Speed Limit Passes House

[Bear Islander]

The speed limit just passed the house.

The vote was 236 Yeas to 111 Nays.

[AC2717]

The speed limit was just passed the house.

hopefully the Senate has common sense, or I wonder if you could rule it unconstitutional?

funny I received numerous responses from state reps that vowed to vote no!

[Hottrucks]

what was the vote...I was Iced in up here and couldn't get there

where does it go next the senate..?? When???


Thanx

[Resident 2B]

The speed limit was just passed the house.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. Speed limits have passed the House before. The Senate is the battleground.

In the past, the Senate has demonstrated with their votes that they are more realistic with their views, and less swayed by the embellishments of those without facts supporting their goals, than their brothers and sisters in the House.

Hopefully, the more experienced arm of government will do what they have done in the past.

R2B

[Evenstar]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_XGR_BOAT_SPEEDS_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jan 30, 12:36 PM EST - N.H. House approves boat speed limit on largest lake

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- The House has approved a two-year trial boat speed limit on New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee.


The House voted 236-111 Wednesday on a bill that set a 45 mph daytime limit and 25 mph nighttime limit on the state's largest lake.

Supporters argued the two-year trial would be plenty of time to test speed limits. They say speeders are spoiling the lake for other users.

Opponents argued the limits are unnecessary. As proof, they pointed to a Marine Patrol study last summer that found few boats exceeded the proposed limit. Opponents said it made no sense to pass a law in hopes a small, inconsiderate group would change its habits. They also argue the speed limits would be unenforceable since boats aren't required to have speedometers.

The House passed a bill two years ago to impose limits on all lakes and rivers, but the Senate killed it.

The House past the amended version of the bill. In 2006 HB162 passed the House 193-139, so support for a speed limit law has grown since then. Plus this is a very different Senate than the one we had in 2006. I known several Senators who will be voting for HB847.

[Acres per Second]

Well....Just Dang! :(

I'd hoped to put Steve Fossett's old record-breaking multihull "Cheyenne" on Winnipesaukee. This cuts that possibility in half.

Cheyenne is selling for a tiny fraction of its original price, it's 125' long, and has already broken 55-MPH.

Smokelessly racing across the Broads at 55-MPH—and using no fossil fuels—has been a dream of mine. (OK, there's a little "smoke" off the hulls at high speed). :D

Just think, an ocean-racer 60-feet wide, and being the privileged boat over everybody else on the lake!

Just dang...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/436327969_751c2e4a7f.jpg?v=0

('Thought I'd do my speed runs nearest the NASWA crowd and go jumping their wakes—at night :devil: .)

[fatlazyless]

I am almost at a loss for words, which is unusual for me, so let me just say that

...sometimes, you win, and

...sometimes, YOU LOSE!:cheers:

....

On March 16, 2006, the New Hampshire State Senate voted 16-9 on HB162 with what was a Republican majority at that time.

Since the November 2006 election, the majority color of the 24 members of the problem solving and deep thinking New Hampshire State Senate has changed from a Republican red to a BRITE & HOPEFULL SHADE of DEMOCRATIC BLUE, which is just like the blue water out on Lake Winnipesaukee, brite & hopefull.

Therefore, knowing what we know about our hardworking and volunteer New Hampshire State Senate, we can all be very brite & hopefull.

...capiche! :)

Having said all that, if you study the votes, HB847 is not a partisan issue with Dems and Repubs all divided on it. There have been D's & R's on both sides of the vote, both in the House & previously in the Senate.

Each and every State Representative studies the issue carefully and then makes his/her own decision. HB 847 has been a one representative by one representative. non-partisan issue with each individual doing their own due diligence, and asking themselves: What is best for boating safety in New Hampshire?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''
All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111.:banana:



..........

[SBC]

Each and every State Representative studies the issue carefully and then makes his/her own decision. HB 847 has been a one representative by one representative. non-partisan issue with each individual doing their own due diligence, and asking themselves: What is best for boating safety in New Hampshire?

What happened to government of, by and for the people?

I hope they (the Senate) maintain the common sense exhibited previously and don't let the personal agenda of any new and bright blue members muck up the props of progress.

[Resident 2B]

All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111.:banana:
..........FLL,

I just stuck my head out the window and all I could hear was the wind! :)

R2B

[Bear Islander]

What happened to government of, by and for the people?



It is alive and well and living in NH. Perhaps you are not aware but all the independent polls show that the vast majority of NH voters favor boating speed limits.

I will now stand aside so that my esteemed colleges on the other side of the aisle can explain why all those polls are bologna.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Still along way to go, Although gloat if you will. You won a battle, but not the war my friends. The pro speed limit side, screamed victory when HB 162 was passed in the House. Where did that go? Same Place 847 will, out with the rest of the trash. I hope this opens the publics eyes to the reform needed in Concord. These Reps are out of control! Time for some restructuring. Too many reps, and too many old timers! Need some young fresh faces that are in touch with real life, Not just the retired and wealthy that can afford to work for $100/yr. Put some real everday people in the seats and see what happens!

[Dick]

The author of the HB 847 amendment, and who also wrote the House Transporation committee (7-6) blurb in the House regular claendar, was Rep. Howard Cunningham. This is what he wrote: "This amendment sets a 45/25 (day/night) speed limit and is designed to sunset on January 1, 2011. This interval will provide an adequate period of time to make pre/post speed limit comparisons."

Okay, we know what the baseline objective data is, i.e., ZERO boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years (that's for all 970 lakes/ponds and thousands of miles of rivers, not just Winni). Now, IF this bill were to pass, what improvement over this could we logically expect to see over the next 2 years?

We haven't had a boat-to-boat fatality that involved a speed over 30 mph in over 5 years. Exactly what "comparison" should we expect to see over a 2 year "interval" in this regard?

If we were to end up with significantly more boat-to-boat collisions during the 2 year "comparison" period, would that mean that imposing the speed restriction did not improve our boating safety record, but rather had the opposite effect?

[GWC...]

Well....Just Dang! :(

I'd hoped to put Steve Fossett's old record-breaking multihull "Cheyenne" on Winnipesaukee. This cuts that possibility in half.

Cheyenne is selling for a tiny fraction of its original price, it's 125' long, and has already broken 55-MPH.

