Proposed Law [Archive] - Winnipesaukee Forum

fatlazyless

12-28-2007, 08:28 PM

There's something new in this legislative session that may sway the opinion of a few of the 400 state representatives and 24 state senators with regard to passing a 45day/25night speed limit.

If you read the Laconia Daily Sun news article in the nearby thread, building Winni Sailing, it mentions that the NH Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Assoc, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing center on a lightly used end corner of the very terrific state beach at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford.

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual engines totaling 1200hp; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

..............................

Want to help build the new Winnipesaukee community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park?

Mail your tax deductible donation to

Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing
Association, Inc.
PO Box 7047
Gilford NH 03247

or you can donate online at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3

www.lwsa.org ......psssst....check out all the photos!
.....................

Cal

12-28-2007, 09:42 PM

16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

Now that's a cleverly worded stupid question. How about , is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake , with or without ANY other boats:confused:?
Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats:emb::emb:

Acres per Second

12-29-2007, 04:47 AM

"...How about, is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake, with or without ANY other boats..."
A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat (http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:BEj-TkEhjXgJ:www.sailability.org/news.cfm%3Fnews_id%3D157+blind,+circumnavigating,+ couple,+sail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us) as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

"...Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats..."
So "the blind ones" can do what? :confused:

Cal

12-29-2007, 01:35 PM

A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat (http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:BEj-TkEhjXgJ:www.sailability.org/news.cfm%3Fnews_id%3D157+blind,+circumnavigating,+ couple,+sail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us) as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

Well more power to them. They obviously have more guts than common sense since too many "sighted" sailors have falled off the edge of the earth:(

Secondly , it dosen't mention if they are "Totally" blind , as in see nothing but black or "Legally" blind ,where you do have some vision. I certainly wouldn't want a totally blind person docking next to me:eek:.
A past co-workers wife was legally blind but with glasses like Coke bottle bottoms was fully functional.
The term "blind" , in and of itself and be misleading or misused to one advantage or to forward ones agenda and we both know it.
So "the blind ones" can do what? :confused:

Perhaps blatantly exercise their right of way over any power vessel from a 3hp 10' dinghy to a 1200 hp Baja to the Sophie C or the Mount itself.

BTW Happy New Year. Hope 2008 goes as "fast" 2007 did for you:D

Dave R

12-29-2007, 06:25 PM

jeffk

12-29-2007, 10:55 PM

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

And speaking of the size, is someone driving on Scenic Drive endangered by the higher level and speed of traffic on Lake Shore Road? Except for the the intersection of the roads I would guess that there is little threat to the drivers on Scenic Dr. because they are in separate locations. Similarly, if a powerboat follows the Mt Washington's route they are almost a mile from Ellacoya shore area, where I would guess most of the sailing training would be done. If the powerboat is in the broads, it is over 2 miles away from the Ellacoya shore. The only real threat might be if the powerboat buzzed the shoreline at high speed. Since this would break at least a half dozen existing laws I would think the Marine Patrol could deal with such a moron quite easily. Further, I would guess most power boaters, seeing a collection of sailboats would give them a very wide berth to avoid getting near them and having to drop to headway speed. I think the inexperienced sailors are in more danger of bumping into each other than running afoul of a powerboat. Why not simply flag the primary training zone and make it a restricted speed area?

Finally, although Baja's can be custom powered to run at very high speeds, the cost of such additional power would price the boat out of the range of the vast majority of people and would be a waste to have on Winnipesaukee where the opportunities to use such an extravagant boat would be limited. Are there really any boats on Winnipesaukee that can go much faster than 80 MPH? Talking about 100+ MPH boats on Winnipesaukee is like worrying about the problems of landing the space shuttle at Manchester airport. Yes, the shuttle exists and landing it puts a stain on the landing area. However, I don't think we need to worry about it landing in Manchester anytime soon.

I have been around novice Sunfish sailors many times. I have passed them at a distance at 55 MPH and cruised at headway speed through the middle of them when they were blocking a channel. No one had any problems. Why would an expanded sailing facility be any different?

Maybe I'll sign up for lessons when they get the new facility built. :D

Cal

12-30-2007, 12:00 AM

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

Gee , imagine that...somebody made a misleading statement:rolleye2:
Here I thought there was going to be 300 out there all summer long.

LIforrelaxin

12-31-2007, 12:25 PM

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.

Although I am not a huge fan of the speed limit, I do believe if done right and certain busy areas of the lake had limits we would be at a happy compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things. I hate people with the attitude of screw the system I am going to do what I want. That is a poor attitude. NH maybe the live free or die state, but everyone in the state has the right to do that in away that is comfortable to them. At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?

That what this is all about, people are so concentrated on themselves these days they forget to think about how what they do may affect others. This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

Now stepping off the platform about the rude, selfish behavior, to the one on enforcement. everyone better be careful, your boat maybe able to scream across the lake and they will have a hard time getting the radar on you. But remember this just like NH successfully put noise pollution control in place to quiet boats down. Most new boats have PCM units for the motors. Governing an engine has never been easier. In other words, Get caught once shame on you, get caught twice, shame on us, get caught three times, either have your boat governed, or never be caught on the lake again. I personally would not want to see it come to that, but remember people there is more then one way to skin the cat, all of which can be made legal by your friendly legislator.

Blowing off the law because you don't think it is enforceable is only going to tender the fire.

Hottrucks

12-31-2007, 02:39 PM

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

jeffk

12-31-2007, 03:46 PM

At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?
...
This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

jrc

12-31-2007, 04:02 PM

I wish we could measure the effects of poorly implemted and thought out laws. Obviously the biggest one was prohibition, where breaking the law and corruption was so common place that many people lost respect for the law.

But think of the 55 MPH national speed limit. Has any law hurt the prestiege and respect of the police than that? Think about how you felt about the police on 9/12/2001, now think about how you feel when there's one behind you when you're doing 65 MPH in a 55 MPH zone even though the highway designed for 70 MPH.

I don't want to think about the MP that way.

LIforrelaxin

01-01-2008, 02:44 PM

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

I niether totally agree or totally disagree with you Jeff. Which is what makes this such a hard issue. However I think the bigest problem is that niether side is willing to give any. Personally I feel there are very few parts of the lake where speed is a concern. And if it was regulated in those areas only then the rest of the lake would be wide open, I don't think I have ever been in the middle of the broads when I felt there should be a speed limit. However I have been around the Wiers, when a bad egg takes off out of the channel, and puts the hammer down. And I feel that a speed limit would give the Marine Patrol the ability to stop someone like that, who is 150 feet from everyone, with out having to pull them over on a judgement based call.
This is a complex issue, with no good answer however I think if both side hadn't sunk thier heels in, a good comprimised could have been brought forth. Instead the politicians will decide if it is all or nothing.......

Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways.......if a lake wide limit is to be imposed I think something like 60, is more practical, but then again that also really segragates a certain class of boats, and is that really fair.

Acres per Second

01-01-2008, 02:48 PM

"...The democrats that help it pass are up for election next year so need to be careful they vote on the right side of the issue..."
It is because they were on the right side of the issue that the bill exists at all.

I proposed a generous 130-MPH limit here that got rejected. :(

"...A compromise that makes sense, is not based on fear, and allows safe-fast travel (day and night) might have a chance...."
After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years! :confused:

Mee-n-Mac

01-01-2008, 11:19 PM

Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways

Without revisting my prior comments on numbers, I'll say 2 things.

First I doubt any number will ever get reviewed for the same reason the highway limits haven't been reviewed. There's no desire to do so and every desire to avoid the whole issue. Neither the 45 on the lake nor the 55 on the highway had any safety related reasoning behind the number. The NMSL/55 wasn't even a safety issue when it was enacted, it was to save gas during the oil embargo of the time and was supposed to be temporary. We still have it, in reduced form, today.

Second the only reason the NMSL was watered down in the late 80's and then repealed in the mid 90's was due to massive non-compliance on the part of the driving public. Eventually despite all manner of statiscal manipulation to hide it, various "important" states were going to be found to not be in compliance and threatened with loss of Federal highway funds. The politicians weren't going to let this happen. Without politicians being threatening with loss of revenue I don't see any number imposed on the lake ever getting reviewed.

Mee-n-Mac

01-01-2008, 11:28 PM

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years! :confused:

How many innocent people have been runover and killed these past 3 years ?

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol. :(

LIforrelaxin

01-02-2008, 02:03 AM

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

Not that I think it is right because I don't...... the fact is they can..... and eventually I can see it happening......

Acres per Second

01-02-2008, 10:44 AM

How many innocent people have been run over and killed these past 3 years ?
1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

Long Lake's high speed double-fatality would have been averted with any ten-year-old girl behind the wheel rather than some wealthy jerk out to prove that his chromosomes are more important than others'.

What do you propose be done about ocean-racers catapulting themselves 120-feet over your lakefront's property line?

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28511&postcount=35).

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake? :eek:

"...David Donchecz, chief operating officer of Michigan-based Sunsation Powerboats, told the Sun Journal of Lewiston that he thought the Dominator was too much boat with too much speed for such a lake..."
http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=153277&zoneid=500

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol. :(
Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

SIKSUKR

01-02-2008, 10:57 AM

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years! :confused:

Yup,here comes the unfounded and totally uncalled for scare tactics from the speed limit crowd.Can't people see through this verbal crap?

Woodsy

01-02-2008, 12:00 PM

After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years! :confused:

APS...

You are the master of the obvious! :laugh:

The sunset clause is clearly a ruse designed to get those legislators who might be on the fence about HB-847 onboard. Extending a sunset clause quietly is usually pretty easy to do...

This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002! Almost 6 years ago! We have had 5 seasons of darn safe boating.... so why do we need a 3 year law?

The MP study/report clearly shows no need for a speed limit, and points out that there are some serious costs to be borne with HB-847... training, equipment, manpower (2 MP Officers required on radar boat), court costs etc... all this $$$ and effort for a 3 year Lake Winnipesaukee only law?

I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection....

Woodsy

Acres per Second

01-02-2008, 01:30 PM

"...This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002!...I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection...."
Lake Winnipesaukee's "Most-Experienced and Most-Educated Night-time Ocean-Racer" is out of jail now.

Using a legal technique that night known as "Hit and Run", he finessed the worst charge against him—and did it legally. Convicted only on the lesser charge, the proceeds of the civil law suit brought against him can only be termed as "modest".

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide. (An 84-year sentence was handed out in a similar ocean-racer crash, but that driver managed to kill everybody (http://www.rbbi.com/folders/acc/ftlaud2/ftlaud2.htm) on the 31' cruiser he collided with.) :(

Maybe three years was asking too much of the cult. :rolleye1: Today's Concord Monitor is showing a two year sunset clause being considered.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/FRONTPAGE/801020305/1037/NEWS04

codeman671

01-02-2008, 04:55 PM

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide.

How so? :confused: An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law. It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit. Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court.

The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident. Honestly, even the "drunk" is hard enough to prove as he did not stick around long enough to blow.

According the the law that you are lobbying for, Dan was basically complying already. It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

Skip

01-02-2008, 05:35 PM

:(How so? :confused:

As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

The individual in Florida was sentenced to 84 years based on multiple convictions of manslaughter for six deaths induced by Boating While Intoxicated....

A close reading of the stories attached showed a belief that the individual was travelling most likely above the posted speed limit of 25 MPH but authorities agreed that in the narrow confines of the area of the crime that the vessel was not travelling anywhere near its maximum limits.

But again, the individual cited was convicted on manslaughter due to boating while intoxicated.

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties if a 25 MPH speed limit had been in effect shows a complete misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works in New Hampshire. If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime. The complete transcript of the original trial and the Supreme Court decision based on Littlefield's appeal is public record, and has been for years. Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime.

Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years and thousands of miles to compare) in which six individuals were slaughtered versus the unnecessary death of one individual here in New Hampshire totally negates the ability to classify the two crimes and the resulting sentences as "similar".

Cal

01-02-2008, 07:31 PM

A perfect example of how you can make a story SEEM to fit your agenda , right Skip?

And just what is the "Sunset Clause":confused:

pm203

01-03-2008, 12:27 AM

compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things.

Don't blame me! I spent alot of money to quiet my boat down and DO follow all current laws. In fact, when coming out of the Weirs channel, I usually go another 200 feet before attempting to get on plane. Meanwhile,most every other "family boat" has the throttles pegged as soon as they pass the markers. I am certainly one of the more courteous boaters on the lake. It just sickens me to see this proposed speed limit law even being considered! It has been shot down countless times, only to be brought back to life, over and over, by the same selfish, misguided group for no other purpose but to discriminate against a certain type of boat. And why?? They don,t like them. And, that is what is so wrong with this proposed law. Rep Pilliod and his Winnfabs friends should be very ashamed.

jeffk

01-03-2008, 02:05 AM

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide.

This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense.

This http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/enforce/speedlaws501/toc/nhspeed.pdf provides a summary of NH automotive speeding laws. While a boating speed limit has yet to be finalized I doubt the penalties would be more harsh than the automotive counterpart. Others are better at providing law quotes than I but I get the following information (my bolding).

Adjudication of Speed Law Violations:
Civil/Criminal Adjudication of Violation: All Speed Law Offenses are Violations.5 ''265:2 & 625:9, II(b)
Other:
Sanctions Following an Adjudication of a Speed Law Violation:
Criminal Sanctions:
Imprisonment:
Term (Day, Month, Years,
Etc.): None
Mandatory Minimum Term:
Fine:
Amount ($ Range): Not more than $1,000 '651:2, IV(a)
Mandatory Min. Fine ($): None
Other Penalties:
Traffic School: An offender may be required to attend a Driver Attitude Training program. '263:56-e
Other:
Licensing Action:
Type of Licensing Action
(Susp/Rev): I. Suspension via Court Order '263:57
II. Suspension via a Point System6 '263:56, I(c) & III
5
A violation is not classified as a crime. '625:9, II(b)

So in summary the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license.

I would venture to guess that Mr. Littlefield would have happily pleaded guilty to a speed limit violation and paid a $1000 fine rather than face the charges and penalties (felonies) he ended up with. It will not be something he will easily forget, versus a fine which would have been relatively trivial to him. He spent more talking to his lawyer for a few hours. Yes, he slipped past the BWI charge. Having a speed limit in place would have done NOTHING to change that.

If you look at automobile accidents involving speeding, the speeding charge is usually the least charge mentioned. Other charges carry far more weight and have criminal consequences. These laws already exist for boating plus additional ones and are what were used to convict Mr. Littlefield of his felony crimes.

Acres per Second

01-03-2008, 07:28 AM

An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law...It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit...The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident...It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

"Hit-and-Run" was NH-legal.

He wasn't proven drunk, but a judge allowed the jury to consider witness' testimony—and was upheld.

He would be in technical violation of the speed limit and that would be weighed by the jury when such testimony is allowed by the judge. Juries will also be weighing the testimony of court experts in speed determinations.

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties...As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.
Somebody said "massive"?

It's a jury that would be weighing his speed, his lack of proper lookout and all other illegal and anti-social behaviors. (See above).

My point was that eleven years ago, BWI was a very serious charge. Take the 84 years in prison and divide it by the number of victims, and you see that 16 years (for each victim) was adjudicated for a successful BWI prosecution.

"...If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime..."
You make my point: no speed law—no speed prosecution—no invocation of felonious behavior.

"...Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime..."
Yes, thanks to the NH Supreme Court and a judge who saw a travesty unfolding in his courtroom.

Yet in another jurisdiction, 16 years was delivered for an analogous collision—even without a determination of actual speed.

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida..."
I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew? :confused:

"...This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense...the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license..."
"The worst" would be the technical violation of the speed limit law being considered by a jury who has already heard witnesses describing his pre-crash attitude, after-crash attitude, flight to avoid prosecution and aberrant behavior. (See above).

"...Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court..."
Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!

:rolleye2:

BTW: Isn't someone familiar with courtrooms going to suggest that a post announcing intent to become a lawbreaker is a seriously bad idea?

While it's enormously high in cult value, I wouldn't want my insurance company to have that in print in a courtroom. :eek:

Skip

01-03-2008, 10:09 AM

For the final time let me remind the reader that yes, Aps is correct in one tiny aspect of his opinion on this matter, speed did play a part in the conviction of Littlefiled.

How so?

An extensive investigation and re-creation of the accident led investigators to a reasonable belief that Littlefield was travelling approximatley 28 MPH at the time of the collision.

But given all the conditions present that evening the State opined and the jury and the NH Supreme Court concluded that the speed Littlefield was operating at was not a contributing factor to the accident, and that given his estimated speed and the environmental conditions he faced that night he easily should have been able to avoid a collision.

Therefore the jury's opinion, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, was that something else other than speed caused the collision and that something was the ultimate decision that imprisoned Littlefield.

And what was that something else? Again, a reading of the transcript of both the original trial and the appeal make it readily apparent. Littlefield was unable to maintain a proper lookout due in part to the amount of alcohol he had drank just prior to the collision.

Simple and obvious as that.

And the fact that Boating While Intoxicated laws with inherent criminal and civil penalties existed that evening that Littlefield chose to drink too much did nothing to deter him or three other adult passenges from preventing this crime.

The fact that there were children present during the drinking and subsequent collision did nothing to deter the crime.

The fact that a number of other horrific and well publicized alcohol related boating collisions have occured throughout the country prior to that night of drinking did nothing to prevent this crime.

And yet a handful out here wnat to continue to harangue that maybe a speed limit that night would have prevented Littlefield and his passengers from engaging in the course of action that ultimately led to this tragedy?

Oh, by the way.....in the horrific alcohol induced collision that Aps cites as the basis for his argument? Gee, there was a speed limit that night in that canal.

And it did nothing to prevent the deaths of six innocent people! :(

codeman671

01-03-2008, 10:14 AM

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!

:rolleye2:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

I am going to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, your banter is meaningless and not fact based. Other posters such as Skip, Woodsy and JeffK have made strong factual arguments yet you continue to dazzle us with your hypothetical crap and twisted views. The facts are the facts APS, your speed limit would not have saved a life in this case. That Baja had just as much right to be on the water as any other boat on the lake, although the driver did not. It was not traveling at unsafe speeds for the conditions and as long as it met MP requirements for safety equipment and state noise requirements the only laws broken were by the driver.

The accident that took place in FL occured in an inland canal (clearly a narrower place than Winnipesaukee) as they were approaching a no-wake zone. With concentrated traffic and manatees in abundance the boat was clearly going too fast for the environment. Oh, and wasn't alcohol involved??? :rolleye2: Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

SIKSUKR

01-03-2008, 12:27 PM

Folks, this is what we are dealing with when you try to have a meaningful, thought provoking discussion with the pro speed limit side. Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are. Shameful.

chipj29

01-04-2008, 08:59 AM

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew? :confused:

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

fatlazyless

01-04-2008, 10:21 AM

Just between you, me, and the very small number of the 424 NH legislators who may read this forum, I think the new community sailing facility for local kids-n-adults, that going up at Ellacoya State Park will carry more positive weight for the need for a speed limit than 100 people commenting about the technical aspects of the 150' foot rule.

As you may or may not know, the New Hampshire Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing facility on a lightly used end of the beautifull beach at Ellacoya State Park. It is scheduled to open in the summer of 2009.
.............................

Want to help pay for the new community sailing facility with a tax deductible contribution? Go to www.lwsa.org and look around....at the donation link....at the photos....or go to the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the nearby boating section and read all about it including a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun..

Happy and safe sailing & motorboating to eveyone in 2008. and please dig deep to help pay for the new community sailing facility that's opening in 2009!!
...................

...and now, it's back to the technical arguments....kersplash....pow.....& cowabunga!

Acres per Second

01-04-2008, 10:26 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?
It was not "a direct hit". Any change in vectoring of those 4½ tons would have been safe.

Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.
Like our most famous case? :rolleye1:

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?
The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years..."
Okaaay...let's go back to the previous summer, where five died (http://newsok.com/article/2846366)without speed limits—and no alcohol.

"...Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are..."
The above case mentions the use of GPS. Has the "Need for Speed" crowd ever mentioned GPS as an emerging factor in the frequent violations of Winnipesaukee's "safe-passage" rule?

BoaterEd's Les Hall spoke to this collision:

"...Had those two boats been running at 25 knots instead of 70, the failure would not have caused such a dramatic turn and the other boat may have had time to avoid it. Nor would the damage have been so extensive. You guys can posture all you want but it is not safe for two boats to be doing 70 or 80 side by side or for boats to be going that speed on inland waters. Exciting, yes. Safe, no...If accidents like this one keep happening, that's what will happen on the water - speed limits everywhere..."

Don't forget that between 100-130-MPH, I have many more hours (than most) on a closed race course. Also, I go boating 12 months a year.(And get to view other boaters from three different locales).

Soundings magazine is my boat-savvy reading, who recount the awful effects of speed, alcohol, money, ignorance and overpowered boats every month.

And this "isn't just about me" being a proponent: the entire editorial staff of the Concord Monitor has come on board today.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/OPINION/801040318/1027/OPINION01

(2nd paragraph from the bottom).

Hottrucks

01-04-2008, 10:39 AM

How could we support them ???

LWSA/WYC events are typically mixed-fleet, handicapped (PHRF) races with round-the-islands courses and are held on weekends. There are usually both racing (spinnaker) and cruising (non-spinnaker) divisions. In addition to the mixed-fleet race events, there is J/80 one-design class racing every Thursday evening during the summer - details here.

We welcome anyone who wants to participate - if you are inexperienced at racing but would like to learn,

I fearing for my life they're going to be racing!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

Cal

01-04-2008, 01:23 PM

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!Cum'on , get off it , will ya! First off , the BOAT and its HORSEPOWER had NOTHING to do with it. A 35 foot 300 hp CRUISER could have done the same thing since the ESTIMATED speed was ONLY 28 MPH. (Wide open for the cruiser)
One change in decision , anytime that evening , by either boater , could have made a world of difference!
Even if Littlefield had stayed and had ONE MOOOOORE drink , he wouldn't have been at that place and time that the accident took place. If he had been doing 45 mph , he would have been past the point of impact before the victims boat got there.
Rediculous senarios , yes , but factually TRUE...more true than "the boat had too much power for the lake" , because again and for the last time The Power Had Nothing to Do With It
Now let me rest my bruised finger tips (from POUNDING the keyboard) and go get some lunch:rolleye1:

SS-194

01-04-2008, 01:54 PM

Not for nothin but 45 in a small boat is alot more fun then 90 in a bigger boat. You go for it skippa, rules are made to be broken right.The lake just isn't what it used to be.

Mee-n-Mac

01-05-2008, 09:11 PM

1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ? How would the speed limit have saved them ? I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right ?

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

I would suggest we look as far as the lakes go ... here in NH. You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision ?

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat.

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents". Where's our double-fatality attributable to a power boat ? And shouldn't it be attributable be to speed in excess of the proposed limit ?

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake? :eek:

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade ?

I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult. This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

Acres per Second

01-08-2008, 10:09 AM

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

Where I've just moved to, about 1 in 10 powerboats pass by at night—illegally—without lights. (I'll find out why, but I think it relates to commercial fishing.)

