee was put through the certification process for a few months work, then he/she moves on. Maybe they'll be back, maybe not. If it were me allocating limited resources it would be for full time permanent officers.
Originally posted by Skip
Completely incorrect. The majority of law enforcement officers in this State are part time. See my preceding paragraph.

Its simple. As I stated before, if you are going to demand that Bear Islander and his supporters provide proof of their positions, it is only fair of you to offer the same. And quite frankly you've waded way out past the swim line with your positions in reference to the above cited matters.
Actually I wrote that..." Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees".
Note that I pointed out that land based LEOs using radar are NOT seasonal employees...am I wrong?

Maybe I have waded past the swim line, it's how we learn :look:

The difference between my speculating on the future and Bear Islander's refusal to back up his claims using existing statistics, is that no one knows exactly what the future will hold. All I can do is speculate based on my past life experiences while for the most part BI and crew have ignored existing statistics in making their claims.

[Skip]

As most of the regular readers here have already figured out, I have several decades of direct, not speculative experience in this particular discussion. I can assure you that you have it, well let me put this politely...pretty well wrong.

I have gone through the radar certification process. I have been certified as a intoxilizer operator. I have worked shoulder to shoulder with countless full & part time officers across the state, both on the street and in the class room.

In your defense I find many of your opinions, while incorrect, fairly common out in the public. Too many folks get the wrong idea about law enforcement based on movies, television, gossip and most importantly incorrect information portrayed by the media.

It was (and still is) painful for me to read some of the atrocious beliefs & points being made (and still made) about radar training and employment, general points of law, the NHMP in particular and law enforcement in general. But then I usually sit back and realize that the same wrong things are repeatedly being said by the same half dozen posters and am content in knowing that a large number of our regular posters avoid these threads like the plague.

Why?

Because they are reasonable people that truly enjoy the Lake and conversations surrounding the same. They realize that Government and law enforcement are not perfect, but by and large it is made up of good people struggling every day to do the right thing. Most of them would rather waive to the NHMP rather than look for a reason to get into an argument with an officer. They know that probably some day somewhere, one of those officers, regardless if he's a thirty year grizzled veteran or a twenty something rookie on his first day, will risk his life or career to serveor save a fellow friend, relative or even themselves.

Because of Don's stewardship, this site shows that the world in general and Lake Winnipesaukee in particular is still full of wonderful & caring people. In closing maybe its time that all of us accept what occurred, study it fairly during its trial period and comment constructively when its time for review returns.

In other words, isn't it time we give it a rest?

Safe boating,

Skip

[EricP]

As most of the regular readers here have already figured out, I have several decades of direct, not speculative experience in this particular discussion. I can assure you that you have it, well let me put this politely...pretty well wrong.

I have gone through the radar certification process. I have been certified as a intoxilizer operator. I have worked shoulder to shoulder with countless full & part time officers across the state, both on the street and in the class room.

In your defense I find many of your opinions, while incorrect, fairly common out in the public. Too many folks get the wrong idea about law enforcement based on movies, television, gossip and most importantly incorrect information portrayed by the media.

It was (and still is) painful for me to read some of the atrocious beliefs & points being made (and still made) about radar training and employment, general points of law, the NHMP in particular and law enforcement in general. But then I usually sit back and realize that the same wrong things are repeatedly being said by the same half dozen posters and am content in knowing that a large number of our regular posters avoid these threads like the plague.

Why?

Because they are reasonable people that truly enjoy the Lake and conversations surrounding the same. They realize that Government and law enforcement are not perfect, but by and large it is made up of good people struggling every day to do the right thing. Most of them would rather waive to the NHMP rather than look for a reason to get into an argument with an officer. They know that probably some day somewhere, one of those officers, regardless if he's a thirty year grizzled veteran or a twenty something rookie on his first day, will risk his life or career to serveor save a fellow friend, relative or even themselves.