Smokelessly racing across the Broads at 55-MPH—and using no fossil fuels—has been a dream of mine. (OK, there's a little "smoke" off the hulls at high speed). :D

Just think, an ocean-racer 60-feet wide, and being the privileged boat over everybody else on the lake!

Just dang...

Cheer up...

The bill originally called for limits on all lakes of 10 acres or more. The House Transportation Committee amended the bill to cover only Lake Winnipesaukee, the state’s largest lake. It made the limit a two-year experiment, calling for them to expire in 2011.

Hope you are able to enjoy 45 mph and resist 55 mph until the 2011 season.

Why?

The bill says that conviction of breaking the speed limits will appear on a violator’s driving record, kept by the Division of Motor Vehicles.

http://gamma.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Winnipesaukee+speed+limits+e asily+win+House+approval&articleId=6548a614-2c2c-47f5-ae87-39b77cc5058f

[andyporter]

Do we need a speed limit in the broads? Maybe coming in and out Weirs/Meredith. But the broads.

[andyporter]

:)It is alive and well and living in NH. Perhaps you are not aware but all the independent polls show that the vast majority of NH voters favor boating speed limits.

I will now stand aside so that my esteemed colleges on the other side of the aisle can explain why all those polls are bologna.

You aready got a no wake zone in front of your place. Right?
By the way I enjoy your webcam! Anymore Ice IN Ice out vids in the future?
That was cool.

[KonaChick]

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

[SIKSUKR]

Here's WMUR's story.

http://www.wmur.com/news/15176535/detail.html

[chipj29]

The author of the HB 847 amendment, and who also wrote the House Transporation committee (7-6) blurb in the House regular claendar, was Rep. Howard Cunningham. This is what he wrote: "This amendment sets a 45/25 (day/night) speed limit and is designed to sunset on January 1, 2011. This interval will provide an adequate period of time to make pre/post speed limit comparisons."

Okay, we know what the baseline objective data is, i.e., ZERO boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years (that's for all 970 lakes/ponds and thousands of miles of rivers, not just Winni). Now, IF this bill were to pass, what improvement over this could we logically expect to see over the next 2 years?

We haven't had a boat-to-boat fatality that involved a speed over 30 mph in over 5 years. Exactly what "comparison" should we expect to see over a 2 year "interval" in this regard?

If we were to end up with significantly more boat-to-boat collisions during the 2 year "comparison" period, would that mean that imposing the speed restriction did not improve our boating safety record, but rather had the opposite effect?
Maybe if a few of us go out there and carefully crash our boats into each others, we can show the data that proves that a speed limit causes crashes. ;)
If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!
There is no room here for things that make sense. You should know that by now.

[fatlazyless]

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

Hey KonaChick...that's a good question...and the answer is that it is up to each individual state's dept of motor vehicles, or whoever decides for your state. Probably, the NH DMV forwards the info and the other states have their own protocol.

As someone on this forum likes to say; "You can't fix stupid!"....whatever.....hey...it's a big lake out there....wave to me...and I'll be happy to be waving back to you! :D
.......

Hey all, today's www.unionleader.com has a front page, speed limits article, and below the story they are looking for readers to express their opinions. I'd make a comment there except it's always an 'error in transmission' or something....wonder if the Union Leader has put a block on me?

[SIKSUKR]

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.Also, in the article it states only 10 of the 239 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt.

[Evenstar]

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.
Here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/Roll_calls/billstatus_rcdetails.aspx?vs=29&sy=2008&lb=H&eb=HB0847&sortoption=&txtsessionyear=2008&txtbillnumber=hb847&ddlsponsors=&q=1&lsr=1098

After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.
The bill was also amended with a "sunset clause", which means that it has to be reviewed (and voted on again) in 2011.

[/quote] the article it states only 10 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt.[/quote]
I'm a native and I know plenty of other natives who are for this bil. The problem is that some people's freedom has a negative impact on the freedom of others. You can't just let everyone do whatever they want to - that would be anarchy. Laws are to (suposed to be) made for the good of the many - not for the special interest groups.

If so few boats are traveling over 45 mph (as many here claim), than why are so many here so upset with this bill? According to your own claims, only a very few people will have to slow down. This bill shouldn't have any impact on most of you.

[COWISLAND NH]

'''''''''''''''''''''''''
All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111.:banana:
..........:( Not us!! I hope to get everyone fired up about this....call call call the reps!!!!! This should NOT be passed!!!!! Inexperienced & scared captians make this lake unsafe!!!! The captians that pour time, money and love into their power boats that can go faster are not to blame. It's a shame that just because the campers, paddlers, and scared lake user don't like us we can't enjoy what we like.

[winnilaker]

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/rollcall/rollcallsearch.asp

[Acres per Second]

"...If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states...??"
It's a long quote but it took an hour to find—so here it is from this insurance site (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LTDwoJ3PcdwJ:https://www.carinsurance.com/kb/emailarticle.aspx%3Fid%3D24554+ticket,+michigan-is-not-a-member&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us): Most of the 50 states have reciprocal agreements with respect to traffic violations.

"...though there are 5 states that are not currently members of the agreement they all still seem to share and receive in information from some if not all other states.

"The state of Georgia has other agreements with states to exchange information regarding traffic tickets their licensed drivers acquire out of state. The DDS states that the Department is authorized to suspend your license if its records or other evidence shows that you have accumulated 15 points within 24 months under the point system, including violations committed out of state.

"According to the Massachusetts driver's manual, MA has arranged to share driving record and criminal violation information with other states. So even though Massachusetts is not a part of the DLC, they have their own agreements with other states to exchange violation information.

"The RMV driver's manual goes on to say that certain traffic offenses committed by a MA licensed driver in other states will be placed on their MA driving record and treated by the RMV as if the offense had occurred in Massachusetts.

"The Michigan Secretary of State (SOS) site notes that out of state offenses are likely to eventually appear on your Michigan driving record. Thus even though Michigan is not a member of the DLC it appears their DMV will still share and exchange information with other state's courts and Department of Motor Vehicles regarding traffic violations.

"Tennessee dropped out of the DLC in 1997 so it is not currently a member of the agreement but the state still reports tickets back to your home state and other states can still report moving violations to the TN Department of Safety.

"Even though Wisconsin is not a member of the DLC their Department of Transportation will still share and exchange information with other state's courts and Department of Motor Vehicles regarding traffic violations. Wisconsin records out of state traffic convictions on a WI driver's record but does not assess points.