Mee&Mac: I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right?

Whatever speed limit is voted for, I still couldn't feel vindicated if I'd killed one or both kayakers—but that's just me.

Mee&Mac: You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision?

Lake Winnipesaukee has been featured in movies with Smith Mountain Lake used as Winnipesaukee.

Smith Mountain Lake recorded "a double-fatality" last year, with the same cult responsible. We only have about ten years of widespread, grossly irresponsible, actions on Winnipesaukee; plus, the Big Lake only has a summer season—plus, "Noise and Action" is mostly on weekends. Offshore, the speed hazard to other boaters is minimal. Even then, Soundings magazine writes this month:

"...I could keep going on with the horror stories, but we all the the message. The number of people on the water who are lacking even the most basic boating skills and knowledge is staggering. We have a problem..."
—Tom Neale

Now, how many of the speed cult have any "skill and knowledge" in boat control at speeds over 45? Over 65? Or double that—at 130? (One-hundred-thirty MPH being a speed already seen on Winnipesaukee in recent seasons).

Mee&Mac: And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents".

A prohibition of alcohol aboard boats won't happen; add to that overpowered, overweight boats with something-to-prove-drivers—and there's a problem.

Mee&Mac: Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

OK, which is Lake Winnipesaukee—and which is Long Lake?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:pqEXuDZoYMrmuM:http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Mt-Washington-Lake-Winnipesaukee-New-Hampshire-Print-C10327879.jpeg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Jabu9npurMoc9M:http://bp0.blogger.com/_wsN_VJndafU/Rq6Ze2vZ1MI/AAAAAAAAAWA/Jaztti2CgZ8/s400/Picture%2B017.jpg

Mee&Mac: Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

There are probably average family boaters that don't know when they're in harm's way: the boaters that do know, support 45/25.

BTW, I have a screen-capture of ARG's last poll showing 76% of NH's polled, support the new law. Anyone with objections to publishing it here?

This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

Take Courage! The speed-cult is mailing their protests from Hawaii, across the nation—and from Sweden—to New Hampshire Representatives as we speak.

Oops...Don't take Courage—that's a British beer! :p

Mee&Mac: I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade?

Here, most readers don't profess this level of personal...um...um...um...paucity of cognition.

The MPs certainly seem to know where to look and, annoyingly, stake out NASWA. (That's just one lakeside locale where alcohol is served to boat captains having overpowered, overweight boats).

BWI-arrests are rare on Winnipesaukee. A speed limit would target the most dangerous BWI-perps, IMHO.

Mee&Mac: I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult.

I'm not sensing "the empathy" for the two night-kayaking visitors. In their neighboring state, there may not be the same lighting requirement as New Hampshire's. (I'd find it very difficult to paddle while holding a lantern over my head in NH—but that's just me.)

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....:confused:

codeman671

01-08-2008, 05:54 PM

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....[/COLOR]:confused:

No to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula. Fountain does make an "Executioner"... :laugh:

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

jrc

01-08-2008, 06:03 PM

...Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

[COLOR="Blue"]On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

To quote President Reagan "There you go again"

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

Further, now you are saying that the boat captain must be responsible enough to adjust his speed to the conditions. He must do this to maintain a proper watch. Since this is clearly true, why do we need a new law? Can't we just arrest and/or fine the people who operate dangerously and don't keep a proper watch?

BTW what is the safe speed for a powerboat of any size or shape to operate, such that they can avoid unlit craft? Can you give me a number or are you going to tell me it depends on the conditions? Do you sense a theme here?

Hottrucks

01-08-2008, 06:09 PM

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where???

and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more??? I don't know of any obstuctions on the east side of the lake that look like that.... how ever looking at it again these pics where not taken with the same lens or Zoom factor the bottom one has a much higher detail to it so it was taken closer up giving the impression that the rocks are out further.....Kinda a smoke and mirrors thing????

chipj29

01-09-2008, 09:11 AM

I sent a mass email to State Reps regarding my position on HB847. I received about a dozen emails back. Every single one of them opposes the speed limit. I spoke to my local Rep last night. She (a Dem) is for a speed limit. Of course she does not own a boat.

WeirsBeachBoater

01-09-2008, 09:42 AM

I also had a great response from reps. Seems the tide is turning again. I think it is since they (read winnfabs) changed the bill (AGAIN) and made it a Winnipesaukee only bill. People in other communities in NH have called their reps and let them know that they are afraid.....there is that word again? That the performance boats will come to their beloved lake. Which isn't far fetched, I know several hot rod pwc owners who were discussing that a speed limit on winni, would give them the impetus to visit other lakes such as Winnisquam, Newfound, and Sunapee. So look out peaceful lakes....Here comes the Horsepower!!! Send thank you cards to Winnfabs!:D

Hottrucks

01-09-2008, 10:12 AM

to think that people would load their boats on a trailer and bring them to another lake.... I think ....Is Foolish.... Most of the boats you want to condemn are tied to a dock and never leave the lake. I don't see people buying a truck and some a trailer to haul them....Most of the other lakes don't have the amenities that boaters are looking for ( I can hear it now) LIKE A DECENT BOAT RAMP or PARKING....probably shouldn't go there since I can't find out where the $5 from all boat Reg's for ramp maintenance is going??...no restaurants, no place to anchor ( rafting laws), so Unless they are going to go there and run there boats back and forth on the lake what else are they going to do???

I'm sorry do you have to find a rest room???

Dave R

01-09-2008, 03:33 PM

I'm gonna guess the bottom picture is Long Lake, the tiny size of the photos makes it tough though. There's no big mountains visible from Long Lake and the top photo looks like it has mountains. 'Course, could be a trick and neither photo is Winnipesaukee or Long Lake.

Long Lake is remarkably similar to Alton Bay and Meredith Bay (except it's kinda shallow at 45 feet max depth, if memory serves), if you connected them end to end. Both of those bays are proven to be safely navigated by vessels at least as large as 220 feet and/or capable of speeds in excess of 100 MPH. Both also connect to much broader sections of the lake, some parts of which are nearly as wide open as Sebago Lake, which happens to be directly connected to Long Lake via the Songo River. You can't think of Long Lake as a narrow, 11 mile long, lake alone, it's connected to a lake nearly as big as, and much more wide open than Winnipesaukee.

I would not recommend operating any boat at planing speed, at night, while drunk on any lake. I don't think a speed limit would fix that kind of behavior. Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways.

EricP

01-09-2008, 03:48 PM

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.

Airwaves

01-09-2008, 08:46 PM

APS wrote in part
As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)....

I'm only joining in this discussion briefly to ask my good friend APS if he is certain about his statement?

The photo you attached appears to have palm trees in the background. So how close is this guy to you?

codeman671

01-10-2008, 10:10 AM

APS wrote in part

I'm only joining in this discussion briefly to ask my good friend APS if he is certain about his statement?

The photo you attached appears to have palm trees in the background. So how close is this guy to you?

APS is listed as having a location of Florida and Winnipesaukee, so I would assume that he/she is a seasonal resident here. Or is it just a misc picture that APS posted??? Clearly there was no real knowledge of the brand of boat pictured. The "hook" on the bow of that boat is clearly a telltale sign of Fountain. Being that Formula does not make a style boat like that I find it funny that the time would have been spent checking out the model names of Formula to go with the rest of the post yet no notice was made of the types of boats they build...

Hottrucks

01-10-2008, 10:32 AM

Palm trees on Winnie now thas funny!!!!!!!!!

fatlazyless

01-10-2008, 09:37 PM

Just looked this up, the speed limits bill from the prior legislative session, HB 162, was passed in the House of Representatives by 193-139 out of 400 state reps on Feb 2, 2006 (Groundhogs day). That was a different group of state reps than who's serving now. It went on to die in the Senate by xx-xx.......16-9 or something....dunno.......(24 state senators) but the 2006 November election switched both the NH House & Senate from a Republican to a Democratic majority. But getting a majority of senators to agree to a new law like this and get it passed during an election year could be too difficult. So it's basically impossible to make an intelligent prediction. Maybe a dumb one, but nuthn too brite..... just too close to call?

Me....what do I predict.....I predict that the groundhog will NOT see its' shadow on February 2, and winter will last & last & last! Long live wintah!

........................

Airwaves

01-12-2008, 03:09 PM

Cal

01-13-2008, 12:24 PM

codeman671, my post was dripping with sarcasm :laugh:

I was just pointing out, by use of sarcasm, that APS has once again traveled far and wide to try (again failing) to make a point. This time with a pic of a pretty Fountain blue water fishing boat in Florida. (The Fountain name is on the gunwale just above the word Battery)

I would also point out that this particular blue water fishing boat in Florida does not appear to be speeding or violating any other law.

Just another attempt by the "anti-powerboat/speed limits in search of a problem" crowd to take a perfectly innocent scene and twist it into something to be feared and crushed!

Proof again APS doesn't know what he's talking about , or lying , or thinks WE don't know what we're looking at , or all the above:laugh:.
In any case it is certainly indicative of a drowning man grabbing for anything he can. So keep up the great work because anybody that's truly knowledgable can see through your smoke and mirrors game and it only makes YOU look worse. You could wind up being your own worst enemy:rolleye2:

fatlazyless

01-13-2008, 04:27 PM

:coolsm:Hey, here's a thought, if HB847 actually passes the house, senate and executive, then some smart cookie should figure out a way "to melt down those huge fiberglass hulls, and beat them into kayaks." Just imagine such a process.....you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak, all set up for fishing......plus a big box of granola....gratis.....wow.....what a concept!!:laugh:

Acres per Second

01-16-2008, 07:10 PM

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.
It's been eight days: He's not "firing". :rolleye2:
Not to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula.
One of my two errors: the boat appears to be named "A Salt and Battery"—my monitor isn't sharp enough to tell.

But why the in-your-face name? What's next, "Assault With a Deadly Weapon", "Manslaughter", "Malice Towards All"? :eek:

Pretty sharp—those who spotted the palm trees. This particular boat was located ¼-mile from me, and 1/10 mile from the open ocean—where excess speeds are tolerated by the widely-scattered boaters out there. Speed limit opponents—especially those who choose to ignore speed limit laws—need to continue displaying such sharpness at 80-MPH. :rolleye1:

Fountain does make an "Executioner".
What??? No Fountain "Obliterator"??? There are still some kids out there to run over out there.
You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.
Kayaks are normally quiet and are not normally equipped with navigation lights. The kayakers weren't charged for nudity or drinking—nor for the absense of a lantern.

It's not "nothing" when you fail to see objects in your path at speed—at any time. A skipper is responsible for his boat's actions—particularly when there are breathing, sentient beings in his boat or in front of it).

When a ball rolls out into my path between parked cars, I slow down. At what is being called a "slow" speed, Littlefield had ample time to observe the slower boat to his left before crushing it under his overweight, overpowered, 4½ tons. That the excessively-long deck on his 4½-ton boat covered the other boat from view hasn't been discussed.

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.
The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where??? and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more???

Try Google for combinations of "130-MPH, jolly-roger, winnipesaukee, performance-boats, donziregistry.com", and it should appear. I posted the link here months ago.

As in most things nautical, Dave R is right: Long Lake is the bottom photo. The two were selected for identical size (17K) to illustrate how executioners in one lake can be just as deadly in another. (Duh).

(Dave R is also right about his top speed handling as "nervous" in his own recreational boat.)
"...Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways..."
Alcohol is an increasing problem: Records are falling.

A woman was recently stopped with a BAC nine times the limit. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0110084dui1.html)

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...Good luck trying to enforce it.
Just two weeks ago, a driver (with extremely important connections) "got enforced" caught going 70-in-a-30 New Hampshire speed limit zone. Maybe watch how this case (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) runs its course?

Most citizens are wishing the state "good luck" in the enforcement of this case.

...you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak...
In my new—and admittedly eccentric—neighborhood, a family has cut the good front half off of a wrecked speedboat and is using it to store their garbage cans in! From the roadway, it looks pretty normal! :laugh:

Airwaves

01-19-2008, 02:28 PM

Bear Islander

01-19-2008, 02:57 PM

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/15/bill_would_raise_nh_speed_limit_to_70_mph_on_major _highways/)! :eek:

Who has admitted that a speed limit is unenforceable?

And please consider that most of us OWN power boats.

Evenstar

01-19-2008, 06:02 PM

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/15/bill_would_raise_nh_speed_limit_to_70_mph_on_major _highways/)! :eek:

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Leislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

Rattlesnake Guy

01-19-2008, 08:15 PM

in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

I am more frightened by a boat going 20 mph and not paying attention than a boat going 60. For some reason they always seem to be paying keen attention to what is ahead of them.

Evenstar

01-19-2008, 10:37 PM

I am more frightened by a boat going 20 mph and not paying attention than a boat going 60. For some reason they always seem to be paying keen attention to what is ahead of them.

I totally disagree with you. I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort. That's the honest truth, whether you believe me or not. When you're traveling 100 feet per second (70mph), it is not at all hard to break the 150 foot rule, just because you didn't see a small boat in time. When a boat is traveling slower, the operator has more time to react - that's a simple fact.

A lake speed limit is enforceable - I've never even suggested that it wasn't. I've personally witnessed enforcement of a speed limit on Squam.

Is it 100% enforceable? No. But neither are highway speed limits.

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. And I've seen how much having a speed limit can improve this situation. In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone. I just wish that the bill hadn't been amended so that Wini was the only lake affected by it.

GWC...

01-20-2008, 01:16 AM

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers.
Perhaps the bill should be amended to ban paddlers from the Lake.

A win-win for all.

The amended bill would protect you (you seem to be partial to the government protecting you) and allow life, as it has been for many, many decades at the Lake (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070624/CITIZEN_01/106240326/-1/citizen0102), to continue.

http://fdimg.sv.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=FD&Date=20070624&Category=CITIZEN_01&ArtNo=106240326&Ref=V6&MaxW=250

Evenstar

01-20-2008, 10:09 AM

Perhaps the bill should be amended to ban paddlers from the Lake. A win-win for all.

The amended bill would protect you (you seem to be partial to the government protecting you) and allow life, as it has been for many, many decades at the Lake (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070624/CITIZEN_01/106240326/-1/citizen0102), to continue.

This is exactly why we need the lake speed limit bill. You and many others fee that your "right" to travel at unlimited speeds in more important than the rights of others to even use the lake.

My grandfather kayaked on wini. Paddlers were here for hundreds of years before powerboats, so if you're suggesting squatter's rights, we would win.

From RSA 270:1 "II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>"Among these treasures of our land is water—fast becoming our most valuable, most prized, most critical resource. A blessing where properly used—but it can bring devastation and ruin when left uncontrolled."
Eisenhower, Dwight D. (http://www.learningtogive.org/search/quotes/Display_Quotes.asp?author_id=197&search_type=author) 34th president of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"></st1:place></st1:country-region>
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">We have laws mainly because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty. We wouldn’t need most of our laws if everyone was truly concerned with (and understood) how their actions affect others. But unfortunately some people don’t really care (or truly understand) how their actions affect others.

A speed limit law does not ban anyone from using the lake. All it will do is require a the fastes powerboaters to slow down, which the proponents of the bill feel will make the lake safer.
</st1:place></st1:country-region></o:p>

Cal

01-20-2008, 12:24 PM

In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone.

May I respectfully suggest you simply paddle faster;).

jrc

01-20-2008, 02:29 PM

...The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).
...

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed. One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

GWC...

01-20-2008, 09:22 PM

This is exactly why we need the lake speed limit bill. You and many others fee that your "right" to travel at unlimited speeds in more important than the rights of others to even use the lake.

My grandfather kayaked on wini. Paddlers were here for hundreds of years before powerboats, so if you're suggesting squatter's rights, we would win.
Is this your way of telling the Forum that your grandfather was capable of using common sense to protect himself from danger and hence never felt a need to have a speed limit on the Lake while he enjoyed its serendipitous moments paddling its surface?

So, why is it that you are not able to enjoy the Lake, as did your grandfather, without government intervention to protect you?

Evenstar

01-20-2008, 11:29 PM

Is this your way of telling the Forum that your grandfather was capable of using common sense to protect himself from danger and hence never felt a need to have a speed limit on the Lake while he enjoyed its serendipitous moments paddling its surface?

No. That was just my response to your suggestion that high-speed powerboaters had some sort of squatters rights on the lake, just because they have been here for decades. People have been paddling on Wini for hundreds of years longer than powerboats. The mention of my grandfather was just to make the point that my own family has been living in NH and paddling on NH lakes for generations.

So, why is it that you are not able to enjoy the Lake, as did your grandfather, without government intervention to protect you?
My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.

My grandfather was in the NH Legislature, and I'm certain that if he was still alive and still there, that he would vote for HB 847.

Without laws (what you call government intervention), we would have anarchy. Laws exist to ensure fairness (at least this is what they were originally meant to do). I see a lake speed limit as fairness, since it doesn't ban any boaters, but just requires the fastest ones to slow down.

Your idea of fairness is to kick the paddlers off the lake. You seem to believe that those with the most horsepower have some sort of inherent right over other boaters. I don't see that as a right.

May I respectfully suggest you simply paddle faster;).
Few paddlers can keep up with me, including most guys. The maximum sustained speed for a sea kayak is about 6 mph - and the average recreational kayaker can only paddle at about 3 mph, which is 15 times slower than a 45 mph powerboat.

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers. People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

People who are made fun of rarely see it as funny. And, personally I don't see anything funny about putting other boaters in danger, or in forcing smaller/slower boats off the lake.

Cal

01-21-2008, 12:25 AM

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect:eek:. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out:D
Where I grew up I lived half a block from a river where power boats were outlawed. Only sail and paddle craft were allowed. Worst part was it would have been fantastic for waterskiing. None of us ever tried to limit or take their river away because we have a right to powerboat on it. Shame it's still not 1960:rolleye2:

OK enough , I'm off my soap box

Evenstar

01-21-2008, 01:22 AM

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect:eek:. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out:D

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to my posts. To you there’s no difference between a recreational kayak and a sea kayak – yet they are very different from each other in many ways.

I can easily paddle 20 miles in my 16 foot sea kayak in an afternoon – in a recreational kayak, you would be hard pressed to do 10 miles. And I’ve been out in 4 foot waves, without ever tipping over. That's because a sea kayak is designed to handle large waves.

Here’s a news flash for you: A sea kayak is made to be paddled on large bodies of water – it is not intended for small, shallow ponds. What do you think the “sea” part actually stands for? (And I do also paddled in large bays on the ocean.) For the past three years, I have paddle for hundreds of miles on large bodies of water each summer – without ever getting in trouble, or ever needing to be rescued.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I’m also a member of a varsity collegiate sailing team (currently 8<SUP>th</SUP> in the nation) - and guess where we practice? On Mt Hope and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Narragansett Bay</st1:place> - which are very large bodies of salt water. And these are little tiny 14 foot sailboats – and we go out in all sorts of nasty weather. And none of us are what I would call “self destructive” – we are just hard working trained athletes and registered members of the intercollegiate sailing association.

A paddler has the same right to use the entire lake as a powerboater. There's actually only about 2 square miles on Wini where you are ever more than a mile from some shore. It takes me only about 10 or 12 minutes to travel a mile, so it is not all that hard to get to safety if a storm moves in.

codeman671

01-21-2008, 04:09 AM

Your idea of fairness is to kick the paddlers off the lake. You seem to believe that those with the most horsepower have some sort of inherent right over other boaters. I don't see that as a right.

Your idea of fairness is to limit the speed of all boats on the lake to a speed limit that you see fit yet it has been proven that this is not necessary. The proponents of your bill have been trying to ban a certain type of boat from the lake. How fair is this to the people that enjoy these types of boats? More people have died on the lake in the last 5-10 years on their own accord than at the hands of these evil boaters.

Few paddlers can keep up with me, including most guys. The maximum sustained speed for a sea kayak is about 6 mph - and the average recreational kayaker can only paddle at about 3 mph, which is 15 times slower than a 45 mph powerboat.

I trust that you can keep it under 45mph then?

Unfortunately for you, your super-human strength was not accompanied with eagle-like vision and super hearing so that you can notice these motorized nuisances and avoid danger... :laugh:

People who are made fun of rarely see it as funny. And, personally I don't see anything funny about putting other boaters in danger, or in forcing smaller/slower boats off the lake.

Who is forcing? I think Cal just asked you to go faster... :laugh:

Since a customer of mine in Singapore decided to wake me up at 2:30am to spread some cheer I might as well spread mine here. A new thought... Why don't we start a new law that curbs pollution on the lake by prohibiting any boats (be it paddle, sail or motorized) that does not have bathroom facilities? Something tells me that these thousands of paddlers out on the lake have to "go" at some point. Where is it ending up? In the lake. Maybe this is the answer as to why pollution is up and water quality is down. :rolleye2:

SIKSUKR

01-21-2008, 09:51 AM

ITD

01-21-2008, 09:52 AM

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. And I've seen how much having a speed limit can improve this situation. In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone. I just wish that the bill hadn't been amended so that Wini was the only lake affected by it.

Evanstar, you're killing me here. How many times have you been on the Lake, 5, 10, 15, 20 ??????? We've established before that your first time on the lake was a year or two ago. Now you imply how many close encounters you've had with "high speed" boats. Give me a break. I too "paddle" on the lake, for a lot longer than you have. I have NEVER had a close encounter with a speeding boat, or any boat for that matter and I paddle in some busy areas. I find it very hard to believe that you have had so many close encounters. I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

All it will do is require a the fastes powerboaters to slow down, which the proponents of the bill feel will make the lake safer

Exactly, since there is no problem, as shown by statistics and accident data, all the speed limit will do is make you and your buddies "feel" safer. But I seriously doubt that too, because most, if not all of the boats you see from your kayak are already going slower than 45.

No wonder Don has had to replace his server with all the hot air the speed limit proponents cycle through it.:rolleye2:

Evenstar

01-21-2008, 11:04 AM

Evanstar, you're killing me here. How many times have you been on the Lake, 5, 10, 15, 20 ??????? We've established before that your first time on the lake was a year or two ago. Now you imply how many close encounters you've had with "high speed" boats. Give me a break. I too "paddle" on the lake, for a lot longer than you have. I have NEVER had a close encounter with a speeding boat, or any boat for that matter and I paddle in some busy areas. I find it very hard to believe that you have had so many close encounters. I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

I don’t lie. I never said that every close call that I’ve had with high-speed powerboats was on Winni – many have been on other large NH lakes, which is why I’m upset that the bill has been so watered down that it currently only applies to Wini. But I have had close calls on Winni, and the boats were going way faster than 30MPH, and they came way closer than 150 feet, before they even noticed me. Since you weren’t there, what gives you the right to call me a liar?

Exactly, since there is no problem, as shown by statistics and accident data, all the speed limit will do is make you and your buddies "feel" safer. But I seriously doubt that too, because most, if not all of the boats you see from your kayak are already going slower than 45.