Because of Don's stewardship, this site shows that the world in general and Lake Winnipesaukee in particular is still full of wonderful & caring people. In closing maybe its time that all of us accept what occurred, study it fairly during its trial period and comment constructively when its time for review returns.

In other words, isn't it time we give it a rest?

Safe boating,

Skip

All good points Skip, but I'll never accept what happened and plan to do what I can to make sure it expires and goes away without renewal. And I've seen my fair share of Gov't employees skating by and not caring, but that's a whole different topic, I think you should have left that part out here.

[Airwaves]

It would have been much more helpful to me, and others that have "commonly held misconceptions", for you to have explained what you think they are.

I know I for one have not questioned your qualifications and I generally consider what you write as probably a correct interpretation, but remember what I do as well, by profession I am a cynic and question things and if the answer doesn't make sense or is incompete I question some more.

So without prompting another peek into your resume, how am I incorrect in saying that with no additional funding or manpower, that this new law will result in the diversion of crews? It's my understanding that a radar post on the water needs to be "static" :coolsm: so that means while radar is in use a safety patrol is NOT underway.

The political reality is "it is what it is" to quote some coach so you will be seeing these Winnipesaukee radar posts in 2009. What will be very interesting to see, now that you pointed it out, is what the impact of the new law will be on the boating families throughout New Hampshire that don't normally travel fast but might not want to put their license on the line for violation of...say rafting rules... .

And what's been lost in this debate is the Homeland Security mandate that coastal states, including NH, develop and implement a program getting recreational boaters involved in port security. That will also require manpower.

[Skip]

...It would have been much more helpful to me, and others that have "commonly held misconceptions", for you to have explained what you think they are...

Fair enough...my apologies.

...So without prompting another peek into your resume, how am I incorrect in saying that with no additional funding or manpower, that this new law will result in the diversion of crews? It's my understanding that a radar post on the water needs to be "static" :coolsm: so that means while radar is in use a safety patrol is NOT underway...

NHMP patrols already employ a great many hours of sitting static, closely observing boating traffic. Now some of these static activities will include the use of several radar guns. By the way, expect to see NHMP officers spending more time static this season and in the future.

Why?

Price of fuel. It will actually be the economy that impacts all law enforcement agencies, not just the NHMP, as they alter patrol practices to absorb fuel bills that in some cases have doubled this year with no additional funds allocated to offset the difference.

The economy has already and will continue to also eliminate or slow boating traffic across the Lakes region, regardless of the outcome from HB 847.

But back to the original question. Radar will be rolled in to the already scheduled practice of sitting still while observing. It just gives the officers another tool at their disposal for law enforcement purposes.

...What will be very interesting to see, now that you pointed it out, is what the impact of the new law will be on the boating families throughout New Hampshire that don't normally travel fast but might not want to put their license on the line for violation of...say rafting rules...

My highlight for editorial purposes.

You really need to carefully read the final adopted version of HB 847 including the pertinent ammendments to RSA 270-D:2. Rafting Rules are not governed under the ammended RSA and hence will not be reported to NHDMV in case of a conviction. As a self proclaimed "cynic" that is highly critical of perceived mistakes made by the arguments of your opponents, it is incumbent upon you to have your facts straight. It is apparent by this and other comments you have made that while you remain highly critical of the ramifications of HB 847, you still do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails.

...And what's been lost in this debate is the Homeland Security mandate that coastal states, including NH, develop and implement a program getting recreational boaters involved in port security. That will also require manpower...

Devotion to Homeland and Port Security will remain a priority of the NHMP officers assigned to the Coast, a day to day mission that they have fulfilled for years since 9/11. The Federal Government has and continues to supplement with funding and manpower any additional resources they require of the NHMP in that arena. Rest assured that the NHMP can protect us from foreign & domestic terrorist attacks on Lake Winnipesaukee without detracting from their current daily assignments.