"To find out if your state has reciprocal agreements with any of these States check with your Department of Motor Vehicles. Or if you live in one of these 5 states you can check with the DMV or like agency to find out more about their agreements with other States."

It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!"..."
Now "it" appears to make sense: the agreement refers to moving violations only.

If you get a violation, I'm guessing you are innocent should you plead neither guilty nor innocent. ("The dog ate my ticket, your Honor." "The license tag number is off, yer Onner" etc.)

By paying the citation, you would be tacitly admitting guilt, so the points would be "reciprocated" to your state of residence. In not paying the citation, you could have a much bigger problem should you get another moving citation in New Hampshire again.

Generally speaking, if you are not found innocent in NH and if you don't pay, your best option is not to return to New Hampshire for about five to eight years; after which, the violation appears to get forgotten about. (Depending on just what you did, or allegedly did.)

Or one can captain one's boat in a sane manner, and pray that problem boaters with problem boats don't take that first drink of alcoholic beverage for the next two seasons.

Further in my Internet readings this morning, I'm finding that states are generally very poor record-keepers and that the legal system is truly messed up in matters of interstate moving violations and "insurance points".

It's the guys with the lawbooks that purportedly have the correct answers—and their hand in your pocketbook.

[SIKSUKR]

Thanks for that link Winnilaker.I will be voicing my disapproval to my respective reps.This process is not over people.Contact your state senator and let them know how you feel about this bill.I was going to say we certainly have a better shot at ending this bill given the smaller majority of Dems in the senate but it appears both branches are 60 to 40 percent Dems ro GOP.Let your opinion be known!

[fatlazyless]

Union Leader, Manchester, NH (AP New Hampshire)

"Gov. John Lynch say's he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee.

The House yesterday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night.

Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."
......
Angela Anderson/ WGIR-AM
Union Leader


......

[GWC...]

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.
Hope this helps... (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/rollcall/rollcallsbyvotedetail.asp?sessionyear=2008&voteno=29&body=H)

[SIKSUKR]

Wow,that sounds like a total flip flop from Lynch's previous position.It's nice to see some comman sense from my Governor when he says what the rest of us speed limit opponents have been saying right along.

Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore
There is hope.

[bbarrell]

Well, at least someone in this state has some sense! Thank you Gov. Lynch! I also saw an interview where he said he didn't think he'd pass any unfunded bill in 2008 that may cost additional money to regulate.
IF it gets passed, I'm glad it was amended to be a two yr trial and only Lake Winni. I think they will truly then learn this bill cost them more than any safety rewards they reaped from it and the data will prove it and this issue will be done.

I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess!

I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes. I've just sold my lakefront property and boat. Perhaps for some supporters that's exactly what you wanted....but I'll be spending that money elsewhere now. Even though I'm against speed limits and will continue to join that fight.... I actually never drove my boat over 65mph and consider myself a very safe driver.

[Seeker]

Boating laws are like gun laws. If we would just enforce the ones we now have most problems would be eliminated.
What would make anyone think that someone who staggers onto their boat at 8 or 9 pm with a snootful is going to follow the 25mph night speed limit?:confused:

[Evenstar]

I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess!
Or the Senate could remove the amendments that the House Transportation Committee added.

[/quote]I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes.[/quote]
It all depends on what you consider to be important.

Group A feels that being able to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake is important.

Group B feels that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.

If members of Group A actually leave, members of Group B will likely just replace them.

So how will this hurt our economy?

Especially when the opponents to the speed limit have been claiming that only a very tiny portion of the boats on Winni travel over 45mph. According to what has been posted on this forum, only 1% will have to slow down to comply with the speed limit. Are you now suggesting that a much greater percentage of boats have in fact been traveling at over 45 mph?

[SIKSUKR]

Here' Gov Lynch's statement on WMUR's website.



Lynch Says Boat Speeds Not Worst Problem On Lake
Governor Not Sure If He Would Sign Lake Speed Limit Bill

POSTED: 11:01 am EST January 31, 2008


MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee

The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night.

Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk.

[bilproject]

Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

[hazelnut]

That is a pretty or should I say VERY basic comment to a potentially real problem.

Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct?

How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere.

I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same:
Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.

[fatlazyless]

Hey Hazelnut, what the state loses in its' gas tax money, it would easily exceed with increased business profits tax from big big sales of granola....it's the granola factor....if every kayaker who paddles on the north side of the lake stops at Heath's and gets some granola, the state's treasury will be very healthy & fat free!

Besides, the gasoline used by motorboats can be redeemed from the state with their non-motor vehicle, gas tax refund program, which every gasoline seller on the lake promotes.
.........

Just checked the www.unionleader.com and their speed limits article has a big long list of 25 reader comments. Is that a record?

People should be so passionate about education funding, or nursing home care by the counties, or health insurance, or something.

Performance motorboating: it's not a hobby, ........................it's a religion..............The Need for Speed!


:argue:

[KonaChick]

Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

[bilproject]

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

My post was to show the effect on out of state driving records vs NH. I do not own a boat that can exceed the limit. Well maybe a jet ski at full throttle.

[pm203]

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

The real problem are people who think there is a problem.

[Evenstar]

Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct?

How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere.

I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same:
Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.
No, you’re not correct at all. Group B includes any boaters who feel “that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.” That is how I described them in my post and that is exactly what I meant. Yes, it includes many sailors and paddlers, but it is not exclusive to just these individuals. The anti speed limit group tries to make it out that only non-motorized boat owners want a lake speed limit. That is just not true. There are also many powerboat owners who are for a speed limit.

My two groups were based entirely on the two sides that I saw at the Transportation Committee hearing last March. This wasn’t much of a generalization at all, because 90% of the people who testified in opposition to the bill fit Group A, and 90% of the people who testified in favor of the bill fit Group B.

What I do have a huge issue with is the way some people with “large bank accounts” seem to think they can get whatever they want – because of their financial status. Personally I don’t care how much money anyone has – that doesn’t mean that they are any better then anyone else, or that they deserve some kind of special privileges. I was very proud that over 2/3’s of my Representatives did what was right, instead of caving in to the demands of those with large bank accounts.