There is a problem. Just because you haven’t had any close calls with powerboats, is not proof that others haven’t. Just because no one has been killed in recent years is not proof that paddlers like me haven’t had close calls. I know plenty of other paddlers who have had very similar close calls as I have – most of whom now refuse to even paddle on Winni, because of the bad experiences they have had. I know one NH Senator who will be voting for the speed limit bill. She told me that her husband had a very close call with a powerboat when he was kayaking. At last year’s Transportation Committee hearing, a number of paddlers told of having close calls with high-speed boats on NH lakes. I suppose that we must all be lying.

And I’ve seen plenty of boats on Winni that were going faster than 45 MPH. If all the powerboats on the lake are traveling at under 45 mph, why is there so much opposition to this bill?

No wonder Don has had to replace his server with all the hot air the speed limit proponents cycle through it.

Right. I post in support of the bill and 7 members immediately attack me. Most of the hot air is obviously coming from the other side. You guys have this bullying attitude, where you feel that having more HP gives you the right to put other boaters in danger. But in an intellectual debate you can’t even compete with one college girl, without ganging up on her.

Unfortunately for you, your super-human strength was not accompanied with eagle-like vision and super hearing so that you can notice these motorized nuisances and avoid danger...

I’m not super-human . . . I’m just in very good shape. I do notice high-speed power boats – but how am I supposed to avoid danger when they are traveling so much faster than me. At my maximum speed of 6 mph it takes me nearly 2 seconds just to travel the length of my 16 foot kayak. In that same 2 seconds a 70 mph powerboat covers 205 feet of lake.

Something tells me that these thousands of paddlers out on the lake have to "go" at some point. Where is it ending up? In the lake. Maybe this is the answer as to why pollution is up and water quality is down.

First of all, I don’t pee in lakes (or even in the ocean). I doubt that I could even do so without tipping my kayak over. Kayaking requires effort, so getting dehydrated is usually more of a problem than having than having to pee. And it really is not all that difficult to return to shore and pee in the woods, should the need actually arise.

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

Acres per Second

01-21-2008, 12:04 PM

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed.

Let's start with these:

1) The speed that doesn't cut kayaks in half, or
2) The speed that doesn't launch a Donzi dealer into a 32-foot cabin cruiser to kill a married couple, or
3) The speed that doesn't send a Dominator 130-feet up a hillside after killing two boaters.

An after-dark 25-MPH is generally regarded as reasonable, even by the few detractors of Winnipesaukee speed limits. Under several adverse conditions/alcohol, one could still be charged additionally with Failure to Keep a Proper Watch, as Littlefield was: unless they're totally wasted, drinking speedboaters become thrill-killers.

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.
At a then-legal 45-MPH speed, Littlefield could have gotten away with leaving a debris field in his wake, keeping his killer 4½-ton boat out of sight, and leaving scant evidence of criminal activity. In leaving no witnesses, there'd be no prosecution and, subsequently, no House Bill 162 or 847. At "only" 28-MPH, two witnesses remained to trigger the hit-and-run investigation. With New Hampshire's new $2000 theshold for reporting collision damage—and slower speeds—the case wouldn't have made headlines. (Or the one new law that the Legislature has already made.)

I, for one, am delighted for the witnesses.

Evil power boaters are against paddlers.
How about "Lake Lice"? And the paddlers they "can't see"?

Are there maybe two dozen Winnipesaukee testosterone-driven sociopaths who have driven Winnipesaukee's HB-847 to this point? :confused: It's not the family boaters who are to blame for a few dozen ocean-racers' transgressions on Lake Winnipesaukee: one Long Lake resident regarded the nearby double-fatality by observing, "This isn't Miami".

One with a propeller can kill when stopped.
Agreed: even on the trailer, ocean-racer propellers can kill. Many have razor-sharp "Cleavers".

To avoid "cleaving" the neighborhood kids, special caution should be observed by ocean-racers. Covers, boxes, and gloves are manufactured for razor-sharp propellers with the same Kevlar that is used in bullet-proof vests.

Here's a photograph provided by a retailer of those protective devices:

codeman671

01-21-2008, 12:51 PM

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? Without looking it up, what are the 4 largest lakes in the state and what is their size comparison to Winnipesaukee? Let me get you started. The next closest lake to Winnipesaukee in size is your beloved Squam. If your close calls took place there then your speed limit is not working. Squam is considerably shallower and rockier than Winni and also only 15% of the size. Big difference. How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam? On Ossipee? Umbagog? Newfound? the Connecticuits? Winnisquam? Massabesic? Having been on many of these lakes myself I have not seen a speed issue other than an occasional rogue bass boat going for a beer run. After Squam the next closest lake in size is 10% of the size on Winni. Please tell us where your close calls have occurred so we can hand you a shovel to dig a deeper hole.

How about your car or are you a peddler and a paddler? How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

Evenstar

01-21-2008, 02:08 PM

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...Hey, I didn’t bring up the environment issues – you did! I never said that we should ban all powerboats.

I just found it humorous that that you needed to stoop so low as to try to make an environmental issue out of my supposed need to pee in the lake, in an attempt to poke fun at me.

My intentions here are only to support a lake speed limit because I honestly believe that one of the best ways to make the lake safer is to slow down the fastest boats. I have the right to support this bill – just as you have the right to oppose it. But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

Well, maybe you should take the time to read my past posts, rather than accuse me of writing something that I never wrote. I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum.

I have paddled over 500 miles on NH's lakes in the past two summers - many of these miles was on Winni. My best friend and I had our first close call with a high-speed powerboat the very first time that we kayaked on the lake. Since that episode I’ve had a difficult time convincing her to kayak on Winni.

I've always been comletely honest here - I’ve never once insinuated anything. In my very first post I openly stated that I had never kayaked on Winni before – which is why I originally joined this forum – to learn more about kayaking on the lake. I’ve never once implied that Winni is a terrifying place – if it was, I would not kayak on it. I merely stated that I feel is very dangerous to allow powerboats to continue to travel at unlimited speed on a lake that is also used by small human-powered boats.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? . . . How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam?

I’ve had close calls on several of these lakes – I don’t feel that I need to document every encounter here – I live only 3 miles from Moore Reservoir, which is one of the lakes where I’ve had numerous close calls (since I paddle there the most). A boat doesn’t have to be a 38’ fountain to be dangerous to a kayak – and many bass boats (as well as other types of powerboats - and even jet skiis) can and do go faster than 45 mph. My best friend and I were nearly run over by a high speed powerboat on the Connecticut River two summers ago.

How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???
Hey, I never posted that I’m in favor of raising the speed limit – in fact I posted that I didn’t believe that bill would get very far, for environmental reasons.

ITD

01-21-2008, 04:58 PM

..............But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.................

............... I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum..............

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

The personal attack song is getting old too. The world doesn't revolve around you, no one is "personally" attacking you. You know this is a passionate subject, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I won't stand idly by and let you post all these stories of mayhem and danger when I can pretty much guarantee that over the past 10 years I have spent more time on the lake than you and I know that your portrayal is wrong.

Your chance of having all these "close encounters" with boats going over 45 mph is pretty much nil since most boats travel the lake at less than 45 mph. That means these "close encounters" you have had are with boats going less than the proposed speed limit ergo the speed limit will not help you.

Evenstar

01-21-2008, 05:43 PM

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph. - Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating, I know that your portrayal is wrong is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

Hottrucks

01-21-2008, 06:19 PM

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.
Without laws (what you call government intervention), we would have anarchy. Laws exist to ensure fairness (at least this is what they were originally meant to do). .
things have changed but instead of blaming the inconsiderate people and the fact there's more people on the lake you put it all on GFBL boats

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Legislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

Like a MPH speed limit on the roads????

I totally disagree with you. I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort. A bigger issue with jet skis I would imagine That's the honest truth, whether you believe me or not. When you're traveling 100 feet per second (70mph) And according to NH MP how many are going 70 mph and where..probably someplace you shouldn't be with a row boat,

A lake speed limit is enforceable - I've never even suggested that it wasn't. I've personally witnessed enforcement of a speed limit on Squam.

Is it 100% enforceable? No. But neither are highway speed limits.

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. .

OK speed limit isn't enforceable they have no fixed platform for them to use Radar accurately according to the manufacturer....I would think that you should be more Prohibition since almost ALL accidents are alcohol related

By the way what other BIG lake in NH have you had issues with...I have been on quite a few lakes and only winnie has the GFBL boat you seem to have issue with.....could it be they where GFFB ( go fast family boats)

Cal

01-21-2008, 11:01 PM

GWC...

01-22-2008, 12:57 AM

Cal, you might find this comment to an online Union Leader article (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) of interest:

The following voice message was left by the speed limit bill sponsor Mr. Pilliod, tell me there is no agenda here and this is a safety issue and not about banning a certain style of boat.

This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "
- Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

Cal, you might also find the comment from Arwen Mitton of Littleton very interesting, too.

Lakegeezer

01-22-2008, 08:40 AM

So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats. Now, what about the bass boats, which can go just as fast, but are much lighter and generally come with courteous pilots. Maybe the rules should be rewritten that no boat over two tons can go over 45. The bass contests are won by getting from one favorite bass hole to another before the competition. The boats are expensive, and computer designed to be stable at high speeds. One could (and some do) argue that nobody needs to go that fast, but that is opinion, not a reason for a law.

Jet skis are another craft that will be impacted by trying to get the 'big guys'. Some of them go 60 with ease, and it is the pursuit of happiness to do so. This type of craft causes more anger than fear, and lowering their speeds will do nothing to reduce anger. There are more fools driving them, but they are very maneuverable. There have been deaths on jet-skis, but speeds over 45 don't seem to be the cause.

So since Mr. Pilliod says "It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels", then the law should not be so broad based against the freedom to persue happiness for those without the big boats.

Evenstar

01-22-2008, 09:55 AM

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call - 50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close.

Not that it's any of your business, but haven't been 20 for many, many years - so please stop trying to discredit me because of how old you think I am. Again, personal attacks have no place in a debate, and happen to be against the rules of this forum. (And, yes, making fun of someone is a personal attack.)

Some of you on this forum have referred to kayaks (and sea kayaks) as toys (or worse) - and you seem to think that a "real" boat has to have a high horse-power motor - and that only "real" boats should be allowed out on the main lake. Some of you feel that all kayakers are inexperinced boaters, and that we all get in major trouble whenever the lake gets a little rough. I've merely tried to present the other side here, as an experienced sea kayaker (there happens to be a LOT of us that paddle on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

Acres per Second

01-22-2008, 10:45 AM

And stating, "I know that your portrayal is wrong" is also calling me a liar.
Get used to it.

"They" said the same thing to me when I started the thread "Close Call Today".

When I finally located that thread-starter just now, I found one "Go-Fast" has a problem obeying New Hampshire's boating navigation laws. (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2525&highlight=close+call+today)

Guess who that might be? :laugh: :laugh:

HINT: "...this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit..."

Oh, I can't STAND the irony! :D :laugh: :rolleye2: :emb: :laugh: :rolleye1: :laugh:

SIKSUKR

01-22-2008, 10:52 AM

e on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

jrc

01-22-2008, 11:43 AM

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought.

You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

codeman671

01-22-2008, 11:45 AM

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

NHBUOY

01-22-2008, 06:39 PM

Could the kayak vs powerboat "close calls" be a vision thing?...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...Same with the jet skis that don't have the tell-tale straight up spray...Why don't they pass a law that will make them more visible?...In some other states (California for example) They require a tall orange flag on ski boats when skiing as well as at the dunes when offroading...Put these on the kayaks and they will be seen...and avoided...I have a VERY fast boat and am an ex-offshore racer...I have been on the lake for 50 years and ALWAYS had a fast boat...(45-50 mph Centurys, 100 mph Hondo/Sanger drag boats, 70-80 mph jet boats, 22'- 32' 75-120 mph offshore V-bottoms & cat boats etc...) I have NEVER had a ticket but have been stopped for "safety checks" numerous times...I have SCARED myself MANY times but always lived to tell the tale and never involving anyone but myself...My point being, it is the "other" boneheads out there that SCARE me so I try to avoid those that look like they don't know what they are doing...(and there are too many out there that fit this description: DRUNKS-DUMMIES-DOPES+DISTRACTED "boaters")...If I want to go FAST I head out to the BROADS, choose my line and go...Even on weekends the BROADS can usually support a couple speed runs with out encroaching ANYONE...SAFELY!!!...Speed limit during the day...NO WAY...Speed limit at night..."might" be RIGHT...Enforce and obey the laws as they are written and let's move on...Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents....

Evenstar

01-23-2008, 12:10 AM

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get it just fine, thank-you.
Here’s the thing: whenever a boat is traveling above no wake speed, if it runs into another boat, it has to be in violation of the 150 foot rule. After all, it’s sort of impossible for one boat to collide with another one, when it is still 150 feet away.

If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would seen where I have posted (several times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that when boats are traveling at high speeds, some operators apparently don’t see smaller boats until they are closer than 150 feet.

It is also true that the faster a boat is traveling, the less time the operator has to avoid an object in its path, or to stay outside of the 150 foot limit.

For these reasons, I feel that a speed limit will result in a reduction in the number of 150 foot violations.

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.
Then why don’t they just say that, rather than constantly trying to discredit everything that I post? I’ve stated before that I have language issues (the result of a severe head injury when I was very young). I am very literal, but I still think it’s pretty clear that I have been accused on lying a number of times in this one thread.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.
First of all, I don’t know that no one’s ever been ticketed on Squam for speeding – I’d like to see the proof of that. Secondly I’ve seen boats stopped for speeding – isn’t stopping someone who is speeding enforcement? (And I was close enough to hear what the person was being stopped for.)

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought. You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

I happen to be extremely visual, since the right side of my brain is overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in special awareness. Because of this I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images. Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea of what 45 mph looks like.

I don’t believe that I ever said that I’ve had “many” close calls or that I’ve been in “great fear” – what I posted was that I have had close calls, and that speeding boats have come way too close for comfort. In defining “close call”, when I stated that a boat was less than a second from hitting me, I realized that I should have added “if they continued their course” (but I can’t edit my posts). I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.
My grandfather was a carpenter and he purchased his kayak as a kit – from Sears and Roebuck Company. Based on my uncle’s age at the time, this was sometime in the late 1930’s. So, I’m not “bending the truth” – I based the date on what my uncle stated.

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws.
I’ve already explained how high-speed contributes to violation of the 150 foot rule, which is in my opinion, a pretty good reason to enact a speed limit.

I’ve haven’t take that course, but I have read the rules numerous times, and I do own the latest copy. I kayak and sail so my studies are a bit broader and more specialized. I took kayak lessons, from a certified sea kayak instructor when I bought my first kayak. I’ve also attended advanced paddling workshops, and I also took a coastal navigation workshop. Now I’m learning the rules of competitive sailing (the book is over an inch thick, to give you an idea of the number of rules involved here). I’m also employed by my university to instruct and supervise other students on the use of kayaks, and have had Red Cross CPR and first-aid training.

I do care about enforcement, but I also believe that most boaters will obey a speed limit on Winni, if the bill passes - so I believe that the estimated costs for enforcement are way higher than what the actual costs will end up being.

chipj29

01-23-2008, 08:36 AM

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

VERY well said codeman. :cheers:

ITD

01-23-2008, 09:42 AM

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted - Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating, is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying.

Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/marinepatrol/documents/speedsurveyreport.pdf

From the actual results, eleven (11) boats out of 3800+ were clocked at a speed above 50 mph, eleven. This is over 135 hours of checking. Now they don't specify if those eleven came by in one group or if they occurred randomly throughout the case. I will assume that they occurred randomly throughout the test, because that's the best case for your stories. So if they occurred randomly we could spread out the occurances and say that once for every 10 hours of testing, a boat went by at greater than 50 mph. Not very good for your stories. I want to be fair here, so in the report it states that 36 boats were clocked at greater than 45 mph, less than 1% of the total, but still better for your stories (many "close calls" on the lake). Again we'll assume they randomly occur throughout the test (better for your stories) so over 135 hours, you might see 1 boat over 45mph in about 3 hours.

So now lets talk about a close call. A close call, as you describe them to bolster your pro SL view, would have to be a boat, travelling greater than 45 mph, coming closer than 150 ft to your kayak, just like you say in one of your posts.

So I've laid out the case, for your "close call", in the hours that you are out there, if 100 boats go by you (unlikely), the one that is going over 45 mph comes within 150 feet of your kayak (which is extremely unlikely). Now to claim this has happened many times, well I'm calling BS.

I think you were legitimately scared per one of your posts, ON THE CONNETICUT RIVER, years ago. This has messed up your perception of power boats to the point that you think they are all travelling above 45mph and within 150 feet of you. It just can't be true.

Enacting a law, on faulty perceptions, totally ignoring a study that determines there isn't a problem is nuts. I'm telling you now, a 45 mph speed limit isn't going to help you.

Acres per Second

01-23-2008, 09:55 AM

"...So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats..."
FYI, your quoted "Ramsey Tidwell" did a cut-and-paste of Woodsy's (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23856&postcount=25) winni.com post from three years ago!

Tidwell, (an alias (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13473&postcount=14) of old) is presently spamming out-of-state boating websites to overthrow deliberations by New Hampshire's Legislature.

http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboard/other_topics/T61402.htm
http://www.ridepwc.com/blog/single/new_hampshire_speed_limit_update_house_vote_coming _soon/

http://www.bulletinboards.com/v1.cfm?comcode=meb357&expand=y

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake-george-ny/T39TI7IFJRDF0H251

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243110

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243113

(One of the above links proposes a new law on Long Lake against 500-HP boats.)

"...OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's..."
FYI, commercial production and retail sales began 100 years ago with Klepper (often seen on Winnipesaukee), and 75 years ago with Folbot. One of my Folbot brochures shows an early Folbot kayak cartopped on a 30's car having wooden spokes!

I keep two vintage Folbots on Winnipesaukee, but don't use them for a reason that could change by this summer. ;)

...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...
This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see? :confused:

codeman671

01-23-2008, 11:15 AM

This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see? :confused:

If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation.

I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats.

SS-194

01-23-2008, 11:20 AM

While i sit here and read the fireworks on each side of the speed limit issue. It sounds like Hilliary and Obama. Can someone out there just say simply that they love the lake for what it is. Beautiful water in a high place.
The best time on the lake is drinking that first cup of coffe on the dock before anyone is out on the water, be it a 4 ton ocean vessel or the guy doing 60 in his bass boat. If you have to go fast to enjoy the lake i feel sorry for those people. If you need a huge show off boat to have fun i feel sorry for those people. I have said before the lake is not what it used to be.
As big as the lake is, it gets real small at 70 plus mph. If you can't go fast
then maybe you will see that Winnipesaukee is ''Beatiful water in a high place" Maybe we should keep it that way. Is it possible?

codeman671

01-23-2008, 11:37 AM

Then why don’t they just say that, rather than constantly trying to discredit everything that I post? I’ve stated before that I have language issues (the result of a severe head injury when I was very young). I am very literal, but I still think it’s pretty clear that I have been accused on lying a number of times in this one thread.

I happen to be extremely visual, since the right side of my brain is overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in special awareness. Because of this I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

I’ve already explained how high-speed contributes to violation of the 150 foot rule, which is in my opinion, a pretty good reason to enact a speed limit.

I’ve haven’t take that course, but I have read the rules numerous times, and I do own the latest copy. I kayak and sail so my studies are a bit broader and more specialized. I took kayak lessons, from a certified sea kayak instructor when I bought my first kayak. I’ve also attended advanced paddling workshops, and I also took a coastal navigation workshop. Now I’m learning the rules of competitive sailing (the book is over an inch thick, to give you an idea of the number of rules involved here). I’m also employed by my university to instruct and supervise other students on the use of kayaks, and have had Red Cross CPR and first-aid training.

Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.

Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.

I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.

The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.

Evenstar

01-23-2008, 02:03 PM

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying. Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/marinepatrol/documents/speedsurveyreport.pdf

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. 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. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

Evenstar

01-23-2008, 02:59 PM

Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I never claimed to be super-human. But I am in great shape (Believe me, you have to be in pretty great shape to compete as a varsity athlete – and I do the exact same workouts and have to pass the exact same fitness tests as the much younger athletes on my team.) Plus I was taught how to paddle correctly, so I use more than just my arms. And I’m 6 feet tall, so I have a pretty long reach. If you don’t believe my paddling abilities, borrow a kayak and come with me some time.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
That was supposed to read “spatial” awareness – not “special” awareness (I told you that I have language issues. And I'm not allowed to edit my posts, so I can't even correct my error.) I have been tested by experts – more than once. Doctors (and my professors) tell me that my thinking process is very unique. When I tried to explain my differences, you just see it as being egotistical. All I’m trying to do is explain myself here. Believe me, I don’t think that I'm better than other people – but I do know that I’m very different in some basic ways. Most of my life I've just wanted to be normal.
<o:p></o:p>
Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.<o:p></o:p>
You guys are constantly questioning my abilities – all I’ve done is try to defend myself. And I’ve been completely honest in what I’ve written concerning my abilities (and in my inabilities).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It matters because my ability to judge distance, speed, or to remember the details of something visual was questioned here. How is admitting that I have language skills “touting myself up”???? When I wrote that I’m very literal – that was not bragging – it was admitting one of my many shortcomings. It was also an attempt to explain my understanding of what others write in their posts. And you’re very wrong, because I do have major problems writing. Writing is extremely difficult for me. I cannot even think in words, but only in images. At college it takes me more than 3 times as long as the average student to write a paper. Does that sound like I think that I’m perfect? Believe me; I’m not even close to perfect. But I do know that I am very good at some things, and I will continue to stand up for myself when my abilities are questioned.
<o:p></o:p>
The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.<o:p></o:p>
I just tried to explain some of the problems with that report. The thing about facts is that you need to also look at the facts that are left out – in order to know the truth. [/quote]
<o:p> </o:p>
I happen to care very much about the enforcement of lake speed limits. So please stop making sweeping generalities about what “the proponents” want.

The Big Kahuna

01-23-2008, 04:33 PM

The boating accident in 2002 was just that, an accident. I cause two families a lot of hard ship. The first family lost a loved one, the 2nd lost a father of two and a husband for a long time. Either of which will ever be returned. Why do you have to use it to make your point over something as stupid as this speed limit. You should be a shamed of yourself having to use that reference to make your point. Let the dead lie, and never open old wounds when they have a chance to heal. Over what, a stupid speed limit! What is the big deal with a speed limit, it will be the same as any other speed limit we have for cars, planes, snowmobiles, etc.. There are going to be those that will choose to obey them and those that don't. Have you traveled 93 South lately? Did you know the speed limit is 65 and not 80, everyone does 80. How about on the trials snowmobiling? Its the posted speed or 45 max, I have seen sleds all the time going 60 - 70 on most. Do you really think a speed limit is going to change anything? Think about it. It is a waist of time and effort to be for or against it. It is like anything else there will all ways be something else. If the speed limit passes and the next death related accident is a result of swimming, of which there were two last year. Are you going to call for a ban on swimming? I know lets ban the use of the lake all together, no boating, swimming, rowing, sailing, no nothing GO HOME!

codeman671

01-23-2008, 06:08 PM

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. 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. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

I think your analysis is a stretch at best. First, you are criticizing them for spending 135 hours of radar testing in the 11 weeks that the test was run? That is quite a bit, especially with no extra funding or manpower allotted to help. If you are not happy with this then how are you going to fee l if it passes and the manpower or funding is not allotted to enforce it? The people pushing for this clearly have stated in another topic that they don't care about funding it and think it will take care of itself. The joke is on you.