As a cynic you should be the first to recognize and dismiss the hype from reality. ;)

[Airwaves]

Rafting Rules are not governed under the ammended RSA and hence will not be reported to NHDMV in case of a conviction. As a self proclaimed "cynic" that is highly critical of perceived mistakes made by the arguments of your opponents, it is incumbent upon you to have your facts straight. It is apparent by this and other comments you have made that while you remain highly critical of the ramifications of HB 847, you still do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails.
And that's why I ask questions until I get answers :)
Price of fuel. It will actually be the economy that impacts all law enforcement agencies, not just the NHMP, as they alter patrol practices to absorb fuel bills that in some cases have doubled this year with no additional funds allocated to offset the difference.

The economy has already and will continue to also eliminate or slow boating traffic across the Lakes region, regardless of the outcome from HB 847.
You're probably right about the price of fuel changing the practices of the NHMP, but by the same token as you point out the boat traffic will also probably slow...with that the funding source for the NHMP. A Catch 22.
The Federal Government has and continues to supplement with funding and manpower any additional resources they require of the NHMP in that arena. Rest assured that the NHMP can protect us from foreign & domestic terrorist attacks on Lake Winnipesaukee without detracting from their current daily assignments.
The information I got from Homeland Security did not indicate that it was a funded mandate, it mandated states DEVELOP and IMPLEMENT the program. Glad to hear the NHMP will continue to protect us from attacks on LNG tankers on Winnipesaukee :laugh:

[NoBozo]

Hi Skip: I have only been a member of this Forum for a few days and have only been observing for a couple of weeks so I really don't know, ...havn't gotten a flavor for the backgrounds of the various individuals posting.

You seem to be Very Knowledgable, being able to quote chapter and verse from the Statutes.

May I ask your background? Are you in Law Inforcement? ..NHMP?.. Or are you a Lawyer?

In way of offering my background: I am a Retired Mechanical Engineer. NoBozo

[tupelo]

A Brief and Irreverent History of Early Motoring and Speed Limits on NH Highways by tupelo

In the early days of motoring in NH, most cars were small, underpowered and unreliable. Speed limits existed nowhere on NH roads and highways. However by the early 1920's , bigger and better cars, like Duesenbergs, were finding their way onto these roads. Some were capable of doing 65 MPH right through downtown Laconia. They were fast and fun. Accidents occasionally happened but they were few and infrequent. One day a fast, new Duesy raced through Center Harbor, just hitting a small boy who fortunately only broke his arm as he rushed to cross the street. His mother however did not consider this to be such an insignificant injury. She spoke out, saying these GFBL cars need to slow down....my son might well have been killed. "Fear monger, fear monger" soon echoed through the ranks of the GFBL cars owners, directed at this vilified mother. Other townfolk soon began discussing speed limits as well. "But we've never had speed limits" cried some of GFBL car owners." We're turning into a nanny state" cried others. Some even called it feel good legislation. Soon more and more people though were clamoring for some limits. A man named Helvey Sanders became interested as well and a grassroots organization was born. He even traveled to N.Y. where speed limits had been established years ago. He came back after talking with law enforcement officials there about how these limits were instituted and enforced. He even sent letters to the editor detailing how they worked. "Foul play" cried many of the GFBL car owners. "You didn't spell out exactly who you spoke with, when you spoke with them, what their snail mail addresses are. You must provide annotated references with all letters to the editor. No wonder newspaper subscriptions are declining. Your newspaper is a rag. Yellow journalism." Some even threatened to drive their cars back and forth in front of Mr. Sanders' house(there were of course no stalking laws at this time). Soon some car dealerships also weighed in claiming their customers were not feeling welcome in the state and were going to move to Vermont. Besides they said, how are you going to measure and enforce speed limits...radar hasn't been invented yet so surely it will not work on land.
The controversy heated up. A poll was taken of NH residents asking if they felt the roads would be safer if there were speed limits. Mothers, fathers, horse and buggy owners, even common pedestrians weighed in. This statewide NH poll showed 85% of the people were in favor of speed limits on the roads. "Wait, foul play" cried the Duesy owners and other GFBL groups. "This poll is invalid because you only should poll car owners. How can a man who only rides a horse have any say". Soon the GFBL's organized a club, though a few people who owned horse and buggies, also Model T's were encouraged to join to give the sense of a fair and balanced club. They even took their own poll that showed 85% of their members thought "reasonable and prudent" would be a better standard. There was still the occasional accident, but forth came the rallying cry "this accident never would have happened if the car hadn't blown its tire while going through town at 70 mph".
There was even the occasional accident attributed to alcohol intoxication. One GFBL crashed into Ye Olde Tamarack Restaurant in broad daylight doing 55 mph but when it was later found that the driver was intoxicated and had misinterpreted the meaning of "Drive-In",the GFBL car owners cried "See, this proves speed limits would never work...drunks would never obey them!"
By now there was interest in the legislature for establishing speed limits. The house in fact passed this new bill, HB 7. "Vote the bums out" was heard from the "no limits" crowd. One person was heard to say "If the old man of the mountain were still standing, he'd be shedding a tear right now". Another man said " It is still standing you idiot". Soon the senate passed HB 7 and then the governor signed as well. While the GFBL car crowd vowed to fight on, after 2 years when it was seen that the whole NH economy did indeed not collapse as had been warned, and people still found great enjoyment using their cars, the "no limits" crowd slowly faded away.