Apparently you have never attended the New England Paddling Exposition, at UNH each April. Because if you had, you would have noticed that we are not exactly an impoverished group. And, as a colligate sailor, I can state for a fact that there are some very wealthy people who own sailboats. Both sailors and paddlers probably spend more on gear (like foul weather clothing) than powerboat owners. And we are involved in very physical activity, so we do need to eat – and most of us don’t just live on granola bars (or vacation only in tents).

One more thing: How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law.

So, either the report is accurate, in which case very few boaters will be affected. Or it is very inaccurate (as I tried to point out) – which means that a much larger percentage of powerboats on Winni travel at speeds above 45mph.

Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

[Silver Duck]

You know, I'd really like to believe that the speed limit would make it safer for Evenstar, but, sadly, I really don't believe that the basic problem is visibility and reaction time.:(

If the problem actually was visibility, I don't think that I'd have so many boats zipping past me 30 - 40 feet away when I'm "doofing along" at hull speed (about 8 mph); between the height above water of my radar arch (8 1/2 ft.) and my hull color (burgundy), my boat is pretty easy to see!

IMHO, the main problem during the day is still Captain Bonehead who, by his very nature, is an inconsiderate bufoon, a committed scofflaw, and too danged stupid to pay proper attention to what he's doing or where he's going!

At night, the problem is a bit different. Here, visibility does play a major role in close calls and/or collisions; plus, it's very, very easy to mistake the all-around white light at the stern of a boat for somebody's porch light when you're coming up behind it. On most nights, 25 mph is way too fast for my tastes!

Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law.

Silver Duck

[Dick]

Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law.

Silver Duck

I totally agree

[hazelnut]

Fatlazyless, good, NO GREAT POINT!!!!! Actually GREAT POST!!! True DAT Granola sales would go through the roof. I love your sense of humor.

Good job keeping a sense of humor throughout this whole debate. People tend to internalize this whole thing so badly.

My original post was designed to shed light on the fact that it aint so easy to dismiss the GFBL boat crowd, of which I am NOT a member of. I am a 45MPH bowrider club president. Hownever, I don't want to see the GFBL crowd pushed aside. Those folks pay their fair share of the freight to exist on the "Big Lake."

[fatlazyless]

Possible six weeks between now and the Senate vote.

In 2006, HB 162 passed the House on 2/2/06, and died in the Senate on 3/16/06.

With just 24 Senators, could be the Senate will move it up for an early vote so's they can escape all the emails, and send it to the Governor. Understand the Governor wants to pound it with his veto stamp, just like he did with the seat belt law. Whoomp....veto-time....sayonara speed limits.....hello reelection...

[tis]

Dick, I also totally agree with Silver Duck. In fact, I just posted the same thing on another forum. The 150 ' rule is what needs to be enforced.

[SIKSUKR]

What I do have a huge issue with is the way some people with “large bank accounts” seem to think they can get whatever they want – because of their financial status. Personally I don’t care how much money anyone has – that doesn’t mean that they are any better then anyone else, or that they deserve some kind of special privileges. I was very proud that over 2/3’s of my Representatives did what was right, instead of caving in to the demands of those with large bank accounts.
Apparently you have never attended the New England Paddling Exposition, at UNH each April. Because if you had, you would have noticed that we are not exactly an impoverished group. And, as a colligate sailor, I can state for a fact that there are some very wealthy people who own sailboats. Both sailors and paddlers probably spend more on gear (like foul weather clothing) than powerboat owners.
Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Do you even read the stuff you write?You say your glad that your reps did not cave in to the demands of wealthy people and then go on to say how wealthy the other side is.And to top it off your have the nerve to say we can't have it both ways.The attacks you complain about here are brought on by your own twisted posts.

[fatlazyless]

What w/ the Gov. inking up that veto stamp, you guys are walking down easy-street. Saw him at the Concord Wal-Mart with a new red ink stamper pad, and he had that determined look......like SPEED LIMITS VETO...here it comes! Hey....he said he was totally disgusted with all these Nanny Democratic whiners. Saw him hop on his Harley and roar off....not to worry...no speed limits will ever come to the Big Lake as long as Big Bad John is the Gov.!.:cheers:

[Evenstar]

Do you even read the stuff you write?You say your glad that your reps did not cave in to the demands of wealthy people and then go on to say how wealthy the other side is.And to top it off your have the nerve to say we can't have it both ways.The attacks you complain about here are brought on by your own twisted posts.

Yes, I read what I write. There is nothing "twisted" about my posts. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to find fault with me, you would be able to understand what I'm writing better.

Look, most paddlers and sailors are not wealthy people - I never said that they were. But we are not impoverished either, so we do spend money and "SOME" people who sail are very wealthy. The key word here is "some" - as opposed to "most" or "all". Just like "some" sailboats also have a motor - so "some" of us use gas in our boats. Plus most of us own cars that require gas.

My point was, if a large group of high-speed boat owners actually do leave the lake, the economy of the lakes region is not going to be affected all that much - because other boaters will just take their place. Businesses in the area might have to adapt a bit, by focusing more on paddlers and sailors - which is why I mentioned "foul weather gear".

You guys love diverting a serious post by finding fault with anyone who doesn't agree with you - while ignoring the real questions and points.

I've posted this several times now, and it has been completely ignored, so I'll try one more time:

"How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law."

[Bear Islander]

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

[Dave R]

No, you’re not correct at all. Group B includes any boaters who feel “that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.” That is how I described them in my post and that is exactly what I meant. Yes, it includes many sailors and paddlers, but it is not exclusive to just these individuals. The anti speed limit group tries to make it out that only non-motorized boat owners want a lake speed limit. That is just not true. There are also many powerboat owners who are for a speed limit.



While I think your argument is silly; lets say, hypothetically speaking, these "group B" motor boaters suddenly arrive at Winnipesaukee now that they feel it's safe. Now we have a bunch of people who admittedly could not handle the lake before, roaming around feelin' all safe and secure, without a care in world. Oh yeah, that'll be a real treat for paddlers and law-abiding motor boaters. Be carefull what you wish for...

If your goal really is to attract "group B" motor boaters (I don't believe it is, BTW) and you are successful, you are in for a huge shock. "Group B" motor boaters ARE the problem. Anyone that can't be bothered to understand what's really happening on the lake is too clueless to boat safely. People who are scared of the lake SHOULD stay away, it's an unforgiving place and the nature of it has nothing to do with the style or brand of boats on it. I boat in many other places and Winnipesaukee has the most well-behaved, law abiding, and courteous motor boaters I have ever dealt with. Replace them with "group B"s and things will go downhill.