The solid fact remains that out of 3852 boats less than 1% were speeding. That is hard to argue. I can spit out hypothesis all afternoon (although I bet MeenMac is already working on it:D )as to different calculations and formulas that apply but the main fact still remains. Speed was not an issue.

The study was done during the busy end of the summer, and clearly was concentrated on busier days of the week and daylight hours. If you have spent as much time on the lake as many of us do this may be easier to comprehend. Show up on a Monday afternoon and what do you get? An empty lake. Rainy days? No traffic at all. You did not add any factor in for bad weather days into your calculations. Chances are the concentration of studies was done during busier times in order to achieve catching 3852 boats on radar.

Do you think they zapped every boat that went by? Probably not. Multiple boats going by at the same time cannot all be clocked effectively. My house is right around the corner from Area A so I was able to witness first hand how much they were there and the traffic involved. It is a very busy zone, one of the busiest on the lake which is why it was chosen. So isn't Area B.
I am sure they clocked me a few times.

There are so many different factors that could be thrown in to this that I am not even touching on. They did their job, give them a break. The results were inconclusive of any speed issue. Feel free to analyze away though!

ITD

01-23-2008, 08:14 PM

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. 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. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer? 3800+ boats is a pretty significant sample and should give a pretty clear indication of what is happening on the lake. You lost me on your discussion of Man hours. If there were two people on the boat for 135 hours, then that would result in 270 Man hours of labor. Not really relevant unless you want to discuss what the study cost.

All your spin, and shaky analysis still doesn't negate the fact that only 1 out of 100 boats was going over 45 mph. Certainly not the "wild west" talked about by speed limit proponents.

I'm going to give you a piece of advice that might save your life someday. Quit worrying about boats going over 45 mph, they're not the problem. Keep your eye out for captain bonehead, tooling along at 25 mph in his pontoon boat sipping a martini watching the scenery. While you're straining to see that one speedboat zipping by at 50 mph, captain bonehead might just run you over, he's a much bigger threat and a speed limit won't deter him.

But then this isn't really about safety is it.

Evenstar

01-24-2008, 10:00 AM

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer?

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.
3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.
4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

Acres per Second

01-24-2008, 10:53 AM

"...As big as the lake is, it gets real small at 70 plus mph..."
Here's hoping NH's Legislators are savvy-enough to grasp that.
"...If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation..."
I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

"...I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats..."
All boats? :confused:

The far shore (Port Wedeln) is about ¾ to 1-mile away—perhaps a casual 15-minute trip by kayak. At 70-MPH, the same trip in a speeding, excessively-powered boat would take about 35-seconds! :eek:

So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1689&stc=1&d=1201095531

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/KayakVSpeedboat-117x77.jpg

"...Can someone out there just say simply that they love the lake for what it is..."

The following day—same kayaker—I considered offering a tow to the middle-aged woman because a strong headwind was making it very difficult for her and her little boy.

A view through binoculars showed that she was singing!

If you see a driver speeding at 70+ MPH on Winnipesaukee—and singing—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem. :eek:

Lakegeezer

01-24-2008, 12:25 PM

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

GWC...

01-24-2008, 02:12 PM

Was curious as to why Evenstar started posting, again?

The Bill is up for debate, again. (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/GJNEWS02/374698829/-1/CITIZEN)

Derek Durbin, the environmental policy director for the nonprofit New Hampshire Lakes Association, said he is confident that the Democratic majority in the House will see HB847 making the cut.

"I think it's definitely going to pass and I think it will do so by a reasonable margin," said Durbin on Wednesday.

Durbin said the repeated filing of legislation pushing for a speed limit during the last ten years has probably wore on those on both sides of the issue, but he said it is still of great interest to many residents.

A similar bill that passed in the House was killed in the Senate in March of 2006 and a proposed pilot speed limit on the lake this past summer never materialized.

"I think people are still pretty fired up about it (but) I think some people are a little tired ... they've been at it for 15 years," said Durbin.

The Lakes Association is pushing for the passage of the bill...

John A. Birdsall

01-24-2008, 02:23 PM

I think that everybody's rights can be looked too and safety be taken care of. As one that was in agreement with speed zones, not making no wake zones, but curtailing speed within Alton Bay, Wolfeboro, Weirs and other bays leaving the broads for speed, I think we can do away with the speeding issue if everybody that has a boat would agree to obey the 150' rule and other navigation rules. Plus remember courtesy toward your fellow man goes a long way. If those rules were obeyed by all whether it be a kayak, or a rum runner or anywhere inbetween then we would be having fun and a safer lake.

ITD

01-24-2008, 04:46 PM

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph. Actually, from the press and comments posted by WInnfabbs I would have expected to see 30 or 40% of the boats to be traveling faster than 45mph. The study didn't show that because there is not a speed problem.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem.

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.

You might as well say the study is invalid because MP didn't stop and gather each boat operators name and address. Look up statistical sampling, read and understand.

3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.

Wrong again...........

From the Citizen:

Gallagher said there were two areas chosen for temporary regulation of speed, including the southwest side of Rattlesnake Island, ranging to the main shore, as well as the area between Bear Island and Meredith Neck. He said the reason was because they were long areas with a fair amount of traffic.

There also were several other areas surveyed, including Paugus Bay because it is a large area with boats mainly traveling past each other in opposite directions. Others were in Gilford between Governor's Island and Timber Island; Center Harbor; Moultonborough near the east side of Moultonborough Neck; between Cow and Little Bear islands; Tuftonboro Neck; and the end of Alton Bay, the part nearest to the main lake.

4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

And again wrong. The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

Bear Islander

01-24-2008, 05:06 PM

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

Evenstar

01-24-2008, 06:55 PM

I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph./quote]

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

[quote]The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

Lakegeezer

01-24-2008, 08:28 PM

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

Cal

01-24-2008, 09:02 PM

Bear Islander

01-24-2008, 09:06 PM

No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

You are rationalizing.

You see the need for highway speed limits, so you rationalize that they don't violate you Constitutional Rights.

You don't see the need for boating speed limits so you believe they violate your rights.

The issues are EXACTLY the same. The right of the state to set speed limits.

You said "as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits" If the legislature passes HB847 and the Governor signs it into law, then we will have decided, as a society, to invoke boating speed limits.

fatlazyless

01-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Lawmakers expect to be bombarded with e-mails for another week as House postpones action on boat speed limit bill

By Chris Dornin
Golden Dome News
top of page 1, Laconia Daily Sun

CONCORD - House members will have to endure seven more days of e-mails from both sides of the polarized debate over a proposed 45 mph boat speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, with 25 mph at night. If House Bill 847, sponsored by Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) becomes law, violations would appear in the speeder's motor vehicle driving record. State reps were bracing for a long and heated floor fight yesterday that never materialized.

When House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) called for discussion of the bill, Rep. Jim Ryan (D-Franklin) asked as chairman of the House Transportation Committee to hold off doing anything until Wednesday, Jan 30.

"This afternoon my good friend, the minority leader (Rep. Mike Whalley, R-Alton), asked to postpone the bill due to the unavailability of people to oppose it," Ryan explained.

Whalley later explained that Rep. Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) was absent. Packard, the former chairman of House Transportation, wrote the opposition blurb in the House calender, warning that HB 847 would punish all boat operators for the irresponsible actions of a very few.

He also cited a Marine Patrol study this summer showing the legislation was unneeded. Officers clocked 3,852 vessels and caught 83 moving between 41 and 50 mph, eight between 51 and 60, and three between 60 and 62 mph.

"A far greater percentage of people disobey our speed limits on our roads,' Packard wrote. "Do we really believe that by passing this law that this small percentage of inconsiderate and irresponsible people will change their habits?"

Whalley said most of the citizens he's heard from live on lakefronts, and they generally want to regulate boat speeds. The marina owners have split about evenly, he said.

"I pay more attention to what individuals are saying, but I'm not convinced yet there's a problem," Whalley said.

One moment made clear how hard the stakeholders are hounding their public servants. Rep. Tony Simon (D-Manchester) went to the podium for a joke on Ryan that drew 10 seconds of laughter and applause. Several people stood up.

"Our friend from Franklin has just arranged for all of us to be inundated for another week with emails," Simon said. "I suggest we all forward them to the member from Franklin. He will do a statistical analysis for us."

More than a hundred people packed a hearing last spring on a version of the bill that capped the speed on all lakes. Strong feelings emerged on both sides. Sensing an impasse, the Transportation Committee held the bill for further study that led to a crackdown on just the largest lake. That attempt at a compromise left the committee with 7-6 endorsement and strong prospects for a floor battle.

Pilliod said he has gotten hundreds of letters and e-mails supporting his bill, and called them well informed and sophistocated. Each was different from the rest. Lawmakers are used to getting identical messages on an issue from different people.

"If we can get this to the Senate," he said before the postponement, "they're going to get thousands of e-mails on it. It's not just people who feel threatened by these boats. It's duck and loons. Merrill Faye of Faye's Boatyard (in Gilford) called me to say it's hurting his business. He was bananas about it."

Pilliod got a similar bill through the House in 2006 when Republicans controlled the legislature. It died in the Senate.

"I've been surprised and pleased to see a lot of Democrats are for it this time," Pilliod said. "It's not just good for people. It's good for the environment."

Sandy Helve of Meredith has been orchestrating some of that grassroots stir as president of the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety, a nonprofit organization claiming thousands of supporters, many of them shorefront homeowners all around the lake. Their allies, she said, include business and marina owners, full-time and summer lake residents, kayakers, anglers, canoeists, sailors, rowers, and children's camp operators. Her people showed up in force to work the corridors outside Representatives Hall.

"These fast boats are driving people like us off the lake," Helve said. "I don't care what that study showed. They're going 70, 80, 90 mph when the Marine Patrol is gone, every day of the week, all day and all night. They can't stop in time. A lot of people feel scared and intimidated."

Warren Hutchins of the Weirs section of Laconia lives on the lake and serves on Helve's executive committee. He said the group has been digging deep to hold its' own with the commercially funded trade associations.

"We began pushing this four years ago," Hutchins said. " The people who can afford these big, high performance cigarette boats are all wealthy. But they're a very small part of all the boaters.

Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Bartlett) said the study of speeders weakens the case for a limit.

"It showed there's not that much of a problem," Chandler said. Reminded the bill sunsets after three years, he said, "Once something is in, it's hard to get it out."

Cosponsors of the bill include Rep. Alida Millham (R-Gilford), Rep. Betsey Patten (R-Moultonboro) and Sen. Joe Kenney (R-Union).

...................

Laconia Daily Sun
Chris Dornin. Golden Dome News
Thursday, Jan 24, 2008

...................

The Big Kahuna

01-24-2008, 09:44 PM

and singing[/B]—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem. :eek:

After a statement like this it is impossible to take anything else you ever write serious. YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME! L

Bear Islander

01-25-2008, 01:29 AM

The most ironic part is the all the people who are calling foul on the results of the test (that was done by professionals) are the same people who would be swearing by it if the results went their way:rolleye2::rolleye2:

Cal

If the study is accurate, and no boats are speeding, then enforcement will not be a problem.

Perhaps you should explain that to Woodsy in the other thread. He thinks enforcement will be a huge problem, and cost lots of money.

The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. If there is a speeding problem now, then I submit we need a speed limit.

Anyway the real question about the study is its accuracy. Not who it favors. I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic. Clearly Woodsy believes enforcement will be extremely difficult, expensive and disruptive to the power boating community. If the study were accurate, how could that be so?

chipj29

01-25-2008, 08:53 AM

Cal

If the study is accurate, and no boats are speeding, then enforcement will not be a problem.

Perhaps you should explain that to Woodsy in the other thread. He thinks enforcement will be a huge problem, and cost lots of money.

The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. If there is a speeding problem now, then I submit we need a speed limit.

Anyway the real question about the study is its accuracy. Not who it favors. I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic. Clearly Woodsy believes enforcement will be extremely difficult, expensive and disruptive to the power boating community. If the study were accurate, how could that be so?

Why do you call it a speeding problem? What incidents/accidents have been the result of speeding on the lake? How many have there been in the last 5 years?

SIKSUKR

01-25-2008, 09:26 AM

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

Here's the difference.Cars are traveling on 93 only a few feet away from each other.In that scenerio a speed limit is prudent.On water you must be a MINIMUM of 150 ft apart or there IS a speed limit already of 6 mph.I know it's a bit of a strech but a better analogy would be like planes flying in almost any airspace.There are no speed limits there.

ITD

01-25-2008, 09:32 AM

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

The study proves that you could not have possibly had as many "close calls" with speeding boats as you allude. Especially when you consider how few times you have been on the lake. What more could you possibly need to know about the population of the study that would be relevant? In any study, capturing 2% is a pretty good sample, if we accept the premise that hours of daylight is important, which it isn't.........

As far as the accuracy of the study, even though I don't think it is true, let's suppose they missed 50% of the boats that were above 45, that would bump the total from 0.9% to 1.8%, still a very small number, so what?????

You keep bombarding us with inaccurate info. only 2 out of 9 areas were published, so you are wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Common sense, a speed limt isn't going to help you. The only thing that will make you feel safe is a power boat ban, and that isn't going to happen. The world doesn't revolve around you. You should have learned this by now.

Show me some data that supports a speed limit, you have none. Just a group of people using scare tactics. Tactics that have been exposed and pretty much admitted or shown as being untrue. When you see some actual data, you try to torpedo that, but you are foiled again....

Bear Islander

01-25-2008, 09:44 AM

Here's the difference.Cars are traveling on 93 only a few away from each other.In that scenerio a speed limit is prudent.On water you must be a MINIMUM of 150 ft apart or there IS a speed limit already of 6 mph.I know it's a bit of a strech but a better analogy would be like planes flying in almost any airspace.There are have speed limits there.

As a pilot and future astronaut I can tell you there is a speed limit everywhere above the USA. The only exceptions are military and spaceflight.

However the question is about the constitutionality of setting speed limits, not the practical considerations.

Evenstar

01-25-2008, 09:52 AM

Why do you call it a speeding problem? What incidents/accidents have been the result of speeding on the lake? How many have there been in the last 5 years?

Since you asked for it, here's my definition of a speeding problem:

1.) Boats that are traveling at over 15 times as fast as the maximum speed of other boats.

2.) Personally having powerboats come well within my 150 foot zone, because they don't see me in time and are traveling too fast to stay further away.

3.) Knowing that I have less than one second to live, unless a speeding boat is able to avoid hitting me in that last second.

4.) Having friends who won't paddle with me on Winni, because "powerboats goes so fast there."

5.) The fact that Winni isn't even listed in kayak and canoe guidebooks as a lake to paddle on.

When people like me have posted of the problems that we have personally experienced on the lake - which are a direct result of high speeds, we are made fun of, called liars, told that we are exagerating, and told that we have unreasonable fears.

Apparently you'll only consider speed to be a problem when someone like me is killed by a speeding boat. The problem exists, and everyone knows it. Some people are just too selfish to admit it.

codeman671

01-25-2008, 09:58 AM

The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

I think the opposition is quite clear, speeding is not a problem. This is why the opposition's stance is that a speed limit is clearly not needed. The studies are inconclusive of a speeding problem on the lake. The lack of speed related accidents and deaths further proves this.

Woodsy's problem with enforcement is the cost. Who will pay to purchase the new gear? The training? Added manpower? If we are going to take the time to put this law into place then it should be enforced. Laws written with the intent of never being enforced are not worth the paper they are written on. Whether or not there is truly a problem is up to you. The fact remains that it will cost $$$ to patrol and enforce it regardless of if they catch anyone. So, if they patrol for 90 days and do not catch anyone should they simply stop? What will happen then if there was an incident after those 90 days and someone got hurt? Who takes the heat then? MP for not enforcing would be the first target after the parties involved. Maybe then the crosshairs should point to Bear Island for not caring about protecting anyone because they did not care about enforcement and simply wanted a revenge law passed.

How can you honestly want this law so bad yet care less that any enforcement takes place??? What is the real motive? I think we already know...

fatlazyless

01-25-2008, 10:01 AM

Reading thru the LaDaSun article gets me thinking about Reps Gene Chandler and Mike Whalley. Chandler used to be the speaker of the house, and Whalley was probably surprised last election when his time as speaker never happened as the house went Democratic majority.

Anyway, Mike Whalley is from Alton, so after HB847 becomes law maybe he could be persuaded to sponsor a new bill that would designate Alton Bay as the designated 'no speed limits area' so's all the go-fasts can cruise over there for a Sunday morning get-together. That's one of the only areas that offers good visibility from the roads, plus the shape of the Bay could act like a megaphone..

Just imagine sitting at Shibley's Bayside for Sunday breakfast, enjoying a bowl of granola with grapefruit juice, and listening to the resounding echo of a triple 600 MerCruiser engines thunder past.....kaboomba...ba...booomba...booomba....boom ! ALTON BAY....way-to-go! Let's all go to Alton Bay for Sunday speed action easily watched from the roadside embankment.....tell Myrtle to pack the picnic basket....and zoom off to Alton Bay by car or by boat.

Seriously, after HB847 gets passed, Alton Bay just may be interested in this idea? It's a speedy type of a neighborhood!

ITD

01-25-2008, 10:12 AM

As a pilot and future astronaut I can tell you there is a speed limit everywhere above the USA. The only exceptions are military and spaceflight.

However the question is about the constitutionality of setting speed limits, not the practical considerations.

I'd be ok with either of those speed limits on the lake: speed of sound over the continental US (+/- 600 mph) or 200 knots in certain airspace near airports. That would be fine for the lake. 200 knots, within sight of Bear Island, and the speed of sound for the rest of the lake.;)

Any speed limit more restrictive than that is just not necessary.....

SIKSUKR

01-25-2008, 10:27 AM

Cal

ys. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not?

If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. ?

Gotta love this mentality.Even if we don't need a law let's put one on the books anyway.Can't people see through all this nonsense?

Cal

01-25-2008, 10:42 AM

Cal

I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic.

Perhaps YOU should explain this to the professionals to did the survey. I'm sure they would disagree.

JayDV

01-25-2008, 10:51 AM

This may be a tad “over the top” but why not encourage technology and the powers that be gather the full extent of information necessary to make a decision on speed limits?

Now I see a major change here, but maybe it is time to change the way we approach situations where peoples’ Rights and citizens’ Wants clash so severely that nary a thing gets accomplished to anyone’s liking:emb:. This may be a large expense, but sometimes it is worth the investment instead of continuing to bandaid the way we think and act. There may even be quite a few jobs created from management to technician. :rolleye2:
<O:p</O:p
The concept is that the lake is a beautiful public playground for all ages:). There will be a few playground monitors (Marine Patrol craft:cool:) wandering the play area with radio contact to Principal’s office. The Principal will notify a monitor, with all water craft information, when controlling action is required and the monitor will police the situation.
<O:p</O:p
Picture this:
<O:p</O:p
1). EVERY craft on the lake is required to have some sort of RFID (radio freq ID chip) with GPS capabilities. These will be issued via registration through the NH Dept of Safety. – Not impossible. Currently all new automobiles have the technology added to the computer, just not all are purchased “active”. Technology is also used on pet collars.
<O:p</O:p
2). Various locations on mainland and islands to host a receiver station and a line of sight transmitter to a collection station. Collection station operator (manned by the Marine Patrol?) will oversee lake usage of crafts through some sort of Air Traffic Controller program and display (Tom Cruise in Minority Report comes to mind).
<O:p</O:p
3). Lake</ST1:p areas (150 ft off shore) will be designated, on maps (Bizer will be busy) and through transmitters on top of buoys, as areas for “gentle activities” and “rough sports activities”. The open waters of the Broads comes to mind as a sandlot football/rugby field, maybe even the stretch from Rattlesnake Island towards Govenor’s Island (backing off for traffic leaving Gilford Town Dock). The RFID on each craft will read the transmitter from the buoy to further notify the navigator.
<O:p</O:p
Now the information collected will be in entirety not just random gatherings in random locations at random times. This will tell everyone just how many craft there are and what speeds they travel, and where the speeds increase and decrease based on operators thought process. And, for those needing to know, it will tell everyone how many kayaks and canoes, large and small are using what kinds of play areas and when they are in use. It will not be able to identify clothing or lack thereof.
<O:p</O:p
With all this information collected, now the politicians can agree to mandate what a trained expert may suggest IF a law appears to be required.
<O:p</O:p
This is a raw idea and could use tweaking. I see this type of thinking may already be in the near future for cars as California is trying some sort of computer self driving idea with a few cars on a section of highway. Connecticut</ST1:p has wired I-95 and I-91 with fiber optics for their cameras and is capable of, but not doing, monitoring individual car speeds, and like toll booths, mail tickets home to registered offender with picture attached.:eek:
<O:p</O:p

Acres per Second

01-25-2008, 11:01 AM

"...So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area..."
Nobody knows how many boats were speeding according to this excerpt:

"The men logged more than 50 boats in an hour. The highest speed recorded was 34 mph, but the fastest watercraft - a Jet Ski with two people who cheered and whooped as they passed - could not yield a reading, because it was bouncing on the water too much, Marine Patrol Officer Stern said."

and...

"...What is the big deal with a speed limit, it will be the same as any other speed limit we have for cars, planes, snowmobiles, etc.. There are going to be those that will choose to obey them and those that don't..."
This law restricts only behavior, so why the angst? There are worse fatal scenarios out there (like Long Lake's) which are making laws against horsepower.

and...

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And the most important of these is Life!

NH Rep. Dennis Abbott has stated, "There’s a lot of people trying to enjoy life in New Hampshire, and they should be able to do that without worrying about their personal safety."

and...

"...Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem..."
Meredith News excerpt:
"...But John Irwin of Irwin Marine Hillside in Alton, president of the New Hampshire Marine Trades Association, says that while he agrees that there are problems on New Hampshire lakes..."

and...

I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right.
Cal has said the same thing—twice; but how could the study ever be right? This excerpt even promotes a skewed study:
"The Department of Safety warned boaters to slow down on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer, when a pilot program would allow Marine Patrol officers to enforce speed limits on two busy sections of the lake."

and...

"...Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear.
I fear all those who do not have training in high speed boat control. Check out this excerpt by an experienced boat tester:
"A few years ago I had the misfortune to test the Baja Hammer on Windermere before the speed limit was enforced. That experience etched an indelible memory of a boat that was impossible to hold in a straight line and that bucked like a rodeo bull as soon as you reached the 60mph mark. Plagued by chine walk and spontaneous skips, she was one of the most evil handling boats I have ever driven."
:eek:

Bear Islander

01-25-2008, 11:12 AM

Perhaps YOU should explain this to the professionals to did the survey. I'm sure they would disagree.

I did speak to one and he did not disagree. They performed the tests the way their politically motivated boss told them to.