THE END

[Mashugana]

A Brief and Irreverent History of Early Motoring and Speed Limits on NH Highways by tupelo

In the early days of motoring in NH, most cars were small, underpowered and unreliable. Speed limits existed nowhere on NH roads and highways. However by the early 1920's , bigger and better cars, like Duesenbergs, were finding their way onto these roads. Some were capable of doing 65 MPH right through downtown Laconia. They were fast and fun. Accidents occasionally happened but they were few and infrequent. {big snip} By now there was interest in the legislature for establishing speed limits. The house in fact passed this new bill, HB 7. {big snip} While the GFBL car crowd vowed to fight on, after 2 years when it was seen that the whole NH economy did indeed not collapse as had been warned, and people still found great enjoyment using their cars, the "no limits" crowd slowly faded away.
THE END

Nice tale tupelo. It is too bad those early people didn't think smartly enough to establish buffer zones and laws about reasonable speeds. Going slowly over a narrow bridge for instance. Like driving slowly within 15 feet of other cars, buildings and even people. Specially those people stupid enough to walk in the areas regularly traveled by cars going at speeds reasonable and prudent for the circumstances.

They didn't know as much back in those early days as they do today but some people just won't learn. Of course in those very early days 10 mph was considered TO FAST. and 25 mph was like the devil was driving. Some ignorant people refused to even go in such speedy contraptions let alone feel comfortable anywhere near a faster horseless carriage. Boy, we've grown a lot since then.

[VtSteve]

Fair enough...my apologies.



NHMP patrols already employ a great many hours of sitting static, closely observing boating traffic. Now some of these static activities will include the use of several radar guns. By the way, expect to see NHMP officers spending more time static this season and in the future.

Why?

Price of fuel. It will actually be the economy that impacts all law enforcement agencies, not just the NHMP, as they alter patrol practices to absorb fuel bills that in some cases have doubled this year with no additional funds allocated to offset the difference.

The economy has already and will continue to also eliminate or slow boating traffic across the Lakes region, regardless of the outcome from HB 847.

But back to the original question. Radar will be rolled in to the already scheduled practice of sitting still while observing. It just gives the officers another tool at their disposal for law enforcement purposes.



My highlight for editorial purposes.