I hate to be this way, but as a trailer boater with thick skin and plenty of other boating options should things get unbearable on Winnipesaukee, I'm almost eager for that to happen, out of spite. Speed limit supporters have no idea just how good they have it now. Spend a 4th of July on Bow Lake, Big Island Pond, the CT. River, the ICW, or Pawtuckaway Lake sometime :eek:.

[rblackie86]

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. Safety should always come first, and when the lake is crowded and you see Mr. Genius flying into wolfeboro bay at 60mph+, I can't say that appears to be entirely safe for everyone else. It doesn't matter how experienced and comfortable you feel handleing your boat at those speeds. This seems more to be a judgement issue that a legitimate problem. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake.:)
I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake? I dont see the point in having a boat on the lake over 38-40 feet. Especially the big boats that can do 30-40mph+. 20 years ago the average size of most boats on the lake was around 20-22 feet. Granted I realize that boats cost big bucks, and there are many large boat owners who spent hundreds of thousand of dollars for them.

[Hottrucks]

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake.:) I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state want is more money! If the State had more $$$ AND used it for better inforcement and lake maintainance we wouldn't be here in the first place??? I'm still looking to find where the $5 of my reg. for boat launch maintenance is going???

[fatlazyless]

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

It can be difficult to tell with politicians....good ones learn to be politically correct....and play to their audience......Governor Benson drove a bronze metallic Hummer.....Governor Lynch was in the papers yesterday as saying that speed is not the biggest problem on the lake....?

Did Gov Lynch have much to say about it at the Bear post office dock?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

If you were a politician, and you landed on a dock with a bunch of Extremists(winnfabs) wearing matching t-shirts and asking you to support a speed limit? Probably what all politicians do, tell them what they want to hear! Then 2 stops later bombarded by the Sea Ray owners group, anti 847, what did he say there????

[Bear Islander]

Who told about the t-shirts?

Were you there?

[bbarrell]

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents.... It is absurd to have to register canoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake?You make excellent points! I think what the supporters don't understand is that people couldn't care less about driving 70,80,90 mph...it's the fact that our freedoms are being stripped away AND they are taking money to spend on this program (which will yield no safety results) away from other more important programs like education, environment, the huge spending deficit NH is in right now, etc....these useless laws on the books make it so much worse.

How about doing something that will either raise money or actually make the lake safer? We are focusing on the wrong stuff here and that's the main reason I don't support it. EVERYONE is affected regardless of whether you drive a speed boat or not.

[fatlazyless]

Last night the Union Leader had a photo of Gov Lynch getting his arm tattooed at a Weirs Beach professional medical facility that said: 'Redline 6000~MerC 454", whatever that means, and then he hopped on his Harley and headed across the ice to Eagle Island. So's I don't know, it looks like he is serious 'bout that speed limits being no real problem here.

What you think.....if it makes it to his desk.... cause I believe the Senate now has 14 Democrats to 10 Republicans,....he may just let it sit on his desk for ten days without signing it, and go that route.....who knows? :D

[Dick]

It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money!

When you register your motor boat each year, among other fees you also pay $5 for public water access building/improving/maintaining and $1 into the Fish & Game Search & Rescue fund. I own a canoe also and I pay absolutely nothing to help out. Our NH Fish & Game Dept. maintains 138 public water access sites -- boat ramp and parking area. All these are open for car-top paddlers to use . . . and we do use them. Of these 138 sites, 50 are car-top only . . . and yet paddlers pay nothing. The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.

[Evenstar]

While I think your argument is silly; lets say, hypothetically speaking, these "group B" motor boaters suddenly arrive at Winnipesaukee now that they feel it's safe. Now we have a bunch of people who admittedly could not handle the lake before, roaming around feelin' all safe and secure, without a care in world. . . . If your goal really is to attract "group B" motor boaters (I don't believe it is, BTW) and you are successful, you are in for a huge shock. "Group B" motor boaters ARE the problem. Anyone that can't be bothered to understand what's really happening on the lake is too clueless to boat safely. People who are scared of the lake SHOULD stay away, it's an unforgiving place and the nature of it has nothing to do with the style or brand of boats on it.
Why to you think my argument is is "silly"?

My “goal” is and has been just to support a lake speed limit bill because I honestly believe that allowing unlimited speeds on lakes is a very dangerous practice. It has never been my goal to exclude any type of boat from using our lakes, nor has it ever been my goal to attract any type of boat.

There are two groups that have formed because of HB847:
Group A: those in opposition – main argument is that they should being able to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake – and that a speed limit would violate their rights. This group is not exclusive to just high-speed boat owners.

Group B: those in support – most of whom believe that unlimited speeds are dangerous – the high speeds of some boats currently make the lake feel unsafe. This group is not exclusive to just paddlers and sailors.

Just because someone feels that high speeds that some boats travel have made the lake too dangerous, does not mean that they are inexperienced, can not “handle the lake”, or that they are “scared of the lake”. I’m very experienced, I can “handle the lake” just fine, and I’m not “scared of the lake” – but I’ve seen how dangerous it can be to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds.

I don’t believe that the passage of HB847 into law will result in a mass exodus of power boaters. But even if that does happen, I think that an equal number of boaters will replace them pretty fast.

Do I feel that all power boaters are a threat to me? No; of course not. But some are a threat due to their inexperience, their lack of attention, and/or to their drinking. Having boats traviling at high speeds on a lake that is shared by much slower, much smaller boats is dangerous. Adding high speed to inexperience, lack of attention, and BWI creates an extremely dangerous environment.

A speed limit will not solve all the problems, but I do honestly believe that it will make the lake safer. Last spring, when I asked two marine patrol officers at NHTI what they thought about HB847, they eventually both admitted that they wanted it to pass, and that they saw a speed limit as "an effective tool”.

[hazelnut]

Keep telling yourself that Evenstar. I'm sure it won't affect the economy "all that much." So you agree that it will affect the economy a little bit? So lets enact a law that cures a problem that does not exist and risk putting some small businesses in the red and possibly out of business.

Yes, I read what I write. There is nothing "twisted" about my posts. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to find fault with me, you would be able to understand what I'm writing better.