Speed data collected by a clearly marked patrol boat in plain view will be lower than normal. Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this.

ITD

01-25-2008, 11:29 AM

I did speak to one and he did not disagree. They performed the tests the way their politically motivated boss told them to.

Speed data collected by a clearly marked patrol boat in plain view will be lower than normal. Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this.

In other words, no amount of testing can be done that would convince you speed is not a problem. Remove "clearly marked boat" from your sentence and substitute "stopped boat" or "guy standing with radar gun in boat" and your argument will be the same when the data shows that there is no problem. How do I know there is no speed problem on the lake?? Because I spend most of the summer on the lake and only occasionally see a boat going over 45 mph.

I don't know what sane political motivation would exist for a public safety official to lie about whether the lake has a speed issue or not. It just doesn't make sense and in fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds a little paranoid. I see no gain for the guy to lie or manipulate one way or the other.

That's what this whole SL campaign has been about, scare tactics, paranoia and exclusion. Time to stop this madness.........

fatlazyless

01-25-2008, 11:31 AM

No way, no way, no way! Whenever I see a green & bronze state trooper perched behind a snowbank, or the black & white Meredith PD set up on Pleasant St, what I do is to put the pedal to the metal. It's all about reverse psychcology, whatever that means, and doing just the opposite of what is assumed, or something,,,,big words.....sounds impressive! Works for me! Hey, New Hampshire is probably unique from here all the way to Wyoming as being an ' automobile insurance optional' type of a state. What-Me-Worry....I can always pedal a bicycle!:coolsm:

Bear Islander

01-25-2008, 12:53 PM

I don't know what sane political motivation would exist for a public safety official to lie about whether the lake has a speed issue or not..........

How about a future job in the boating industry?

It is quite common for public officials to take high paying jobs in the industry they once regulated.

GWC...

01-25-2008, 01:14 PM

4.) Having friends who won't paddle with me on Winni, because "powerboats goes so fast there."

5.) The fact that Winni isn't even listed in kayak and canoe guidebooks as a lake to paddle on.

Some people are just too selfish to admit it.
Sounds like a two year old in a power-play with Mom or Dad...

and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary.

Why?

Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the reasons excuses for your fears.

Skip

01-25-2008, 02:43 PM

...Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this...

Gee, at least offer to buy me a beer before offering my "insight".....or did you want me to "incite" with my opinion? :D

Resident 2B

01-25-2008, 02:47 PM

Skip,

Greart new avatar!

I believe that was an under 45 MPH accident, but with a clearly marked patrol car. :)

R2B

Evenstar

01-25-2008, 03:25 PM

Sounds like a two year old in a power-play with Mom or Dad... and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary. Why? Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the reasons excuses for your fears.

So your mature response is to make fun of me (again).

Let's see, the pro-speedlimit group argues that a speedlimit will make the lake safer for everyone. And the anti-speedlimit group argues that they have a right to go really fast - even when their actions have a negative impact on many other boaters. Which group is more like a spoiled 2-year-old?

There is nothing funny about NH residents feeling that their largest lake has become too dangerous to use - because of the high speeds of some powerboats. My kayaking friends are not timid people. If the lake is so safe, why isn't it listed in a single paddling guide? Squam is listed - and so isn't lake Champlain (which is considerably larger than Winni).

I have posted (many times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that, when they are traveling at high speeds, some operators apparently don’t see smaller boats until they are closer than 150 feet. It is also true that the faster a boat is traveling, the less time the operator has to avoid an object in its path, or to stay outside of the 150 foot limit. For these reasons, I feel that a speed limit will result in a reduction in the number of 150 foot violations, which will make the lake safer for everyone.

As far as making myself more visible: My 16 foot sea kayak has a bright red upper hull, a white lower hull, my paddle blades are bright orange, my PFD is red, and my dry top is bright orange. My best friend's kayak is just like mine, only it's upper hull is bright yellow. Yet some high-speed boat operators still break the 150 foot rule before they notice us in time.

Speed is the issue here. In good weather, I can usually spot other kayaks when they are a mile away. It's amazing how much more you can see (or notice) when you just slow down.

High-speed boaters have even hit islands on Winni - I guess we need to make islands more visible as well.

Rattlesnake Guy

01-25-2008, 03:35 PM

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

My boat does not go 45. I can tell you that I have found very well camouflaged kayaks on occasion with a lot less time to react than I care for. When we purchased our Kayaks the number one requirement was that they were as visible as possible. My kids and wife would be in them and their safety depends on all boats being able to see them. They are yellow and Orange. We chose two bright colors in hopes that between the two they would be even more visible. The greatest safety device for kayakers and boaters alike is visibility and observation. When I see a kayak with a flag or brightly colored paddles or some other obvious attempt to be seen, I nod my head and give them much more than the 150 feet they require.

As far as your question...it could be turned around to ask if so few boats are speeding then why the need to ask the government to get involved in our lives for something that is only a problem for some. The fast boats are not asking to restrict where the slow boats can go so why do we need to restrict where they can go. If they can't maintain the 150 foot rule from shore and other vessels than we already have laws for that. I would much rather have the MP stopping captain bone head going 15mph at full wake and 75 feet from your kayak with 15 people on board. We see them all day on the island. We call them "Wakus Maximus". We have a law that they are violating 50 foot from my dock and 25 feet from my kids swimming, but the MP is behind the island trying to find the one fast boat in an hour. He is far from shore and making hardly any wake and paying keen attention.

I remember the book, what color is your parachute. In this case, what color is your kayak?

Bear Islander

01-25-2008, 05:06 PM

Gee, at least offer to buy me a beer before offering my "insight".....or did you want me to "incite" with my opinion? :D

Stop by the island next summer and you can have two beers.

ieSpell can't offer me any insite about my spelling deficiencies.

codeman671

01-25-2008, 10:10 PM

How about a future job in the boating industry?

It is quite common for public officials to take high paying jobs in the industry they once regulated.

That comment has been made before and makes a powerful statement which I do not think is true, but can cause irrepairable harm to his reputation and/or job as a public official. Unless you have solid proof of such intention I would not be so bold.

Honestly, what high paying jobs are available in the area that would he could obtain from lobbying for the speed limit bill to be tossed out?

If you'd really like me to ask, I will see his daughter and grand daughter tomorrow night :look:

Bear Islander

01-26-2008, 12:14 AM

That comment has been made before and makes a powerful statement which I do not think is true, but can cause irrepairable harm to his reputation and/or job as a public official. Unless you have solid proof of such intention I would not be so bold.

Honestly, what high paying jobs are available in the area that would he could obtain from lobbying for the speed limit bill to be tossed out?

If you'd really like me to ask, I will see his daughter and grand daughter tomorrow night :look:

I was asked what would motivate a "public safety official" to oppose a speed limit. I gave a generic answer to the question.

It is you that is attributing my answer to a specific person. I am not sure which official you are referring to but assume it to be someone high up in the Marine Patrol or Dept. of Safety.

codeman671

01-26-2008, 08:35 AM

I was asked what would motivate a "public safety official" to oppose a speed limit. I gave a generic answer to the question.

It is you that is attributing my answer to a specific person. I am not sure which official you are referring to but assume it to be someone high up in the Marine Patrol or Dept. of Safety.

I think we both are pretty clear on who you are talking about in particular...This has come up before.

08-17-2007, 09:34 AM #4
Islander
Senior Member

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

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

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

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

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

And the above beauty pertained to Skipper's question/joke about corruption in the department linked below:

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

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

I think 5 shots from your same IP address speaks loudly enough.

Acres per Second

01-26-2008, 08:45 AM

"...The fast boats are not asking to restrict where the slow boats can go..."
Maybe this was missed:

"...Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.."

and...

"...It is quite common for public officials to take high paying jobs in the industry they once regulated..."
It's common in Washington—and reprehensible; in NH, it's the Order of the Day. The new law had a last-minute monkey wrench thrown at it by the dismissed Safety Commissioner Flynn (The Excessive-Speeding Study). What does the following Internet quote tell you about the NH Department of Safety and us little guys on the lake? :confused:
"...I also wish the best to Dick Flynn...I'll miss him, and the state will too...Whenever I had a client with an issue with Safety, I could call the Commissioner and have it fixed in five minutes or less. I can only hope that Barthelmes has the same command of the organization..."
:confused: :( :rolleye1:

and...

"...
I can tell you that I have found very well camouflaged kayaks on occasion with a lot less time to react than I care for..."
Here's camoflage...what's not to see?
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2002/oi0211161.jpg
:confused:

If you can't see a kayak, can you at least see a kayaker?

http://www.treknologies.com/images/molokiniL2.jpg
:rolleye1: :confused: :look: :confused: :look:

"...Although you won't be able to hear us, we will be cheering like crazy when you go by..."
He describes himself as "legally-mufflered". What other sounds (bell, whistle, horn) will he be unable to hear? :confused:

and...

"...Extending a sunset clause quietly is usually pretty easy to do..."
What experience in this can you quote? :rolleye2:

and...

"...
3800+ boats is a pretty significant sample and should give a pretty clear indication of what is happening on the lake..."
Of those 3800 boats, how many counted twice? But were the fastest boats "in the area" really getting measured for speed?
"...'It is one thing to look at a boat and measure the speed, but if there are 15 boats in the area, it is hard to prove which boat had been recorded,' said Gallagher."
:rolleye1:

and...

"...The solid fact remains that out of 3852 boats less than 1% were speeding. That is hard to argue. I can spit out hypothesis all afternoon (although I bet MeenMac is already working on it )as to different calculations and formulas that apply but the main fact still remains. Speed was not an issue..."
Can you name ONE of the following sources that did not post a warning about Winnipesaukee speed zones? (Such as they were).

Scream And Fly
Extreme Boats
Boat Freaks
Hot Boat
Offshore Only
Winnilakers
Speed Wake
Baja Marine
Echoshores
Boating ABC
Donzi Registry
Weekend Pundit
NHBassFederation
BassResource
Sharkey Marine

Evenstar

01-26-2008, 10:04 AM

Sounds like a two year old in a power-play with Mom or Dad... and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary. Why? Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the reasons excuses for your fears.

You really don’t have any right here to make fun of my posts, just because you don’t agree with me.
There’s nothing funny about NH residents feeling that their largest lake has become too dangerous to boat on.
How is supporting a lake speed limit bill being selfish? This bill only requires the fastest boats to slow down to what I and many others consider to be a reasonable speed. It doesn’t ban any type of boat from any part of the lake.
Making the lake(s) safer is the reason that most NH residents are in favor of the lake speed limit bill. The “right” to go faster than 45 mph is the main reason against it. I testified at last year’s transportation committee hearing and heard all the testimonies. It was obvious that most those in opposition felt that their “right” to go fast was more important than the safety concerns of others – because it is “fun to go fast”. So which side is acting more like a spoiled two-year-old?

My 16-foot sea kayak’s upper hull is bright red, it’s lower hull is white, the blades of my paddle are bright orange, my drytop is bright orange, and my PFD is red. My friend’s kayak has a bright yellow upper hull. I really don’t know how anyone can not see us! Yet some high-speed boaters have not noticed us in time to stay out of our 150 foot zone.

The 150 foot rule isn’t protecting us if others are traveling so fast that they don’t notice us in time. Speed is the problem here, not visibility. I don’t have trouble seeing other kayaks – but I’m traveling around 5 mph, not at 60 or 70mph.

Here's a video of what 70MPH looks like: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695 Would this guy be able to see a kayak in time? It is extremely dangerous to continue to allow speeds of 70mph (and faster) on lakes that are used by much smaller, and much slower boats.

Bear Islander

01-26-2008, 10:43 AM

ITD

01-26-2008, 11:15 AM

OK... I get it. This is the old "if you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger" routine we have seen so many times before. I have made several posts recently that have hit home and made sense, so now it's time to throw mud on me.

And as I have not done anything worthy of a mudbath, you blame me for what someone else has posted.

I have no idea of the internal workings of the Dept. of Safety. Who thought up the study? Who approved it? You are the one that insists on posting a name.Come on Bear, you said it, own it. I 'll give it to you that you were smart enough to not name Barrett or the other guy directly, but I got the drift. As far as "discredit the messenger", please don't start whining like some other prolific posters. Pointing out problems, exaggerations and embellishments in a message is not an attack. The proponents message is a moving target, duly discredited. It varies from every time I'm on the lake I almost get run over by a speeding power boat to it's the "wild west" out there. Both not supported by the now available statistics and a day spent on the lake. In fact, if anyone is guilty of "discrediting the messenger" it's you with your comment about these public safety officials taking a position to secure a "high paying " job.......

Dave R

01-26-2008, 06:26 PM

Here's a video of what 70MPH looks like: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695 Would this guy be able to see a kayak in time? It is extremely dangerous to continue to allow speeds of 70mph (and faster) on lakes that are used by much smaller, and much slower boats.

70 MPH was obviously too fast for the conditions. Those conditions would probably be unsafe for my boat at 40 MPH. Not sure what a speed limit has to do with that video though, that was just someone being a jackass and beating the snot out of a nice boat. The operator was even cited for his recklessness, even though there's no speed limit where the video was shot. NH Marine Patrol could do the same today, regardless of the outcome of the bill.

ITD

01-26-2008, 07:41 PM

And the anti-speedlimit group argues that they have a right to go really fast - even when their actions have a negative impact on many other boaters.

Will you please just try to be even a little right when you write. The "anti-speed limit" crowd has pointed out that the speed limit crowd cannot support their erroneous, scare tactic, trumped up, proven untrue assertions. This is an effort to eliminate a class of boats off the lake. While being trumpeted as a safety issue, data, tests and common sense have shown that a speed limit will not help safety. In fact common sense dictates that a speed limit will divert limited resources away from programs that truly do enhance safety rendering the lake LESS SAFE.

Mee-n-Mac

01-26-2008, 09:15 PM

... I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

So in other words the skipper of the boat saw the kayak and avoided it.

... {snip}
So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

Seems like you need to post a bigger picture. I mean he did see the kayak didn't he ...

codeman671

01-26-2008, 09:54 PM

OK... I get it. This is the old "if you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger" routine we have seen so many times before. I have made several posts recently that have hit home and made sense, so now it's time to throw mud on me.

And as I have not done anything worthy of a mudbath, you blame me for what someone else has posted.

I have no idea of the internal workings of the Dept. of Safety. Who thought up the study? Who approved it? You are the one that insists on posting a name.

Are you kidding me or has frostbite set in? :laugh:

As ITD said, own up to it. It is clear what you meant to everyone else here. Why else would you just pull a comment out of thin air like that? No mud was thrown at you, if anything you were the one slinging it towards elected state officials without proof. My post regarding the IP address was merely indicating the exact sentiments from your area of the island. Friend? Neighbor? Family?

Mee-n-Mac

01-26-2008, 10:44 PM

Bear Islander

01-26-2008, 10:47 PM

I was answering the question as I was asked. However if the shoe fits...

It's my opinion that the only reason for the study was to delay or derail speed limit legislation. And that those responsible are thereby endangering the lives of the public they are paid to protect.

I would like to give those responsible the benefit of the doubt, but it's not easy. It is hard to believe that boating safety professionals could truly think the lake is safer without speed limits. In fact it's almost impossible for me to accept that.

Mee-n-Mac

01-26-2008, 11:05 PM

You are rationalizing.

You see the need for highway speed limits, so you rationalize that they don't violate you Constitutional Rights.

You don't see the need for boating speed limits so you believe they violate your rights.

The issues are EXACTLY the same. The right of the state to set speed limits.

You said "as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits" If the legislature passes HB847 and the Governor signs it into law, then we will have decided, as a society, to invoke boating speed limits.

All true above. Frankly people would be amazed at what little rights they actually have. Freedom of speech ... well not so much really ... political speech and artistic expression have been ruled protected but anything else falls under the will of the people. Think you have the right to marry the person you love .... ha !

So let's come to speed laws, be they on the lake on on land. What "we" want is reasonable limits should they be needed. It's not a question of rights perse but rather on how much Govt limitation we're willing to accept. That the Govt has the power to impose all manner of restriction doesn't make it "right", it's just that it's the best way we humans have of trying to decide what to do. In talking about reasonable restrictions I have to bring up the old NMSL of 55 mph. Did you ... or pretty much anyone ... agree with that ? I'll guess 'no' given how ignored that law was. Why was that ? I ask this question because the answer goes to the heart of the whole debate.

What's a reasonable restriction ? What makes it so ?

I maintain that a blanket restriction of 45 mph across all of Winni and at all times is too restrictive and better could be done.

Mee-n-Mac

01-26-2008, 11:12 PM

And that those responsible are thereby endangering the lives of the public they are paid to protect.

I'm going to wait for the answer to the other question I asked while you were typing this before I respond fully but really .... endagering the lives ... :rolleye2:

So you don't know the conditions the survey was done under ... other than what was published at the NH govt site.

Bear Islander

01-26-2008, 11:22 PM

All true above. Frankly people would be amazed at what little rights they actually have. Freedom of speech ... well not so much really ... political speech and artistic expression have been ruled protected but anything else falls under the will of the people. Think you have the right to marry the person you love .... ha !

So let's come to speed laws, be they on the lake on on land. What "we" want is reasonable limits should they be needed. It's not a question of rights perse but rather on how much Govt limitation we're willing to accept. That the Govt has the power to impose all manner of restriction doesn't make it "right", it's just that it's the best way we humans have of trying to decide what to do. In talking about reasonable restrictions I have to bring up the old NMSL of 55 mph. Did you ... or pretty much anyone ... agree with that ? I'll guess 'no' given how ignored that law was. Why was that ? I ask this question because the answer goes to the heart of the whole debate.

What's a reasonable restriction ? What makes it so ?

I maintain that a blanket restriction of 45 mph across all of Winni and at all times is too restrictive and better could be done.

Finally something we can agree on. 25/45 would not have been my first choice. In fact I have always thought a horsepower limit was the way to go. But HB847 is better than the nothing we have now.

It would have been better if the opposition had come up with a viable compromise or alternative instead of the "No Limits!" stance that is doomed to lose in the long run.

Mee-n-Mac

01-26-2008, 11:26 PM

Finally something we can agree on. 25/45 would not have been my first choice. In fact I have always thought a horsepower limit was the way to go. But HB847 is better than the nothing we have now.

But that (better than nothing) doesn't make it the thing to advocate. So let me ask, if you were King what would the law be ? and why ?

Why a HP limit since HP doesn't regulate speed as can be evidenced by PWCs.

Bear Islander

01-27-2008, 12:14 AM

But that (better than nothing) doesn't make it the thing to advocate. So let me ask, if you were King what would the law be ? and why ?

Why a HP limit since HP doesn't regulate speed as can be evidenced by PWCs.

My choices are HB847 or nothing, I choose HB847. It's like when you vote for president next November. We will only have two choices.

A horsepower limit does more to address pollution, water quality, and erosion.

I posted this last summer.

If I had the power to set a "limit" it would preclude boats over 300 hp that where manufactured after 2008. But nobody is asking me.

Cal

01-27-2008, 12:35 AM

To prove a point(or at least try)how rediculous 25/45 is in my own opinion. Ever been out on a moonless night. I did one night from Weirs Beach to the Naswa. Not bad till I passed Naswa then it was like a black hole , 25 mph would be ludicrous. I turned around and headed back to the Naswa were I was staying. So people who want 45 limit on a clear Wednesday afternoon would be willing to allow 25 in pitch darkness:laugh::laugh:. Sounds to me like they have their head somewhere awfully dark or they're just out there where the bus doesn't stop anymore.
I'd be willing to give 10 mph at night for 60 mph in daylight. There you go , I give 15...you give 15...even trade;)
And this , Bear Islander , may have saved your friend in the Wellcraft that fateful night two and a half years ago , regardless of how much alcohol was ingested.
:yawn:Good night folks:yawn:

Evenstar

01-27-2008, 11:33 AM

. . .Not sure what a speed limit has to do with that video though, that was just someone being a jackass and beating the snot out of a nice boat. The operator was even cited for his recklessness, even though there's no speed limit where the video was shot. NH Marine Patrol could do the same today, regardless of the outcome of the bill.
What a high speed boat looks like on the water has everything to do with the speed limit bill. That was the best video that I could find of a boat traveling at 70mph - if you know of a better on, please post it.

Visibility has never been much of a problem for me with slower boats, but it has been a major factor as boats travel at higher speeds. This is because high speed boats are closing the distance between other boats on the lake in less time - and it takes a faster boat longer to stop or the avoid another boat. Those are all facts, and are not hype or exaggeration. Boats have violated my 150 foot zone because they were traveling too fast and didn't see me in time. That's a real issue and one that I feel a speed limit will improve.

Will you please just try to be even a little right when you write. The "anti-speed limit" crowd has pointed out that the speed limit crowd cannot support their erroneous, scare tactic, trumped up, proven untrue assertions. This is an effort to eliminate a class of boats off the lake. While being trumpeted as a safety issue, data, tests and common sense have shown that a speed limit will not help safety. In fact common sense dictates that a speed limit will divert limited resources away from programs that truly do enhance safety rendering the lake LESS SAFE.

My statement that the anti-speedlimit group argues that they have a right to go really fast - even when their actions have a negative impact on many other boaters is totally accurate. I was at last year's hearing and their "right to go fast" was their main argument. They also repeated refused to believe that the safey concerns voiced by other boaters were legitimate.

Anyone with any common sense knows that it becomes more dangerous as speeds increase. You now have some boats that are traveling at speeds that are 15 times (or more) faster than other boats on the lake - I (and many others) see this as being very dangerous. You don't.

As I've stated many times, I just want boats to slow down - I'm not part of a conspiracy to ban any type of boat from any part of the lake.

winnidiver

01-27-2008, 11:41 AM

Just some thoughts.
Most weekends you can't go over 45 without beating yourself and your boat to death.
If you look at the way hiway speed is enforced I would guess you can probably go 60 without a ticket.if the speed limit were 45.
If you go out early you can probably go as fast as you want no one is around.
I know everyone here is a careful boater who always uses common sense,but Go though Eagle anytime on a weekend.Or take ride up past Arey's on
a weekend morning or afternoon when the crowd is going out or coming in, and if you are honest you will admit that most people are too stupid or lazy to follow he rules.If two boats passing each other slow down the third will go right between them.The bigger the boat the less inclined people are to slow down.
None of these people are going any near 45 and are dangerous enough.Now people on this forum want to make sure you can go 60 down Meredith bay on SAT afternoon or up Between Bear and Meredith Neck.Sixty would be legal now as long as you are 150' from another boat.Is it safe?I know none of you guys would do this but some one will,they do now.You are all talking a lot about Kayaks,what about small fishing boats,kids in whalers there are lots of small boats on the lake.
I don't want to see a speed limit on the Lake but more and more people keep coming,just like you have to slow down in a town on the road you are going to have to slow down on the lake.If people only went fast out in the Broads with no one around this would not be an issue.Like some one once said."Common sense aren't too common"

bilproject

01-27-2008, 01:24 PM

While I have only owned a place on Bear Island for a year, I have been coming to the lake for almost 40 years. Not much has changed except there are a lot more people. Boat owners have been building more powerful and faster boats since the days of the steam ships, and that will continue. Fishermen and others will still be in smaller boats for enjoyment of the more secluded and shallow areas. Someone will want to see how fast they can go down the broads in a speed boat.
While I am not an advocate of government involvement in any part of my life, a seed limit on some parts of the lake may be a good idea, along with a ban on kayaks canoes and other small boats on other parts of the lake.
Small non power boats should be restricted to 150' from shore period. They have no ability to avoid a collision and are in danger any time the leave the shoreline. Face it, lake Winnipesaukee is a big lake and is not paddler friendly which is why it is not a favorite of paddlers. There is nothing fun about kayaking in the broads or in the middle of the area between Bear and Browns yet we see this happening.
I could go on about the night I came back at 10:30PM from Brown"s to find a canoe passing in front of my boat house with no lights to other stories. In summary my proposal.
1 Speed limits on entire lake except the broads from Becky's Garden to Rattlesnake.
2. Ban non motorized vessels from all areas other than within 150 feet of shore.