You really need to carefully read the final adopted version of HB 847 including the pertinent ammendments to RSA 270-D:2. Rafting Rules are not governed under the ammended RSA and hence will not be reported to NHDMV in case of a conviction. As a self proclaimed "cynic" that is highly critical of perceived mistakes made by the arguments of your opponents, it is incumbent upon you to have your facts straight. It is apparent by this and other comments you have made that while you remain highly critical of the ramifications of HB 847, you still do not have a firm grasp of what it actually entails.
;)

Started to show up over here last summer Skip. The higher costs of fuel have to be dealt with somehow. I suspect that many MP boats could actually be more successful in their efforts of deterrent just by hanging out in hot spots, static, if you will. It has to be more economical doing radar and observation than the good old days of bombing around the lake on patrol.

The fuel costs may very well prove to be the most important thing that's happened in enforcement on the lake. Perhaps the 150' limit can be more easily observed in congested areas by the MP. Or better yet, perhaps their presence will aid in people abiding by the law.

Rest assured, the fuel used to go very fast will be a deterrent as well.

[Airwaves]

Okay, maybe I'll think of more later...;)

The language in HB847 makes violations reportable to the NHDMV, do you believe that applies only to Chapter 270-D or the entire Chapter 270?

AW

[Skip]

Okay, maybe I'll think of more later...;)

The language in HB847 makes violations reportable to the NHDMV, do you believe that applies only to Chapter 270-D or the entire Chapter 270?

AW

Hi AW,

Only 270-D:2

Interesting sidebar. A very good source has informed me that boating violations have already been routinely reported to the NHDMV. And some of the good folks here have confirmed to me that when they have been "bad", they have subsequently learned that their conviction has appeared on their respective driving record.

Interesting!

[Dave R]

I'm starting to feel like Evenstar. :(

You should, your fear of being hit by a boat while in your house is utterly irrational. While certainly not impossible, it's a silly thing to worry about. You are much more likely to die from an infection, a lightning strike or a fall in a bathtub, and no matter what, you will die of something. Might as well lighten up a bit and enjoy life while you have it.

Thank you for pointing out that the Formula 370 SS is not a GFBL with your informative post on it's capabilities. 58 MPH and quiet is not going fast or being loud.

I have relatives that have owned property on Long Lake for generations and not a single one of them has ever been hit by a boat, not even while they were sleeping in bed. They are, for the most part, a happy lot and think you are irrational (and silly) too.

[2Blackdogs]

Dave R writes in part,

your fear of being hit by a boat while in your house is utterly irrational.

I don't live on Diamond Island.

On the 14th of June, none of us here would think an anchor could hit a house on Winni.

If at that house that night you'd substituted Michael Moore for the anchor, he would have demolished their great room.

But he's only around 400 pounds, and not close to 15,000 pounds with sharp edges.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others.

[EricP]

Dave R writes in part,



I don't live on Diamond Island.

On the 14th of June, none of us here would think an anchor could hit a house on Winni.

If at that house that night you'd substituted Michael Moore for the anchor, he would have demolished their great room.

But he's only around 400 pounds, and not close to 15,000 pounds with sharp edges.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others.

Maybe you should just sell your place and stay our of harms way then. :laugh:

[parrothead]

Dave R writes in part,



I don't live on Diamond Island.

On the 14th of June, none of us here would think an anchor could hit a house on Winni.

If at that house that night you'd substituted Michael Moore for the anchor, he would have demolished their great room.

But he's only around 400 pounds, and not close to 15,000 pounds with sharp edges.

We are all at risk, whether it be from the inherent dangers of boating, or the negligent actions of others.

You could be hit by a bus walking down the side of the street, or have a tree fall on your house as a few families in Windham last night. Or by a boat while sitting in your living room. That's the price you have to pay, to be alive. Some unforeseen catastrophe that you have no control over can always be looming over the horizon. I just can't imagine it's a very fulfilling existence to be walking around with an anvil always hanging over your head. Wondering when it is going to fall.