Look, most paddlers and sailors are not wealthy people - I never said that they were. But we are not impoverished either, so we do spend money and "SOME" people who sail are very wealthy. The key word here is "some" - as opposed to "most" or "all". Just like "some" sailboats also have a motor - so "some" of us use gas in our boats. Plus most of us own cars that require gas.

My point was, if a large group of high-speed boat owners actually do leave the lake, the economy of the lakes region is not going to be affected all that much - because other boaters will just take their place. Businesses in the area might have to adapt a bit, by focusing more on paddlers and sailors - which is why I mentioned "foul weather gear".

You guys love diverting a serious post by finding fault with anyone who doesn't agree with you - while ignoring the real questions and points.

I've posted this several times now, and it has been completely ignored, so I'll try one more time:

"How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law."

No you want to twist this to prove your point, when the reality is WHY DO WE NEED A LAW telling us to drive 45 when we ALREADY DO IT! As a whole it was proven that SPEED IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! People already travel at the random "Safe Speed" of 45MPH. So why do we need a law telling us to do what we already do??? Why do this if there is ANY potential impact on the economy? It is already in a fragile state. Why enact a law that will historically speaking not save any more lives or prevent any injuries? It does not make sense. For the record my boat does 49MPH this will not affect me or the way I boat. I just do not see the point in enacting laws based on NO DATA. Where is your data? Why do we need this law? Please answer that question.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Who told about the t-shirts?

Were you there?

You under estimate my knowledge of what happens on this lake :D

[Evenstar]

Our NH Fish & Game Dept. maintains 138 public water access sites -- boat ramp and parking area. All these are open for car-top paddlers to use . . .

Not all are open to car-top paddlers. The State Owned parking lot just below Squam Lake Science Center is limited to trailer only parking. So, if you use the state boat launch on the Squam River, and you don't have a trailer, good luck in finding a place to park your car on a weekend.

A "conservation sticker" bill was defeated as ITL in the NH Senate just last spring.

I was against the bill since many paddlers have more than one kayak/canoe due to having boats for different conditions. Yet they can only use one at a time. And, if you want to hike in the White Mountains you already need to buy a $20 conservation sticker to park at the trailheads (which I have). Since many paddlers also hike, some would be paying conservation fees twice.

Why not just combine the two? Allow only vehicles with a NH Conservation sticker to park at public boat launches. This would increase the F&G revenue, would be more fair, and would be much easier to enforce (which was another problem with last year's bill.)

[Resident 2B]

..it's the fact that our freedoms are being stripped away AND they are taking money to spend on this program (which will yield no safety results) away from other more important programs like education, environment, the huge spending deficit NH is in right now, etc....these useless laws on the books make it so much worse.

How about doing something that will either raise money or actually make the lake safer? We are focusing on the wrong stuff here and that's the main reason I don't support it. EVERYONE is affected regardless of whether you drive a speed boat or not.

bbarrell,

You have completely and accurately summed up my feelings on this issue!

Freedom is very important to our family. Restricting individual freedom is a dangerous thing to do and should only be done when it benefits the general public. Otherwise, it becomes a self-interest or self-serving endeavor, and that is what I believe this speed limit proposal really is.

I do not have a fast boat. We have a 23' bowrider and we have two kayaks. We have lake front property and the big tax bill that comes with it. I am against the speed limit because I believe we get a more dangerous boating environment with the speed limit than we have today.

Enforcing the speed limit in a way that complaints will stand up in court will cost a lot of money and it will take MP Officers away from effectively monitoring the existing rules, most importantly the 150' rule. The 150' rule really makes sense and if it was completely followed by all boaters and enforced by the MP, we get a great boating environment for everyone.

All the unsafe conditions I have seen on the lake involved boaters that ignored the 150' rule. These boaters were never GFBL boaters, but where mostly rental boaters or boaters in smaller, often out-of-state, boats. We need to effectively address these boaters and make sure they know the rules we have in NH. That is what will work.

Slowing down a GFBL boat in the middle of the broads is not going to make the lake any safer and it will take MP Officers away from activities that result in making the lake safe, specifically enforcing the existing 150' rule.

R2B

[codeman671]

Let's look at this a different way... The proponents are complaining that the lake is overcrowded and dangerous now. Any issues with this so far?

Now, what will happen when the big scary go fast boats leave (being that is the thought process behind them)? Their thoughts are that lots of families will come back who have been previously driven out They will be bringing their boats, jet skiis and bad boating skills to an already overcrowded lake. What will now happen is even more crowding, higher likelihood of accidents because of the crowding and sheer volume of boats, more pollution from the added people, boat traffic, swimmers, etc..

Are you really going to be happy with the outcome of this all should it pass? What is your next argument? Ban them all I bet...I hope your attempt at revenge is worth it, you may be the one bitten in the end.

[fatlazyless]

This state has some wacky rules...like I have seven: kayaks, canoe, rowboat,& sailboats and don't pay a dime for registration. Win $850,000 in the Powerball and the state makes a great big zero. Purchase a pizzarama pizza that needs to be baked at home in the oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes and still I pay 8% or 40 cents tax for the pizza. So, my pizzarama pizza is paying for the state services used by the Powerball winner (who shall remain nameless because he is a reverred state leader).:rolleye1:

[Evenstar]

Keep telling yourself that Evenstar. I'm sure it won't affect the economy "all that much." So you agree that it will affect the economy a little bit? So lets enact a law that cures a problem that does not exist and risk putting some small businesses in the red and possibly out of business.
Economy is based on supply and demand. A speed limit is not going to decrease the demand to boat on Winnipesaukee – at most it might change the demographics of the users a bit. If paddling and sailing do become more popular, don’t you think that most small business that deal with the boating crowd will be smart enough to adapt to the changes in demand for different products?

I just do not see the point in enacting laws based on NO DATA. Where is your data? Why do we need this law? Please answer that question.
I have repeatedly posted why I feel that we need a speed limit. How many times do I have to repeat my posts??? And I have already provided data here that was based on last summer’s MP report, showing how the report does not show the true number of boats that were traveling at over 45mph on the lake. Last year I also posted data showing that there was over 10 times the number of boating accidents in NH lakes per square mile of inland water than that of our neighboring state in 2005. I also posted that, according to the USCG accident statistics, the “excessive speed” went from the number 4 cause to the number 3 cause in 2005 (and it was still #3 in 2006). And that the number 1 most common accident was “collision with [another] vessel”.