Most of the lake will be speed limited, paddlers will be safe. and go fasts can get their thrills! Every interest involved gives up something and gets something. A winner for all! O yea you all should be nicer to each other some of these post are getting a little personal!!!

Bear Islander

01-27-2008, 01:49 PM

bilproject

01-27-2008, 02:07 PM

First, welcome to Bear Island!

Second, you need to think about your idea some more. Do you realize your idea restricts sailboats to 150' from shore? And if a buy another canoe, how do I get it to the island?

If you are going to restrict small boats shouldn't you also restrict swimmers to 150' from shore, they have even less visibility and capability to get out of the way.

Plus it seems obvious to me that if powered boats and unpowered boats can't co-exist in an area, it is the powered boat that needs to go.

And have you considered the impact of your idea on children's camps?

I left out sail boats as I consider them powered and highly visible.. Children's camps should be restricted to 150 ft from shore or have a larger defined area around their water front. Had to rescue a kid from 3 mile clinging to a overturned sunfish over by Pine. As we came apon the kid there was another life jacket floating by the boat. Don't know where the adults were but this was very scary thinking someone was in that jacket. Add no wake zones to the area non power boats are allowed and we can get to bear from y-landing. Bear Islander the point really is that the speed limit is only addressing part of the problem. Kayaker"s are often in places that they should not be. We see it all the time on Barnegat bay here in New Jersey not to mention in inlets to the ocean where 50 foot Hattaras's come in at 20 knots just so they can handle the waves and tide action and there's that kayak right in the way!!.

GWC...

01-27-2008, 02:13 PM

O yea you all should be nicer to each other some of these post are getting a little personal!!!
Just as one would expect in a family discussion... ;)

After all, this is a family oriented Forum. :D

Bear Islander

01-27-2008, 02:42 PM

I left out sail boats as I consider them powered and highly visible.. Children's camps should be restricted to 150 ft from shore or have a larger defined area around their water front. Had to rescue a kid from 3 mile clinging to a overturned sunfish over by Pine. As we came apon the kid there was another life jacket floating by the boat. Don't know where the adults were but this was very scary thinking someone was in that jacket. Add no wake zones to the area non power boats are allowed and we can get to bear from y-landing. Bear Islander the point really is that the speed limit is only addressing part of the problem. Kayaker"s are often in places that they should not be. We see it all the time on Barnegat bay here in New Jersey not to mention in inlets to the ocean where 50 foot Hattaras's come in at 20 knots just so they can handle the waves and tide action and there's that kayak right in the way!!.

Well I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion. I will content myself with the belief that your idea has no chance becoming law.

Evenstar

01-27-2008, 04:08 PM

. . . While I am not an advocate of government involvement in any part of my life, a seed limit on some parts of the lake may be a good idea, along with a ban on kayaks canoes and other small boats on other parts of the lake. Small non power boats should be restricted to 150' from shore period. They have no ability to avoid a collision and are in danger any time the leave the shoreline.

Kayaks are very maneuverable and have all sorts of ability to avoid a collision; the only danger for me is the powerboats. If the operator of a powerboat is paying attention and is going slow enough to stay 150 feet from us, we are in no danger of a collision.

Just like others on this forum, you’re lumping all paddle boats and paddlers together. That’s like saying that all boats with a motor are equally sea worthy. A sea kayak is very different from a recreational kayak – they are long and narrow, with a very small cockpit, with thigh braces. You sit in a recreational kayak, but you wear a sea kayak. Sea kayaks are designed for large bodies of water, and most sea kayakers have no trouble handling fairly large waves. My sea kayak even has a rudder, which I steer with my feet. And I happen to enjoy paddling in large waves and swells. Believe it or not, my sea kayak can handle conditions that would be too rough for many small powerboats.

And my sea kayak is powered – by me. What happens when a power boat’s motor dies? I even carry an extra paddle. And I can do self rescues. I also carry a bilge pump, and use a spray skirt in rough weather. I don’t kayak at night, but if a paddler is out on the water at night their boat is required by law to have a 360 degree light.

Face it, lake Winnipesaukee is a big lake and is not paddler friendly which is why it is not a favorite of paddlers. There is nothing fun about kayaking in the broads or in the middle of the area between Bear and Browns yet we see this happening.

Just because you can’t see the fun in paddling out on the main lake, doesn’t mean that we don’t enjoy it – I enjoy paddling out in the middle of a lake way more than I do huggin the shore . You guys keep representing Winnipesaukee as such a huge lake. It is large, but it has so many islands that there’s only about 2 square miles of the entire lake where you are ever more than 1 mile from shore. Under normal conditions, I can paddle 1 mile in 10 to 12 minutes. I don’t consider being 12 minutes off shore all that far. I can paddle 20 miles in an afternoon, so I need a large lake, or I’m just going around in circles. The only reason that Winni is not a favorite with paddlers is not because of its size, but because of its reputation for high speed boats.

Cal

01-27-2008, 05:32 PM

Kayaker"s are often in places that they should not be. We see it all the time on Barnegat bay here in New Jersey not to mention in inlets to the ocean where 50 foot Hattaras's come in at 20 knots just so they can handle the waves and tide action and there's that kayak right in the way!!.

You can't tell this to some kayakers because theirs is a Sea kayak and it's made for big water and can withstand 4' waves and they have every right to go where ever the want to , regardless:rolleye2:

I've seen the inlet deal you mentioned also. Kinda like riding a bike on an interstate , but then again there are restrictions for than:rolleye1:

bilproject

01-27-2008, 05:56 PM

You can't tell this to some kayakers because theirs is a Sea kayak and it's made for big water and can withstand 4' waves and they have every right to go where ever the want to , regardless:rolleye2:

I've seen the inlet deal you mentioned also. Kinda like riding a bike on an interstate , but then again there are restrictions for than:rolleye1:

Your analogy of a bike on the interstate is exactly my point. It would be stupid unsafe and illegal for me to power boat around Minge cove at 30 mph. It is also stupid, unsafe and should be illegal to be in a Kayak in big parts of the lake. Maybe Bear Islander showed what is really behind the speed limit since it is not going to make it safer for Kayaker's, and that is "the power boats should go." First a speed limit, then when it is still unsafe to be in the middle of the lake in a 12' x 18" boat with 6" of sideboard we ban the power boat all together. It seems there is more than enough shore line to explore and many smaller lakes in the area to paddle. My proposal involves a speed limit and a limit on areas of safe operation of smaller vessels. Down here the coast guard or marine police catch you in a channel or boat way in a kayak you get a ticket for unsafe operation of a vessel.

fatlazyless

01-27-2008, 06:27 PM

What about me and my fleet of dirt cheap, little, fixer-upper boats? For prices like $100, 300, 250, 550, 150, 100 & 700 , I have a collection of three kayaks, one rowboat, one canoe, and two sailboats, and none even need to be registered, and are covered by the standard deluxe homeowners insurance as long as there's no engine or motor.

In the past ten years, there's been a big increase in the number of kayaks on Lake Winnipesaukee. Used to be I'd see an occaisional canoe with two paddlers. Now, it is very common to see kayakers crossing from Timber Island and across the three miles of open water to Horse Island enroute to either the Cattle Landing public dock and parking lot, or enroute to Lovejoy Sand's public parking lot & dock or on up to Center Harbor, somewhere. I'm seeing trains of kayaks out in the middle of the area between buoy 3 and Governor's Island pretty often, where in the past, this was a very rare occurance.

Probably, the kayak's popularity is due to its' low cost, inherent safety & stability as compared to a canoe, ease of use, light weight ease to cartop, no need for a trailer, no need for a registration, aerobic paddling exercise, and all-around fun to use. Also, no expensive gasoline needed.

Kayaks are truly a boat for everyone and can be purchased at some pretty low prices, at garage sales & stuff. Last October, I got myself a ten year old, 16' Aqua Terra made out of polypropelene for the low low, end-of-season, garage sale price of just $250, and am looking forward to paddling it over to the Naswa for an adult beverage. Does the Naswa NazBar still have a one dollar/drink, happy hour.....like in the the olde daze?

Having seen plenty of overweight "go-fast, bolster boys" climb out of their well-padded and very expensive go-fasts over at the Meredith Town Docks, it's obvious that lots of you guys could benefit from the physical exercise of paddling a kayak. Maybe you want to give a kayak a try. :D:coolsm::laugh:

Lose the fat, paddle a kayak, get a wicked sunburn, and pack along some granola, too!:banana::liplick::liplick:

Hottrucks

01-27-2008, 06:38 PM

All this talk about the Kayaks makes me wounder ?? I'm ask in a serious manner here

Why do kayaks need or want to be out beyond the 150 feet we are talking about...I don't kayak but when I think about it I think about going up small rivers and into back coves where there are less people and quiet... or hanging close to shore ( again Not alot of boats there) watching people waveing to the guy cooking something on the grill or saying hi to the family laying on the dock catching a few rays or looking into there yards to see things I wouldn't see in my bayline cruzing around..... A kayak is a stealth mode of transportation less intrucive than any other boats.....

That being said I don't think anyone wants to see a 24 foot plus boat of any type trolling less than 150 feet from shore..but yet it's funny how nobody seems to bother or mind the guy in his GFBL bass boat when he's trolling around on his electric trolling motor stealing fish from under the dock or from around the boat house......

I have seen the light we all need electric boats!!!!

Bear Islander

01-27-2008, 07:04 PM

It makes me laugh out-loud when it's suggested that I support speed limits because I hate speed or powerboats. I hate powerboats so much I moved to an island. I have owned several. I ride PWC's in a way that makes my neighbors question my sanity. I rent them now instead of owning because I keep breaking them.

I hate speed so much that last Tuesday I rode a centrifuge up to 6 gravities, an incredible ride! I did that as part of my training to ride a rocket at 3,000 miles per hour. Yeah... I hate speed!

bilproject

01-27-2008, 09:16 PM

What about me and my fleet of dirt cheap, little, fixer-upper boats? For prices like $100, 300, 250, 550, 150, 100 & 700 , I have a collection of three kayaks, one rowboat, one canoe, and two sailboats, and none even need to be registered, and are covered by the standard deluxe homeowners insurance as long as there's no engine or motor. In the past ten years, there's been a big increase in the number of kayaks on Lake Winnipesaukee. Used to be I'd see an occaisional canoe with two paddlers. Now, it is very common to see kayakers crossing from Timber Island and across the three miles of open water to Horse Island enroute to either the Cattle Landing public dock and parking lot, or enroute to Lovejoy Sand's public parking lot & dock or on up to Center Harbor. I'm seeing trains of kayaks out in the middle of the area between buoy 3 and Governor's Island pretty often, where in the past, this was a very rare occurance.

Probably, the kayak's popularity is due to its' low cost, inherent safety & stability as compared to a canoe, ease of use, light weight ease to cartop, no need for a trailer, no need for a registration, aerobic paddling exercise, and all-around fun to use. Also, no expensive gasoline needed.

Kayaks are truly a boat for everyone and can be purchased at some pretty low prices, at garage sales & stuff. Last October, I got myself a ten year old, 16' Aqua Terra made out of polypropelene for the low low, end-of-season, garage sale price of just $250, and am looking forward to paddling it over to the NASWA for an adult beverage. Does the NASWA still have a one dollar/drink, happy hour?

Having seen plenty of overweight "go-fast, bolster boys' climb out of their well-padded and very expensive go-fasts over at the Meredith Town Docks, it's obvious that lots of you guys could benefit from the physical exercise of paddling a kayak. Maybe you want to give a kayak a try. :D:coolsm::laugh:

I own and use a kayak but never father than 100 ft from shore. It's just to dangerous with power boats around at greater than headway speed. But I think you have hit on why a speed limit has come up as Kayaks are everywhere now. Again I pose the question. Is a speed limit the prelude to banning power boats on the lake? There has to be more to this for people to support a law that will not, no as the marine police have already demonstrated CAN NOT BE ENFORCED.

bilproject

01-27-2008, 09:35 PM

What a high speed boat looks like on the water has everything to do with the speed limit bill. That was the best video that I could find of a boat traveling at 70mph - if you know of a better on, please post it.

Visibility has never been much of a problem for me with slower boats, but it has been a major factor as boats travel at higher speeds. This is because high speed boats are closing the distance between other boats on the lake in less time - and it takes a faster boat longer to stop or the avoid another boat. Those are all facts, and are not hype or exaggeration. Boats have violated my 150 foot zone because they were traveling too fast and didn't see me in time. That's a real issue and one that I feel a speed limit will improve.

My statement that the anti-speedlimit group argues that they have a right to go really fast - even when their actions have a negative impact on many other boaters is totally accurate. I was at last year's hearing and their "right to go fast" was their main argument. They also repeated refused to believe that the safey concerns voiced by other boaters were legitimate.

Anyone with any common sense knows that it becomes more dangerous as speeds increase. You now have some boats that are traveling at speeds that are 15 times (or more) faster than other boats on the lake - I (and many others) see this as being very dangerous. You don't.

As I've stated many times, I just want boats to slow down - I'm not part of a conspiracy to ban any type of boat from any part of the lake.

You are correct when you say I am lumping all kayaks together when they are out in open water. I do not know your equipment or ability but i do know that you are very hard to see in the open water even if my boat is going 25. I am concerned for you and other paddlers putting yourself in a bad situation with or without a speed limit. With the number of kayaks now on the lake, many being piloted by children, I believe some restrictions are necessary. A speed limit will not make you safe. It will make me in my power boat safer as overtaking speeds of visible boats will be reduced. The reduction in speed ratio between a power boat going 65 or 45 and a kayak going 4mph will have little or no impact as you are to small on open water to see from any great distance. Remember that when you post a speed limit, you are lumping all boaters together with Capt. Bonehead.

GWC...

01-27-2008, 09:47 PM

You guys keep representing Winnipesaukee as such a huge lake. It is large, but it has so many islands that there’s only about 2 square miles of the entire lake where you are ever more than 1 mile from shore. Under normal conditions, I can paddle 1 mile in 10 to 12 minutes. I don’t consider being 12 minutes off shore all that far. I can paddle 20 miles in an afternoon, so I need a large lake, or I’m just going around in circles.
2 miles x 1 mile = 2 sq miles

(2 miles + 1 + 1) x (1 mile + 1 + 1) = 12 sq miles

What happened to the other 60 sq miles of the Lake?

Not good enough for you?

Great! Then there is no need for a speed limit on the 60 sq miles of the Lake that you prefer not to use.

Here's a look at your kayaking area (2 miles x 1 mile = 2 sq miles)... (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=lake+winnipesaukee,+nh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.224889,77.695313&ie=UTF8&ll=43.596555,-71.316719&spn=0.073846,0.151749&t=h&z=12&om=0)

Evenstar

01-28-2008, 12:08 AM

You are correct when you say I am lumping all kayaks together when they are out in open water. I do not know your equipment or ability but i do know that you are very hard to see in the open water even if my boat is going 25.

Here’s what I posted just yesterday: My 16-foot sea kayak’s upper hull is bright red, it’s lower hull is white, the blades of my paddle are bright orange, my drytop is bright orange, and my PFD is red. My friend’s kayak has a bright yellow upper hull. I really don’t know how anyone can not see us! Yet some high-speed boaters have not noticed us in time to stay out of our 150 foot zone.

In good weather conditions I can spot most other kayaks as far as a mile away. The most visible part of a kayak are the blades of the paddles – because they are moving up and down. The blades of my paddle are bright orange. Since my friend has a dark paddle, she has attached white reflective tape to hers, which makes them very visible. It has been my experience that anyone who is paying attention and is traveling at a reasonable speed seems to be able to spot us pretty easily and does not seem to have any trouble keeping out of our 150 foot zone. Unless your eyesight is really poor, you would not have any trouble spotting us at 25mph. (When visibility is low, due to the weather, we try to stay near the shore.)

A speed limit will not make you safe. It will make me in my power boat safer as overtaking speeds of visible boats will be reduced. The reduction in speed ratio between a power boat going 65 or 45 and a kayak going 4mph will have little or no impact as you are to small on open water to see from any great distance.

Speed has a major impact – here’s why: A boat going 45mph covers 66 feet every second. At 70mph it covers 102.7 feet per second. If a boat is 300 feet away from me and heading directly at me, it takes the 45mph boat 4.6 seconds to reach me. At 70 mph, the boat will reach me in just 2.8 seconds. At a speed of 45 mph, the operator will have nearly twice the amount of time to see and avoid me - and I have nearly twice as much time to try to paddle out of the way.

Remember that when you post a speed limit, you are lumping all boaters together with Capt. Bonehead.
We need a speed limit for several reasons. Boats on the lake have been steadily increasing is size and speed - and even PWC are getting faster every year. In my opinion, a 45/25 speed limit is too fast – I would rather see a 40/15 limit, but 45/25 will be safer than what we have now, and seems like a fair compromise.

GWC...

01-28-2008, 01:13 AM

Speed has a major impact – here’s why: A boat going 45mph covers 66 feet every second. At 70mph it covers 102.7 feet per second. If a boat is 300 feet away from me and heading directly at me, it takes the 45mph boat 4.6 seconds to reach me. At 70 mph, the boat will reach me in just 2.8 seconds. At a speed of 45 mph, the operator will have nearly twice the amount of time to see and avoid me - and I have nearly twice as much time to try to paddle out of the way.

4.6 - 2.8 = 1.8 seconds, as in one Mississippi, two Mississippi, splat!!!

So, besides soil yourself, what exactly do you plan to do in 1.8 seconds to save your life, that is?

Acres per Second

01-28-2008, 10:59 AM

"...It has been my experience that anyone who is paying attention and is traveling at a reasonable speed seems to be able to spot us pretty easily..."
Sometimes, "pretty easily" isn't attention-enough:

http://www.jacksonkayak.com/images08/kayaks-kidseries.jpg

"...I spend most of the summer on the lake and only occasionally see a boat going over 45 mph..."
Hey...something I can agree with! :laugh: :eek: ;)

However, one violator that I reported to the MPs was going somewhere between double and triple that number. The captain driver turned out to be a VERY wealthy Tuftonboro neighbor.

Another captain driver makes gas trips two/three times a day and goes past me at about 60-MPH.

He's really easy to spot because he always trails his stern docking line—and leaves his boarding ladder down! :laugh: :look: :rolleye2: :confused:

"...analogy on the interstate..."
...is irrelevent: everybody on Interstates is going in the same direction.

"...Someone will want to see how fast they can go down the broads..."
With the ocean only an hour away? :confused:

"...After all, this is a family oriented Forum..."
You're not being treated "like family"? :confused: ;) :emb:

"...So, besides soil yourself, what exactly do you plan to do in 1.8 seconds to save your life, that is...?"
As one who has had to paddle from a speedboat myself, that seems like enough time to leave about half a kayak behind, say, in Moultonboro's moonlit waters.

2 miles x 1 mile = 2 sq miles
(2 miles + 1 + 1) x (1 mile + 1 + 1) = 12 sq miles
What happened to the other 60 sq miles of the Lake?
Not good enough for you? Great! Then there is no need for a speed limit on the 60 sq miles of the Lake that you prefer not to use.
Here's a look at your kayaking area (2 miles x 1 mile = 2 sq miles)... (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=lake+winnipesaukee,+nh&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.224889,77.695313&ie=UTF8&ll=43.596555,-71.316719&spn=0.073846,0.151749&t=h&z=12&om=0)
First, consider the Lake's static and dynamic environment:

Static:
Red-pencil the Graveyard, the Witches, Middle Ground Shoals, all other shoal waters: add No-Wake-Zones, a 150' border around all mainland shorelines, a 150' border around all 253 islands, and the lake shrinks—a lot.

Dynamic:
Subtract each speeder's Acres/Second coefficient and "Safe Passage" margins, and there's not much left of the lake to enable reckless speeds.

"...Yeah... I hate speed...!"
Include me: my avocation for 24 years is in-car racecar driving instructor.

"...Having seen plenty of overweight "go-fast, bolster boys" climb out of their well-padded and very expensive go-fasts...it's obvious that lots of you guys could benefit from the physical exercise of paddling a kayak. Maybe you want to give a kayak a try..."
"Bolster Boys"? Sounds better than "Cowboys". :laugh:

For real physical exercise, try breaking the night speed limit with one of these:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/joserouse/Kayak/flyak.jpg

"...Sea kayaks are designed for large bodies of water, and most sea kayakers have no trouble handling fairly large waves...my sea kayak can handle conditions that would be too rough for many small powerboats..."
Even recreational kayaks can handle conditions too rough for speedboats:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/Kids-KayakII.jpg

bilproject

01-28-2008, 11:45 AM

4.6 - 2.8 = 1.8 seconds, as in one Mississippi, two Mississippi, splat!!!

So, besides soil yourself, what exactly do you plan to do in 1.8 seconds to save your life, that is?

GWC making fun of this is not helping reach a solution. You would actually have the whole 4.6 seconds to respond. The point is though that the boater does not see the kayaker. Since neither have esp any correction the Kayaker makes may be matched by the boater or the boater may stay on course and a near miss takes place. Accidents are almost a comic (if they don't result in trajedy) collection of events that occur. This is true of car accidents, boats or industrial accidents. I spent 18 years in a corporate safety department and believe me in most accident investigations you would say that those involved were the most unluckey people. However, as in this case of small vessel vs large vessel, slow speed vs. high speed, certain things are in place to make the accident likely to happen once all the other bad karma comes together. Reducing speed does help reduce the likelyhood of an accident but does not prevent it. Reducing speed will now give the kayaker in this example 2.6 seconds to dip their paddle in the water. The other 2 seconds will go to their brain processing the situation and reacting. The idea of restricting small boats along with a speed limit is getting some traction with lawmakers. At least I have only received positive responses to the email I sent to them all. My hope is to see an amendment or more study into the total problem so all are satisfied and safe.

Rattlesnake Guy

01-28-2008, 12:18 PM

If you rely on your blades for us to see you please be sure to go in circles so we can see you from every direction. Also, please never stop paddling as we won't see your blades at rest on the water surface.

Bright paddles do make you more visible but probably should be only part of your visibility strategy. We want to see you. It makes our experience much more enjoyable and safe as well.

ITD

01-28-2008, 02:06 PM

Having seen plenty of overweight "go-fast, bolster boys" climb out of their well-padded and very expensive go-fasts over at the Meredith Town Docks, it's obvious that lots of you guys could benefit from the physical exercise of paddling a kayak. Maybe you want to give a kayak a try. :D:coolsm::laugh:

Lose the fat, paddle a kayak, get a wicked sunburn, and pack along some granola, too!:banana::liplick::liplick:

Wait a minute, could it be that Less' screen name is a stratagem????? After all, one fat guy would not point out another's fatness.

Maybe his true screen name would be svelt assiduous rich :D

(yes I used a dictionary)

GWC...

01-28-2008, 02:28 PM

GWC making fun of this is not helping reach a solution. You would actually have the whole 4.6 seconds to respond. The point is though that the boater does not see the kayaker. Since neither have esp any correction the Kayaker makes may be matched by the boater or the boater may stay on course and a near miss takes place. Accidents are almost a comic (if they don't result in trajedy) collection of events that occur. This is true of car accidents, boats or industrial accidents. I spent 18 years in a corporate safety department and believe me in most accident investigations you would say that those involved were the most unluckey people. However, as in this case of small vessel vs large vessel, slow speed vs. high speed, certain things are in place to make the accident likely to happen once all the other bad karma comes together. Reducing speed does help reduce the likelyhood of an accident but does not prevent it. Reducing speed will now give the kayaker in this example 2.6 seconds to dip their paddle in the water. The other 2 seconds will go to their brain processing the situation and reacting. The idea of restricting small boats along with a speed limit is getting some traction with lawmakers. At least I have only received positive responses to the email I sent to them all. My hope is to see an amendment or more study into the total problem so all are satisfied and safe.
Speed has a major impact – here’s why: A boat going 45mph covers 66 feet every second. At 70mph it covers 102.7 feet per second. If a boat is 300 feet away from me and heading directly at me, it takes the 45mph boat 4.6 seconds to reach me. At 70 mph, the boat will reach me in just 2.8 seconds. At a speed of 45 mph, the operator will have nearly twice the amount of time to see and avoid me - and I have nearly twice as much time to try to paddle out of the way.

Time for some real figures:

The rule is called the 150’ rule!

70 mph = (70 x 5280’) = 369600’ in 1 hour = 102.67’ per second

45 mph = (45 x 5280’) = 237600’ in 1 hour = 66’ per second

150’ / 102.67’ per second = 1.46 seconds (70 mph)

150’ / 66’ per second = 2.27 seconds (45 mph)

2.27 – 1.46 = .81 seconds (safety factor difference between 70 mph and 45 mph vessel at 150’)

If 2 seconds are necessary mental time for avoidance decision, kayaker has .27 of a second (2.27 - 2) to paddle if approaching vessel is traveling at 45 mph.

This is the safety factor provided by the proposed speed limit.

I can paddle 1 mile in 10 to 12 minutes.

5280’ (1 mile) in 10 to 12 minutes = 528’ in 60 seconds (1 minute) = 8.8’ per second

8.8’ x .27 seconds = 2.38’ (represents distance in straight line from time mind determines it is necessary for evasive action on current heading and does not allow any time to change course)

Evenstar

01-28-2008, 03:16 PM

2 miles x 1 mile = 2 sq miles.
(2 miles + 1 + 1) x (1 mile + 1 + 1) = 12 sq miles. What happened to the other 60 sq miles of the Lake? Not good enough for you? Great! Then there is no need for a speed limit on the 60 sq miles of the Lake that you prefer not to use.

GWC, it is bad enough that you feel that you have to attack every thing that I post, but you totally lost me on this one! What are you talking about? What is the 12 square miles supposed to represent?

First of all, I do know what 2 square miles is. My point (since you obviously didn’t get it) was that, even though Winnipesaukee is a large lake, there’s only a very small part of it where you can ever be more than a mile from shore.

I never said (or even implied) that the only part suitable for sea kayaks was the portion that was over a mile from shore – my point was exactly the opposite – that the lake is very suitable for kayaks, since 98% of it is within a mile of shore (where I’m never more than 12 minutes from shore). The only portion that I would personally consider to be “off-shore” is the part that is more than a mile from shore (which is less than 2 square miles). Here’s a link to an image, where I’ve marked this “off-shore” portion of the lake: http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9030/winnionemilelimitkw1.jpg

Now please get off my case!

You would actually have the whole 4.6 seconds to respond. . . . Reducing speed does help reduce the likelyhood of an accident but does not prevent it. Reducing speed will now give the kayaker in this example 2.6 seconds to dip their paddle in the water. The other 2 seconds will go to their brain processing the situation and reacting.

You guys really need to go kayaking with me, because then perhaps you would be able to understand what I’m posting. When I’m out kayaking, I’m not just sitting there! I’m paddling 90% of the time, which means that I’m moving at about 5mph (which is my normal cruising speed). I’m also paying close attention to any powerboat that is headed in my direction. So, in my example, it would not take me 2.6 seconds to dip my paddle into the water, nor would it take me another 2 seconds to react. I would have reacted before the powerboat was 300 feet away.

I only used 300 feet, as that’s roughly when I would feel that a boat that is still heading directly at me doesn’t see me. (Although some idiots think that heading directly at a kayak at is funny.) Since my maximum speed is 6mph, that addition 1.8 seconds means that I’ll be able to paddle an additional 16 feet – which could easily be enough to avoid being run over. With a 70mph powerboat, I really don’t have a chance. With a 45mph powerboat, I have a chance of getting out of the way. This is what makes speed a major issue for me.

The idea of restricting small boats along with a speed limit is getting some traction with lawmakers. At least I have only received positive responses to the email I sent to them all. My hope is to see an amendment or more study into the total problem so all are satisfied and safe.

If you actually try to restrict small boats from using a large portion of the lake, you’ll just end up with a much bigger fight than the one you have now. You might be surprised at how many of us there are. I really don’t think that you want all of us banding together against the larger boat owners.

If you rely on your blades for us to see you please be sure to go in circles so we can see you from every direction. Also, please never stop paddling as we won't see your blades at rest on the water surface. Bright paddles do make you more visible but probably should be only part of your visibility strategy.
Please read my entire post. I’m very visible. If I’m not seen, it is because you’re not paying attention. Add high speed to inattention and we have a very dangerous situation.

Dave R

01-28-2008, 03:57 PM

Bear Islander

01-28-2008, 04:48 PM

I still can't figure out why kayaks should be outlawed because they might get run over by boats.

If you can't see a kayak in the daytime, don't take the helm.

If you can't spot a kayak, how can you spot a swimmer? Or is swimming in the lake to be outlawed now.

ITD

01-28-2008, 04:57 PM

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot. If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot. Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH. If one kayaker can spot another a mile away from that low on the water, imagine how easy it is for someone in a boat with at least 4 times the freeboard.

Dave, it's COMMON SENSE like that that blows the SL proponents arguments right out of the water, not to mention the actual statistics that exist proving that there is not a problem.

Unfortunately COMMON SENSE is in short supply, thanks for sharing some with us.

Acres per Second

01-29-2008, 11:38 AM

"...I was at last year's hearing and their "right to go fast" was their main argument. They also repeated refused to believe that the safety concerns voiced by other boaters were legitimate..."
I got the same sense with the following Quality-of-Life issues when these were before the Legislature recently:
1) The right to smoke cigars in restaurants
2) The right to skim a snowmobile
3) The right to refuse seat belts
4) The right to refuse PFDs for their children

"...Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH..."
Not killed, but a male kayaker was run over, suffered "broken bones" and was evacuated by air via DART4 to Dartmouth-Mary Hitchcock Hospital from Lake Winnipesaukee. I posted it at the old forum.

"...is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision...?"

Then why is New Jersey experience going unchallenged in this thread? :confused:

To whit:

1) "...Down here the coast guard or marine police catch you in a channel or boatway in a kayak you get a ticket for unsafe operation of a vessel..."

2) "...Kayaker"s are often in places that they should not be. We see it all the time on Barnegat bay here in New Jersey..."

3) I've seen the inlet deal you mentioned also. Kinda like riding a bike on an interstate..."

Smith Mountain Lake was a double for Lake Winnipesaukee for a movie—yet their double-fatality is challenged as "not on Winnipesaukee". :rolleye2:

(Yet Maine's Long Lake double-fatality was, what, forty miles away?) :confused:

"...If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot..."

You'd think...

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/Canada2006JanandJoan039-1.jpg

"...Further, I would guess most power boaters, seeing a collection of sailboats would give them a very wide berth..."

You'd think... :rolleye1:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/MilkRunVersusRegatta800x375.jpg

(Had Evenstar been in the photo, she'd have been in that lone sailboat—center foreground).

SIKSUKR

01-29-2008, 02:33 PM

If you can't spot a kayak, how can you spot a swimmer? Or is swimming in the lake to be outlawed now.

Of course not.But the point is,do you think it's a good idea for someone to be swimming in the middle of the lake with no boats next to him?I grew up on a very small lake in southern NH (Baboosic) and would not think to be out there alone.I would not go in the middle in a little rowboat and that's on a lake where no boat went more than 50 mph.I did not expect larger faster boats to see every small subject in the lake.We always stayed near shore when in small self-propelled craft.It's just comman sense and it was drilled into my head by my father.One of the first things I was taught when I learned to waterski was that if I fell and driver did not immediately turn back to protect where the fallen skier was,take off my ski and wave out of the water so other craft could see you.It's comman sense and being in small craft or swimming in a large lake should take place close to shore.My boat is only 11 ft long so I know about being the little guy out there.I spend a minimum 0f 25 days on Winni in the summer and almost all on weekends so I know about the worst conditions.The bigger boats that go 70 mph are almost never a problem.It's the Capt Boneheads in their 17 ft bowrider that is on a daytrip.Those are the ones I've had the problems with and I'm not alone.Their boats don't even go 45 mph.Speed is not the problem.Perception and scare tactics are now the problem.

Bear Islander

01-29-2008, 03:06 PM

There are many things that are a bad idea, but not illegal.

There are many reasons why a swimmer can be in the water far from shore. They may have fallen of the Mount Washington, or other boat. They may have had their boat sink from under them. It could be a SCUBA diver on the surface. It could even be an irresponsible idiot availing himself of his legal right to swim across Winni un-escorted.

And if you run over any of them you better call an attorney real quick.

jrc

01-29-2008, 03:47 PM

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot. If one can spot spars (a necessary skill on this lake), a kayak is a piece of cake to spot. Maybe that's why NONE have ever been hit in daylight in NH. If one kayaker can spot another a mile away from that low on the water, imagine how easy it is for someone in a boat with at least 4 times the freeboard.

I agree 100%. The visibilty of kayaks is a red herring. If you can't see a kayak in open water and in daylight, you shouldn't be operating a boat. Now at dusk or in narrow areas, I can see being startled by an unexpected paddler.

Acres per Second

01-30-2008, 10:42 AM

I am still trying to figure out why people think kayaks are difficult to see in daylight. I think they are incredibly easy to spot.
They are easy to spot, but it depends on your speed.

The human female retina is amply and evenly filled for color detection. Women have the ability to detect colors better. This is likely an evolutionary adaptation from earliest human's seeking berries and other food gathering needs.

Men have fewer of those color-detecting "cones" in their vision and those are all located in the center of their retinas.

Overall, the male retina is biased towards black-and-white detectors—called "rods"—which are particularly dense in mens' vision outside of center. "Rods" are smaller, and can be packed more tightly and in larger numbers onto the retina.

This is of special impact to those who crave extreme speeds for the following reasons:

1) Peripheral vision is enhanced for movement with only black-and-white vision. (An evolutionary benefit for the stalking hunter-male).
2) Once a kayak gets out of dead-center of the male's vision at high speed, it doesn't matter what color the kayak is.
3) At high speeds, peripheral vision becomes blurry or, at advanced high speeds, lost altogether. The retina-center that detects color becomes much smaller for the operator. The effect is called tunnel-vision, or funnel-vision. The effect is like peering through a long pipe with a very shiny interior. At very high illegal speeds on the highway, a driver will overlook the patrolman sitting in the median!

In the extreme, such as the centrifuge mentioned previously, one's vision can go black even while the participant is fully conscious. Perhaps Bear Islander has been made aware of this.

Women would see kayaks best; unfortunately, most boaters with the excessive speed imbalance are compensating men.

"...Dave, it's COMMON SENSE...
Kayaks can disappear with excessive speed: it's science, not common sense.

SIKSUKR

01-30-2008, 01:57 PM

There are many things that are a bad idea, but not illegal.
And if you run over any of them you better call an attorney real quick.

I suppose those poor people that ran over the aunt and the two children in Mass should have seen them in the speed limited highway and should now call their attorney?Unfortuanately all tragedies in life cannot be avoided and legislated for the sake of one incident.Let me give you an example that might hit home for you BI.You like risking your life going to extreme climates and I think that's awsome.If you died or someone died trying to save you from your "adventure" should we have laws that outlaw your kind of behavior?Of course not.If there were numerous occurances of these incidents then it might have some merit.We must always weigh overreacting to such things.I think over reacting is exactly whats going on with a speed limit.

Bear Islander

01-30-2008, 02:40 PM

Evenstar

01-30-2008, 03:09 PM

. . . If there were numerous occurances of these incidents then it might have some merit. We must always weigh overreacting to such things. I think over reacting is exactly whats going on with a speed limit.

But there are numerous occurances - even if many here are not willing to admit it. Collisions might be rare, but close calls seem to happen quite a bit on Winni. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes (including Winni), so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. But whenever we point this out, we are told that we are exagerating (or are accused of lying).

Others feel like we are putting ourselves at risk if we venture more than 150 feet from shore. They believe that kayaks have no business going out on the main lake. For instance:
Why do kayaks need or want to be out beyond the 150 feet we are talking about...I don't kayak but when I think about it I think about going up small rivers and into back coves where there are less people and quiet... or hanging close to shore . . .

Why does any boat NEED to be out beyond 150 feet? The obvious answer is because we enjoy being out on the main lake as much as any other boater. I own a boat that I can carry by myself, will float in a 6 inches of water, and is designed for large waves. I'm very experience and physically in shape, and have the proper equipment . . . so why would I want to limit my paddling to just the first 150 feet of a lake?

You may view a lake speed limit law as the result of over reacting - I view it as self-preservation.

Woodsy

01-30-2008, 03:46 PM

Bear Islander...

I think Siksukr used a bad analogy... however the point remains that the LAW requires the operator of ANY vehicle, car, truck, boat, pwc, bicycle, kayak, etc to keep a proper lookout for potential hazard.

Perhaps a better analogy would be your impending (hopefully) space flight. Using your own logic, I could argue that civilian "tourist" spaceflight should be banned. Flying to the edge of space as a passenger on a rocket doesn't make you an astronaut any more than flying at Mach 2 on the Concorde makes you a fighter pilot. Why should a bunch of wealthy thrill seekers (it cost $200,000 per ride for approx 4 minutes of weightlessness) be allowed to outrageously pollute the atmosphere and quite possibly scatter toxic debris over hundreds of square miles just to satisfy thier inner adrenaline junkie? What/whom gives them the right? (Oh wait... its not a right, but a personal freedom!) Spaceflight is obviously fraught with peril to you, others flying with you and to people on the ground. There have been many people killed. One just has to look at the fateful mission of STS-107 Columbia (foam failure on launch), or the explosion they had over at Scaled Composites (Burt Rutan's Co.) that killed 3 people while doing testing of the Virgin Galactic rocket's nitrous/solid fuel propulsion system. This project hasn't flown yet and it is already killing people!

Woodsy

PS: I am just pointing out the flawed logic that Bear Islander is using to justify HB-847 and applying that same logic to ban something that he wants to do. I think civilian spaceflight is a great idea (environmental concerns aside)and I am all for it.

Bear Islander

01-30-2008, 04:57 PM

Woodsy

01-30-2008, 05:27 PM

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA SUPPORTING THE THEORY THAT SPACEFLIGHT IS DANGEROUS!

Full disclosure requires me to explain that I am only considering accidents that are rocket-to-rocket, occur in the stratosphere, under moonlight, carry six passengers and involve air launched, liquid fueled rockets.

I am distressed to learn that my flight does not meet the NHRBA definition of the word astronaut. I will console myself with the knowledge it does meet NASA's.

Finally... a sense of humor! I don't care who you are thats funny!

Bear Islander... Don't you think turn about should be fair play? I figure if you want to use boating accidents that occurred all over the country and apply them to laws that you think we should have here in NH, even though here in NH we have only had 1 fatal accident in the last 5 years. I figure I should be able to use that same argument to ban you from enjoying a personal liberty!

I am not going to say your lying, but to be truthful, while you may meet Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic definition of Astronaut, your flight does NOT meet the definition of Astronaut according to the NASA website.

The pilots of the rocket may meet the definition of astronaut, (see my paragraph below) however, you as $200,000 passenger/cargo do not.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/astronaut_worldbook.html

"The term astronaut also has a meaning that is not connected with NASA activities. In the 1960's, the United States Department of Defense AWARDED the rating of astronaut to military and civilian pilots who FLEW aircraft higher than 50 miles (80 kilometers). Seven test pilots received this rating for flights in the X-15 rocket plane. Flights of the X-15 ended in 1968."

To think that because you can afford to to pay $200,000 you should be able to have the same title as Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Alan Shepard, etc is absolutely absurd! It is an absolute insult to those who EARNED thier right to call themselves ASTRONAUT by being the best of the best!

Woodsy

Bear Islander

01-30-2008, 06:18 PM

Cal

01-30-2008, 09:29 PM

BI,
If you want your $200,000 thrill to last a lot longer , go buy a nice performance boat and see what it's all about;)

sum-r breeze

01-30-2008, 09:54 PM

SIKSUKR

01-31-2008, 08:49 AM

Pedestrians are not allowed on highways. And double murder with suicide is against the law everywhere. Swimming across the lake is legal.

Common sense and good judgment argue against swimming far from shore. The LAW requires the boater to keep a proper lookout.

Wrong!Pedestrians are not allowed on interstate highways.They are allowed any other highway.

I love that one,suicide is illegal everywhere.Guess what,going over headway within 150 ft is a violation already too!!!

So what about you risking other peoples lives with your risky behavior?It looks like we should set limits on your activities so in the unlikely chance you get stranded,someone might die trying to rescue you.This big brother crap has to stop.

Bear Islander

01-31-2008, 09:14 AM

If a mountain climber in Antarctica needs rescue, it can only come from the other climbers that have already accepted that same risk. Part of that risk is that you may die rescuing others.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with enacting a boating speed limit on Winnipesaukee. I can understand you are frustrated by recent events, but equating apples and oranges is not the solution. And your example is more like apples and penguins.

Woodsy

01-31-2008, 09:31 AM

According to Websters I am an astronaut already.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astronaut

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

Anyway it's just a name. Doing it is what's important.

Not to split hairs.... You claimed to meet NASA's definition. Webster's Dictionary is not NASA.

Woodsy

Bear Islander

01-31-2008, 10:09 AM

Not to split hairs.... You claimed to meet NASA's definition. Webster's Dictionary is not NASA.

Woodsy

Sorry, you took me to seriously. I was contrasting NHRBA and NASA. The first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, is not an astronaut by NASA's bureaucratic definition. However people like Ed Givens are, despite the fact they never flew to space.

I spent some time with a couple of your "real astronauts" last week during training and they were very gracious in using the term with reference to Virgin Galactic clients.

Woodsy

01-31-2008, 10:28 AM

Sorry, you took me to seriously. I was contrasting NHRBA and NASA. The first human in space, Yuri Gagarin, is not an astronaut by NASA's bureaucratic definition. However people like Ed Givens are, despite the fact they never flew to space.

I spent some time with a couple of your "real astronauts" last week during training and they were very gracious in using the term with reference to Virgin Galactic clients.

Yuri Gagarin was not an American, but Russian and as such he would be called a Cosmonaut. I am not sure what the Russian definition translates to as I need to bone up on my Cyrillic. Gagarin also didn't pay for his trip... He was the best of thier best... Not some rich guy with $200K to burn.

Those Astronauts had better gracious in using the term used by Virgin Galactic.... they are being paid by Virgin Galactic! The reality is you are doing nothing more than buying a very expensive plane ticket to just beyond the edge of the atmosphere. I think its great that you means and the opportunity to do that, but to call yourself an Astronaut tarnishes the term.

Woodsy

Rose

01-31-2008, 11:30 AM

I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Alan think of Lisa Nowak being called an Astronaut.

From the Wiki entry for Lisa Nowak

"...received a BS degree in aerospace engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985. Nowak received a Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering, and a degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering in 1992 from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California."

"Nowak received her commission from the U.S. Navy in 1985, and became a naval flight officer in 1987. After her postgraduate studies, Nowak entered Aerospace Engineering Duty and the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School. She logged over 1,500 hours of flight in over 30 different aircraft during her career in the Navy, and obtained the rank of captain."

"Nowak was selected to be an astronaut in 1996 and entered the NASA Astronaut Corps at Johnson Space Center in August of that year. She qualified as a mission specialist in robotics, and was assigned to mission STS-118. After schedule changes, she instead went into space on July 4, 2006 as a member of the STS-121 crew to the International Space Station. Nowak served as mission flight engineer, operated the shuttle's robotic arm during several spacewalks, and logged almost 13 days in space."

It's highly likely that Neil, Buzz and Alan take no issue with her being called an astronaut based on her credentials...I doubt anyone here knows how her personal problems may have affected their opinion of what kind of astronaut she was or what kind of person she is.

Bear Islander

01-31-2008, 12:13 PM

Yuri Gagarin was not an American, but Russian and as such he would be called a Cosmonaut. I am not sure what the Russian definition translates to as I need to bone up on my Cyrillic. Gagarin also didn't pay for his trip... He was the best of thier best... Not some rich guy with $200K to burn.

Those Astronauts had better gracious in using the term used by Virgin Galactic.... they are being paid by Virgin Galactic! The reality is you are doing nothing more than buying a very expensive plane ticket to just beyond the edge of the atmosphere. I think its great that you means and the opportunity to do that, but to call yourself an Astronaut tarnishes the term.

Woodsy

The term you should be trying to keep untarnished is "NASA Astronaut". As far as the general term astronaut goes the ship has already sailed. The FAA regulates commercial spaceflight and they have determined that anyone flying higher than 92.6 kilometers is an astronaut. We will be receiving FAA Astronaut Wings.

None of this has anything to do with speed limits.

Woodsy

01-31-2008, 12:58 PM

The term you should be trying to keep untarnished is "NASA Astronaut". As far as the general term astronaut goes the ship has already sailed. The FAA regulates commercial spaceflight and they have determined that anyone flying higher than 92.6 kilometers is an astronaut. We will be receiving FAA Astronaut Wings.

None of this has anything to do with speed limits.

Bear Islander...

I can't believe you don't research before you post....