The problem is that you and others do not see the problem, because apparently you have not had any close calls with high speed power boats. I and other have had close calls – so we see high speed as a problem. When we try to explain this we are accused of being easily frightened and afraid of the “big lake”, told that paddlers have no business being out more than 150 feet from shore, are accused of exaggerating, or of lying. Personally, I feel that close calls happen quite often – and that many of these close calls were the result of high speeds. No agency records close calls, so we have no way of knowing how often they occur.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

Bear Islander, on January 15th of this year you offered me this advice in response to the reps not always admitting that they might vote in favor of the bill.

You said
"You need to take some of those responses from reps with a grain of salt. After all they are politicians and adept in saying what you want to hear. Or at least in not saying what you don't want to hear.

Myself, I have not received a negative response. "

I agreed with you and offer the same advice back to you relative to your discussions with the Governor.

Who knows, this Republican might just vote for such a smart Democrat who is willing to make an independent decision he thinks is best for the majority. Then again...

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Let's look at this a different way... The proponents are complaining that the lake is overcrowded and dangerous now. Any issues with this so far?

Now, what will happen when the big scary go fast boats leave (being that is the thought process behind them)? Their thoughts are that lots of families will come back who have been previously driven out They will be bringing their boats, jet skiis and bad boating skills to an already overcrowded lake. What will now happen is even more crowding, higher likelihood of accidents because of the crowding and sheer volume of boats, more pollution from the added people, boat traffic, swimmers, etc..

Are you really going to be happy with the outcome of this all should it pass? What is your next argument? Ban them all I bet...I hope your attempt at revenge is worth it, you may be the one bitten in the end.

Well put. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I love fast boats because they have the smallest wakes.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

This state has some wacky rules...like I have seven: kayaks, canoe, rowboat,& sailboats and don't pay a dime for registration. Win $850,000 in the Powerball and the state makes a great big zero. Purchase a pizzarama pizza that needs to be baked at home in the oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes and still I pay 8% or 40 cents tax for the pizza. So, my pizzarama pizza is paying for the state services used by the Powerball winner (who shall remain nameless because he is a reverred state leader).:rolleye1:

FLL. Have you ever stopped to consider why the State runs a lottery? They don't wait for you to pay taxes on the winnings. They take their half before they tell you how much you win. Then the Feds take another half. If you are Lucky enough to win a big one, they use your half for 20 years interest free. I doubt the State is unhappy with the jackpot being tax free.

[Cristen]

This really bums me out. I can see enforcing a speed limit on small lake, but Winnipesuakee......come on. They don't call it the BIG LAKE for nothing!

I'm 30 years old, and have grown up on this lake. I remember the days of speeding around with my friends in some pretty fast boats, but we did it in places that were safe like the broads, not in heavily congested areas. There is absolutely no reason why you can open up your toys out on the big lake. You just need to be smart and safe about it.

I have a jet ski that I race around on like a crazy girl, and that isn't going to stop. A speed limit of 45......LAME!!!!!!

PS - Hey Marine Patrol.....here's a tip. Maybe you should go after the reckless boaters and some of the people that rent boats for that matter. I've seen lots of renters drop a boat in the lake without a clue as to where they are going, or how to drive a boat! SCARY!

[fatlazyless]

Hey Rattlesnake Guy, while that's true for the NH Lottery, it was a national Powerball where Sen Gregg hit five out of six numbers on a five dollar, quik-pik at a Washington DC gas station on Oct 25, 2005, winning $850,000. Yes, he paid federal income taxes, and no there was no NH tax on it.

It's off-topic so how 'bout we just drop it.
....................

Laconia Daily Sun, Thursday, Jan 31, 08
By Chris Dornin
Golden Dome News

Big House majority backs Big Lake speed limits

CONCORD - The House voted 236-111 Wednesday to restrict boat speeds to 45 mph in the daytime on Lake Winnipesaukee and 25 mph at night. After a two-year experiment, those limits would sunset unless lawmakers renewed them. The bill would also list any boating violations on a driver's auto record.

Democrats favored the bill, which now goes to the Senate for action, 194-10. Several sponsors were Republicans, but their party generally opposed the bill 99-42.

The Belknap County delegation backed the bill by 10-6.

In its earliest draft, House Bill 847 capped lake speeds across the state permanently. Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) the prime sponsor of HB 847, called the final version a major compromise. He said the idea for the bill came from a Gilford marina owner hurt by too many speeders. He was losing rental and boat-slip customers in his family-oriented market.

Several lawmakers noted the unprecedented lobbying campaigns from both sides.

Rep. Robert Theberge (D-Berlin) said most of the opponents he heard from live out of state and own summer cottages on the lake. He listened more to the residents and voted for the bill.

Rep. John Tholl (R-Whitefield) got bombarded too, even though most of the lakes up north are too small to worry about.

"The only one with any speed issues is the Moore Resevoir on the Connecticut River," Tholl said. "On Jericho Lake (in Berlin) you'd run out of water by the time you got up to planning speed."

Pilliod said he fielded a wave of nearly identical emails from opponents across the country. Then he got flooded with earnest and individualized messages from the in-state supporters. Then came a late salvo of "better thought out" e-mails from the other side.

"The opponents must have learned a lesson," Pilliod joked in his floor speech. "But I've been power boating since 1935, and I've never gone faster than 25. High speeds are fun for some at the expense of others' feelings of safety."

Rep. Pennington Brown (R-Epping) said a friend of his owns frontage on Squam Lake.

"A power boat cut an aluminum canoe in half," he said. "The bow and stern paddlers were startled."

Rep. Dan Itse (R-Fremont) told lawmakers he got an e-mail from a Marine Patrol officer saying the agency had received no reports of boating accidents involving speeds greater than 30 mph. Rep. Jim Ryan (D-Franklin) chairs the House Transportation Committee and said lawmakers received thousands of copies of that message.

"What it said isn't the whole truth," Pilliod noted. "I recall a family that bought some personal watercraft and played tag. The mother ran over her daughter and killed her."

Lieutenant Tim Dunleavy keeps accident data for Marine Patrol at its headquarters in Gilford. In an interview after the House session, he said there were 54 reported accidents across the state in 2007, and three were caused by speeding. That included one each on Lakes Ossipee, Tucker and Winnipesaukee. Nine of the accidents took place between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Speed was a factor in only one of the 80 accidents in 2006, and it caused four of the 60 accidents in 2005.