You are wrong yet again... well at least your wrong according to the Virgin Galactic website.

http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/index.php

http://www.virgingalactic.com/htmlsite/faq.php?subtitle=Bigger%20Picture&src=26

"Will I officially become an Astronaut?
Yes. The term Astronaut is a derived from Greek words Ajstron ("star") and nautes ("sailor"). The criteria for determining who has achieved human spaceflight vary. In the United States, people who travel above an altitude of 50 miles (80 km) are designated as astronauts. The FAI defines spaceflight as over 100 km (62 miles).Virgin Galactic passengers will receive their Virgin Galactic astronaut wings and may recieve FAA astronaut wings as well."

The key there is "may recieve". The FAA has only awarded 2 people with Commercial Astronaut Wings, and they were the pilots in command of the spacecraft. I highly doubt the FAA is going to award wings to hundreds of people just because they were wealthy enough to afford a $200,000 space ticket. Of course for $200K Virgin Galactic should give you a little gold trinket!

Have fun with those Virgin Galactic Wings!

Woodsy

Bear Islander

01-31-2008, 01:11 PM

You can check the FAA site.

But I think yesterdays vote has more to do with your posts than anything else.

Island-Ho

01-31-2008, 01:39 PM

You two sound like the 1% of the boaters that are causing 98% of the animosity toward the GFBL crowd. I hope you will be the first to be targeted once the speed limit goes into effect!

Bear Islander

01-31-2008, 01:44 PM

You two sound like the 1% of the boaters that are causing 98% of the animosity toward the GFBL crowd. I hope you will be the first to be targeted once the speed limit goes into effect!

You may be right. I should not have allowed myself to be pulled into this silly argument.

Woodsy- You are correct! Declare victory if you like.

ITD

01-31-2008, 07:31 PM

You can check the FAA site.

But I think yesterdays vote has more to do with your posts than anything else.

D' oh too soon to gloat Bear. Not sure I'd want to be a passenger in that craft's first, or even second or third mission.

Silver Duck

01-31-2008, 08:45 PM

Bear Islander

Even though I'm not real happy with anyone associated with WinnFabs at the moment, I, for one, commend (and envy) your upcoming adventure on Virgin Galactic!:)

IMHO, if mankind is ever going to spread beyond this planet, space travel will need to transition into the realm of a commercial venture. You and others like you with the bucks and guts to support the earliest steps in that direction will play an important role in that transition!

Silver Duck

DoTheMath

04-03-2008, 05:07 PM

Guns don't kill people - people kill people! And it's not the boat - it's the operator, plain and simple. Be it a 38' boat that can go 100mph or a 20' that can go 60mph, or a 13' Whaler that can go 25mph. All can be dangerous in the wrong hands - I am 100% opposed to the speed limit and 100% in favor of boater education and the use of COMMON SENSE! Come on people - think about it, rules in place or not - you shouldn't pass another boat (of any kind) at speed inside a safe distance - currently stated at a resonable 150'. As PM203 said - coming out of the channel I do the same thing as he does, get WELL clear of the NWZ and other boats and then get up and going. HeII - we are boating, where's the fire - what's the hurry - enjoy the lake, enjoy your boat and the people you are with and relax. And, at the end of the day - if I want to head out to the broads and rip it up for a quick blast at speed - so-be-it! I see FAR MORE bone-head moves over the course of a summer by people in "family" boats - bow-riders and cruisers - than I do in "performance boats". You can't judge a whole group (or a "cult" as APS referred to us as... :rolleye2:) by one individual who made a poor choice one night! (operator error - not the boats fault). Water on the water, beer on the pier - be smart, use your head and we'll all be better off for it.

SS-194

04-04-2008, 11:05 AM

SIKSUKR

04-04-2008, 12:16 PM

I don't need a law to tell me not to drive drunk that is "COMMON SENSE" but hello lots of people drive drunk. So until everyone passes the common sense test i think we need some laws to help keep the bone heads in check. How can it hurt?

You need to reread your own post.You just said we you don't need a law to tell you not to drive drunk but lots do anyway and then imply that speed limits will stop fast boats.You just countered your own argument.

DoTheMath

04-04-2008, 01:10 PM

Would'nt it be nice if we could teach COMMON SENSE. If everyone had common sense would we need any laws at all? I'am sorry but bone heads come in every size boat out there. But I would be more afraid of one going 100 mph than one going 25 mph. Can you tell me why anyone has to go that fast? I don't need a law to tell me not to drive drunk that is "COMMON SENSE" but hello lots of people drive drunk. So until everyone passes the common sense test i think we need some laws to help keep the bone heads in check. How can it hurt?

Sorry - but by "boneheads" - whom would you be referring to!? The guy in the 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 mph and letting up a HUGE wake resulting in all kinds of near-by vessel and / or shore-line damage!? (yep, see it all the time). Or the person out in the kayak or row boat at night, paddling along at 3 mph, with no lights thinking this is safe and ok!? Oh, wait - maybe you mean the woman driving the 23' bowrider leaving the channel and mashing the throttle forward when there are 2 or 3 other boats within 50' of her!? Yep, I have seen all of this stuff - live and in person - and it just blows my mind. I agree - common sense can't be taught, but I still don't see how a speed limit will cure anything, esp. a "problem" that doesn't exist! Last time I checked - the most recent "bone head" move on the lake with catastrophic results occurred at 28 mph!?!? Let's enforce the laws we have that will really make a difference - not institute new ones that will just tax the current system and fix nothing! :rolleye2:

Acres per Second

04-08-2008, 11:32 AM

So, we get to re-visit this thread again... remember the original post?

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.
1) Whenever I see ineligible people using the handicapped parking spaces, SUVs parking in malls' fire lanes, and the occasional shooting of Bald Eagles, I am reminded of this post.

2) Another thought: some very vocal opponents to Winnipesaukee speed limits admit to living on different lakes! :eek:

Yup. Let's keep the speedsters on The Big Lake—that'll work. :rolleye1:

codeman671

04-08-2008, 12:44 PM

So, we get to re-visit this thread again... remember the original post?

1) Whenever I see ineligible people using the handicapped parking spaces, SUVs parking in malls' fire lanes, and the occasional shooting of Bald Eagles, I am reminded of this post.

2) Another thought: some very vocal opponents to Winnipesaukee speed limits admit to living on different lakes! :eek:

Yup. Let's keep the speedsters on The Big Lake—that'll work. :rolleye1:

Yup, and plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well. Many of the businesses on the list of supporters have nothing to do with it either.

Then the scare tactics get spread, striking fear on the voters and representatives who have never been to or know nothing about the lake...

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 01:20 PM

Yup, and plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well. Many of the businesses on the list of supporters have nothing to do with it either.

Then the scare tactics get spread, striking fear on the voters and representatives who have never been to or know nothing about the lake...

How do explain the fact that most of the legislators that ARE familiar with the lake, also support speed limits?

SS-194

04-08-2008, 05:02 PM

You need to reread your own post.You just said we you don't need a law to tell you not to drive drunk but lots do anyway and then imply that speed limits will stop fast boats.You just countered your own argument.

The point is you can't teach common sense. So we do need laws. Of course laws are not 100 %. But something is better than nothing. Also no one has explained to me why anyone has to go 100mph on a small body of water. And yes at 100mph Winnipesaukee is very small. One great thing about N.H. is we have a coast line with a huge ocean GO FOR IT.

jrc

04-08-2008, 05:32 PM

How do explain the fact that most of the legislators that ARE familiar with the lake, also support speed limits?

I don't believe you. Please provide proof.

There are 419 legislators in the list I just downloaded from the state website. Can you list the names of the ones familiar with the lake? The names of the "most" of that set that support speed limits?

For what's its worth, 9 of the 13 legislators in a Winnipesaukee town did vote for the speed limit. But surely living in a Winnipesaukee town is not the same as being familiar with the lake. That definition leaves out Rep. Pilliod.

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 09:33 PM

I don't believe you. Please provide proof.

There are 419 legislators in the list I just downloaded from the state website. Can you list the names of the ones familiar with the lake? The names of the "most" of that set that support speed limits?

For what's its worth, 9 of the 13 legislators in a Winnipesaukee town did vote for the speed limit. But surely living in a Winnipesaukee town is not the same as being familiar with the lake. That definition leaves out Rep. Pilliod.

So I guess you want to win this argument by inventing an extremely limited definition of "familiar with the lake". In you opinion what is required? Must they own a boat? How many hours of operation? How much horsepower?

Any legislator that lives in a Winnipesaukee town meets my definition. Your 9 out of 13 is the proof you are asking me for. If you listened to the debate in the house you should know that quite a few legislators from around the state stood up and related there Winnipesaukee experience and their support of speed limits. One was an ex Marine Patrol Officer. The debates are on the internet, go listen to them and hear the "proof" with your own ears.

I know a Senator that lives on Bear Island, does that count?

jrc

04-08-2008, 10:55 PM

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 11:29 PM

I don't want to win any argument. You stated something as fact that really is just your opinion or at best a guess.

Yes, I know that you know a Senator that has a summer house on Bear Island. Surely you didn't base your "fact" only on input from this one person.

Your 9 out of 13 and the recordings of the debate are facts.

You are claiming the legislature didn't know what it was doing when it passed HB847 because they are not familiar with the lake. The truth is the legislature spent a great deal of time on this legislation including many public hearings and debates. Just because you don't like what they did, does not mean they didn't know what they were doing.

jrc

04-09-2008, 12:06 AM

Your 9 out of 13 and the recordings of the debate are facts.

You are claiming the legislature didn't know what it was doing when it passed HB847 because they are not familiar with the lake. The truth is the legislature spent a great deal of time on this legislation including many public hearings and debates. Just because you don't like what they did, does not mean they didn't know what they were doing.

You are confusing me with another poster and/or misunderstanding my posts. All in all, it really doesn't matter, I'm sorry I bored the group.

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 12:38 AM

You are confusing me with another poster and/or misunderstanding my posts. All in all, it really doesn't matter, I'm sorry I bored the group.

Sorry, it was codeman that made that claim. However you took up his argument so I don't see what difference it makes.

DoTheMath

04-09-2008, 11:23 AM

SS-194, just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience, not from watching them on TV - maybe, have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph you keep referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

Acres per Second

04-11-2008, 09:24 AM

"...plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well....

Uh...where are they here? :confused:

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.

"...How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience..."
As a passenger, I've crossed Lake Winnipesaukee at 120-MPH. :eek:

The floatplane I was in was flown by my Dad—a proven pilot. :)

Moreover, both parents are certified floatplane pilots, and my Dad raced a "Laconia Speedster" on Winnipesaukee out of Melvin Village.

Both are non-drinkers and want speed limits on Winnipesaukee. That includes my in-laws, who had a kayak incident with an all-white, high performance boat within 75 feet of shore! (Visibility problem over an excessively-long deck, I'm hearing). :(

"...We can't teach common sense...but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters..."

I instruct high-speed automobile car control—most recently at 130-MPH. Our club has paid corner workers, fire trucks, and ambulance "at the ready" on a closed course.

Is that enough safety—where there's absolutely no chance of drowning??

At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments :confused: :confused: ...plus GPS??? :eek: :eek:

http://www.pokerrunsamerica.com/articles/images/84fountain2.gif

http://www.livorsi.com/dash_gallery_06/scarab_images/tbird_tn.jpg

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/OffshoreDistractions.jpg

Seeker

04-11-2008, 07:42 PM

Acres per Second wrote:
At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments :confused: :confused: ...plus GPS??? :eek: :eek:

I have a few problems with this one.
First, if you were traveling across Winnie at 120 in a floatplane you had better have been airborne as liftoff is somewhere between 35 and 65.
Second, I raced SCCA a long time ago at speeds in excess of what you mention. If I could look only at the temp gauge once per lap we would have never won a race. You must develop a scan of the instruments, whether in an aircraft, a race car or a boat, performance or otherwise. When you have enough experience you just know when something looks wrong (a needle in the wrong position) without really seeing it. If you can't, you should be doing something else.

jrc

04-11-2008, 08:30 PM

APS,

If you can't look at instruments at speeds between 50 and 130 MPH, then how do people fly jet planes? Last I heard they fly around 600 MPH, sometimes right over the lake.

Seriously, if the traffic on the lake is dense enough so don't have time to look at your instruments or to navigate, then you should slow down, you are being reckless.

If you are crossing shoals or dodging islands so fast that you can't read your instruments or navigate, you should slow down, you're being reckless.

If you operate your boat recklessly you should be fined or jailed.

Not one speed limit opponent will recommend operating recklessly.

Not one speed limit opponent will suggest that speeds over 45 MPH are appropriate at all times and all places.

This is pretty simple stuff you think that you would have got it by now.

chipj29

04-14-2008, 08:43 AM

Acres per Second

04-14-2008, 10:35 AM

"...I rarely boat on Winni. In fact, my PWC barely exceeds the proposed 45 mph limit...if the proposal passes on the largest lake in the state, I would venture to speculate that it would be passed on other bodies of water as well..."
Now, why wouldn't you want to share the "lake of your choice" with Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys?

"...if you were traveling across Winnie at 120 in a floatplane you had better have been airborne as liftoff is somewhere between 35 and 65..."
But your "Unlimited Speeds" proponents tell us 120 is safe for boats! Floatplanes have options on the water—and virtually no traffic over the lake.

All boats are stuck in one dimension and, among Winnipesaukee's cowboys, small boats are the most-stuck.

"...I raced SCCA a long time ago at speeds in excess of what you mention. If I could look only at the temp gauge once per lap we would have never won a race..."
I'll guess you didn't have GPS, or have three engines in your Sports Racer—or an instument panel that looks like this one: :rolleye2:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/OffshoreDistractions.jpg

Most of us use lights like this one:
http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/Images/M/AM3240.JPG

"...if the traffic on the lake is dense enough so don't have time to look at your instruments or to navigate, then you should slow down, you are being reckless..."
...you're writing of the "common sense" we aren't witnessing on the lake? :confused:

"...If you are crossing shoals or dodging islands so fast that you can't read your instruments or navigate, you should slow down, you're being reckless. ..."
Running across islands, running upside-down into cottages, running over other boats, and running ashore is reckless, but how many others got stopped by the NHMP?

"...If you operate your boat recklessly you should be fined or jailed. ..."
One would think so...:rolleye2:

"...Not one speed limit opponent will recommend operating recklessly. ..."
I direct your attention to the first post in this thread, which begins..."Law or no law...."

"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."

"...Not one speed limit opponent will suggest that speeds over 45 MPH are appropriate at all times and all places...."
How about "over 90"?

"...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..."

"...This is pretty simple stuff you think that you would have got it by now..."
I'm slow on the water, too.

Watch for me—especially if I'm capsized. :(

DoTheMath

04-14-2008, 12:04 PM

Uh...where are they here? :confused:

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.

As a passenger, I've crossed Lake Winnipesaukee at 120-MPH. :eek:

The floatplane I was in was flown by my Dad—a proven pilot. :)

Moreover, both parents are certified floatplane pilots, and my Dad raced a "Laconia Speedster" on Winnipesaukee out of Melvin Village.

Both are non-drinkers and want speed limits on Winnipesaukee. That includes my in-laws, who had a kayak incident with an all-white, high performance boat within 75 feet of shore! (Visibility problem over an excessively-long deck, I'm hearing). :(

I instruct high-speed automobile car control—most recently at 130-MPH. Our club has paid corner workers, fire trucks, and ambulance "at the ready" on a closed course.

Is that enough safety—where there's absolutely no chance of drowning??

At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments :confused: :confused: ...plus GPS??? :eek: :eek:

http://www.pokerrunsamerica.com/articles/images/84fountain2.gif

http://www.livorsi.com/dash_gallery_06/scarab_images/tbird_tn.jpg

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/OffshoreDistractions.jpg

Sorry - did you just compare a float plane and a boat in the same sentence when discussing speed limits ON the water!? If that is the path you're going to take... You mention you teach high-speed car control in automobiles, most recently at 130mph. Impressive, but I have traveled over land at 640mph. - yes really! Ohhhh, wait - I was in a commercial airliner... but it's the same thing, right!? Sorry - your stance is really starting to take on water here - pun intended.

As much as I envy your dad for piloting the boat that he did - back in the day (loved those boats) - and being an accomplished pilot, I'm not asking about your Dad here, I'm talking about you. I don't mix alcohol and boating either - water on the water, beer on the pier - a rule (and saying) instituted by the publisher of Poker Runs Magazine, Bill Taylor. All those "distractions" you mention on the dash of a performance boat are very easily managed, if you have the experience and know-how. There are only a few that you need to be concerned about in the short-term, oil & water - temp and pressure, as you know are the "life blood" of ANY internal combustion 4-stroke motor. Aside of that, all the rest are fuel level, speed, tach, boost, volts, etc...

As far as the kayak incident being caused by "an excessively long deck" on the accused offending vessel - pure speculation! Once a performance boat is on plane, the deck is flat and you can see the horizon just fine above it, and what is in the water in front of you as well. Now, take a 35' or 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 knots - there is a visibility problem due to deck position! Notice the attached picture - that was taken at 110mph (see the GPS in the middle of the pic.?), look at the deck position - you can't even see it, visibility just fine! Oh, and that boat is 32' long - a real 32', not including any platforms etc... And we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so. And yes, throttles are in the back position as it is operated with foot throttles, and full drive and tab trim controls on the wheel so you can keep both hands on it. And we are wearing suspender style life vests - USCG approved BTW...

chipj29

04-14-2008, 04:23 PM

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Bear Islander

04-14-2008, 05:02 PM

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Darn, I'd love to be there but it's the same time as the Marathon.

Airwaves

04-14-2008, 11:46 PM

I found these two articles, one from the Associated Press the other from the Boston Globe, interesting and very telling for the future funding of the New Hamsphire Marine Patrol.

First the AP article from March 28:
Boatbuilding hits the rocks (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/03/28/boatbuilding_hits_the_rocks/)

Then this article today from the Globe
Boat owners struggling to jump ship (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/04/14/many_boat_owners_struggling_to_jump_ship/)

(It appears you may have to register for free in order to view the articles) There are other articles that talk about stock prices for boat manufacturers taking hits, and West Marine Q4 profits way off as well but these two articles are representative, and funny neither one mentions a speed limit as the cause or even a factor!

So, how do these stories impact the Marine Patrol? As has been mentioned a number of times on this forum, the Marine Patrol gets its funding from NH boat registrations. That is why they have been doing direct mailings recently to boat owners asking you to register directly through the Marine Parol. That way they don't have to share the revenue with the towns.

If the economic factors that are effecting the boatbuilder and Massachusetts boaters looking to get out are also being felt in New Hampshire, the Marine Patrol budget will suffer.

So now we're looking at the possibility of a new law that will require new enforcement efforts from an agency that is facing funding cuts. Since New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has told his agency heads that because of an expected $50,000,000 budget shortfall to be prepared for cuts.

Even in the unlikely event that the state does step in and level fund the Marine Patrol the need for a new series of radar patrols is still a cutback since those patrols require radar certified Marine Patrol officers (training costs) to run radar duty instead of conducting safety patrols (patrol cutbacks). Accomplishing that, to cover a lake that is 72 square miles, is going to take more than one radar boat!

Such a move would be a reduction in safety to all boaters that I strongly oppose and actually will make the lake a LESS SAFE PLACE TO BE!

Ironic, a law requiring a speed limit could actually make the lake less safe!

In another thread someone asked how opponents to the speed limit would react if there are 22 speed related deaths this summer? I will pose the same question to you. How are you going to sleep at night if, because of the required radar patrols to enforce your speed limit, a boat is involved in an accident in an area where a Marine Patrol boat would normally be but can't be because it's doing a speed trap patrol and the victim of the accident dies?

Speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee but there are problems and taking the only law enforcement on the lake and cutting their patrol time to enforce an unnecessary law is just plain stupid!

Acres per Second

04-15-2008, 07:48 AM

"...Now, take a 35' or 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 knots - there is a visibility problem due to deck position...!"
In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).

"...As far as the kayak incident being caused by "an excessively long deck" on the accused offending vessel - pure speculation! Once a performance boat is on plane, the deck is flat and you can see the horizon just fine above it, and what is in the water in front of you as well.
The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.

"...Notice the attached picture - that was taken at 110mph (see the GPS in the middle of the pic.?), look at the deck position - you can't even see it, visibility just fine...And we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so..."

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1811&stc=1&d=1208184931

On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?

"...All those "distractions" you mention on the dash of a performance boat are very easily managed, if you have the experience and know-how..."
Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/NCInterior.jpg

"...we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so..."

You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/OffshoreOnshore.jpg

chipj29

04-15-2008, 12:50 PM

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1811&stc=1&d=1208184931

On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?

Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/NCInterior.jpg

You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/OffshoreOnshore.jpg
I don't see the point of posting this stuff, the poster was talking about being in a boat at 110 mph...somewhere OTHER than Lake Winni.
Where were those pics taken? Were they on Lake Winni? Was the driver experienced? Was the driver in either instance perhaps impaired?

Maybe next you should post some pics of sailboat accidents that occurred somewhere around the globe.

chipj29

04-15-2008, 02:06 PM

These guys must have been going more than 45!
http://www.brooklynrecord.com/archives/060725sailboat.jpg
http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicLat/2005/1205/Dec30/wreck.jpg

DoTheMath

04-15-2008, 07:37 PM

In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).

The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1811&stc=1&d=1208184931

On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?

Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/NCInterior.jpg

You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/OffshoreOnshore.jpg

So, you never addressed YOUR experience with performance boats!? Your "racer" that you built at Brewster... was it really a 1/12 scale!? Or was it the little 10' footer I mentioned with the 15hp outboard on it!? Come on, you can tell us ;) Establish some credibility with me (and the board) here before you continue, that way we know if you know what you are talking about with regard to performance boats - and didn't just read it in a magazine.

As for the boat I was in, Cali. Delta - and the canopies only look distorted from that angle (the back seat) - they are F16 canopies that are optically correct and provide a PERFECTLY CLEAR view when sitting in either of the two front seats. (I know, I was sitting in both of them - at different times - at some point in time that day). That is a boat that you see through the canopy - it was over 1 mile down, we slowed down long before getting to it. And the GPS - who cares where that is located, it offers NO information pertaining to safe operation, it just tells you how fast you're going. Again, if you had any real experience with performance boats, you'd know that.

As for the $1mil. dollar boat that you posted a picture of above, do you know the owner and / or story behind that picture!?!? I do! What was your point in posting that...!? It happened 2,000 miles from the lake.

In fact - your point in posting any of those pics!? I can start to post pics of car accidents, plane crashes, jet skis that are smashed up - even bowriders that are wrecked... again, what's the point!?

Tell you what - again, establish some credibility for yourself in the high performance boating world, and we can have an adult conversation - now that you "are all grown up". Until then, stop posting your propaganda - 'cuz all you're doing is clouding the facts...

As far as the incident as "told to you" on the long foredeck issue, that is - at best - second-hand information, again - pure speculation, and since you were not actually there, dismissed!

shooter

04-16-2008, 12:29 PM

Evenstar

04-17-2008, 10:13 AM

:laugh:yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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!

GWC...

04-18-2008, 01:51 PM

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!
Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...

hazelnut

04-22-2008, 12:27 PM