"We have many accidents at speeds greater than 30 or 40 mph," Dunleavy said. "But it's usually a skier who falls and gets hurt or a tuber flipping over. Or a boat hits a wake and the passenger chips a tooth. It's speed-related if a boat doing 60 does a barrel roll and ejects people."

Rep. Bill Denley (R-Wakefield) offered an amendment to cap speeds only at night, when he said it's crazy to drive faster than 25 mph. Running lights look too much like shore lights.

"But a daytime speed limit is feel-good legislation," Denley said. "It won't make anyone safer. The lake is a busy, busy place, but high speeds are perfectly safe in a number of areas. Between Six Mile Island and Wolfeboro Neck on an un-busy day is one of them."

His motion died 260-83.

Rep Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) argued against the bill as the former chairman of House Transportation. He said Marine Patrol officers clocked 3,852 boats on Winnipesaukee last summer, and only 91 were going faster than 41 mph.

"If we had that kind of compliance on the highways we could get rid of the State Police and save a lot of money," he said. "Let's not pass legislation to solve a problem that does not exist."

Pilliod said nobody expected large numbers of speeders with the cops watching.

"Even with the radar guns you had boats going 60 out there." he said.

Rep. Fran Wendelboe (R-New Hampton) represents Center Harbor and said the real problem is violations of the 150-foot rule and the boat-user restrictions near shore.

"We just need better boater training and a little more money for Marine Patrol in the busy season, especially on weekends," she said.

Rep. Alida Millham (R-Gilford) cosponsored the bill and said its time has come.

"I have a place on Mark Island," she said. "There's a gut between Mark and Timber islands. People speed through there all the time."

Rep. John Thomas (R-Belmont) suggested scrapping most of the bill and just recording a speeder's violation on their auto license.

Rep. Mike Whalley (R-Alton) warned the bill would tax Marine Patrol officers, who have authority to crack down on speeding now. Boats have to operate safely and leave no wake within 150 feet of shore and other vessels.

"The idea you can't swim or row on the lake is far fetched," he added. "I have a rowing scull and I use it on the lake every day."

Senators now are bracing for a barrage of orchestrated messages on one of the most divisive issues of the 2008 session. Sen. Joe Kenney (R-Wakefield) is co-sponsoring HB 847 and said a similar bill died in the upper chamber two years ago. He's hopefull this time. He toured the Meredith section of the lake two years ago wih a group of lawmakers. What they saw convinced them of the need for a speed cap.

"We got up to 45 mph and the wave action was enough to knock you out of the boat," he said. "At that speed you close on other boats fast. The state is going to have 300,000 more people by 2020. We have to learn to share our natural resources."
.....
Laconia Daily Sun
Chris Dornin, Golden Dome News



....
This article should make the go-fasts jump for joy! So, how do you like them apples?

Hey, I think maybe this writer is a little biased in favor of the go-fasts. Shouldn't he be portraying the Democratic party as being totally objective and unbiased, and just a 'show me the facts' type of lawmakers!

[rblackie86]

The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.[/QUOTE]

Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.

[GWC...]

The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.

Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.
Some paddlers did not feel safe; hence, a speed limit is in the works.

It will require additional revenues. :eek:

If you want to dance, be willing to pay the fiddler... :D

[fatlazyless]

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that? :cool:
........
Hey, the list of reader comments at the Union Leader speed limits article has grown to 34....well thought out explanations.....some people from this forum...too bad the Marine Patrol can't slap a two-cent tax on every word.

[Cal]

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?

Gee , with those colors why don't you just paint a big target on your back too:rolleye2:
Then complain about the 40 mph boats that come too close.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camouflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that? :cool:
.........

Good news. Today we bought a stealth boat that is completely silent and can't be seen. This way you won't see us coming when we can't see you crossing. Fortunately it only goes 45 mph so you should be fine.:D

[tis]

OK, can someone help me out here? I am having a disagreement with (Acres) on another forum about an existing law regarding speed. I thought that there was already a law that said something to the effect that you have to go a speed that is "reasonable and prudent "or "safe" for conditions etc. Therefore I thought that coverd it and we don't need a new law. We just need to enforce the existing law. Acres says that is only a law in Maine, so now I am really curious. Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

[Evenstar]

. . .I thought that there was already a law that said something to the effect that you have to go a speed that is "reasonable and prudent "or "safe" for conditions etc. Therefore I thought that coverd it and we don't need a new law. We just need to enforce the existing law. Acres says that is only a law in Maine, so now I am really curious. Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.
Here's the link to General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270-D/270-D-2.htm)
"reasonable and prudent" does not appear. Nor is there anything about traveling at speeds "safe of conditions".
Here's the link to the amended version of HB847 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/HB0847.html), which does include "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions", but this only applies to Lake Winnipesaukee.

[fatlazyless]

Hi Rattlesnake Guy....hopefully I'll have enough time to sense the propeller revolutions as even a stealth boat needs to energize the water to be mov'n forward.........wwwrrrr......wwwrrrr....wwwrrrrr.. .....paddle......paddle.....paddle....exit stage right....

Fair skies, low humidity & good fish'n to you...:)
........................

a message to the reader here...

Dear Reader, before it expires, suggest you look at the 35 e-mail, reader comments to the speed limits article in the www.unionleader.com, NH's largest newspaper, and especially to red-hot 'Bea from Gilford'......go Bea, go Bea, go Girl go! You the best of the best!!!

Hey there, just forget about today's super bowl, Patriots vs Giants, what WMUR & the Union Leader should be bookn' is 'Bea from Gilford' verses "Dick from some cute village" in the red-hot, speed limits debate of the totally committed, intellectually advanced, Super Advocates. Now, that would really get the ratings!:banana::argue::banana:

[jrc]

... Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

We have at least two:

From CHAPTER Saf-C 400 WATERCRAFT SAFETY RULES
Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
....
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

And we have this law:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[Bear Islander]

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch. tis was asking for a rule that involved imprudent speed, there is no such rule.

If anyone was charged with breaking those rules based on speed alone they would be screaming there was is no speed limit. In court it would be argued (successfully) that if the intent of the law was to regulate speed then the word speed would have been included etc..

It would also be argued that the legislature considered a speed limit (more than once) and chose not to enact one, thereby making legislative intent on speed crystal clear.

If you guys were not trying to fight a speed limit you would never, never, never say those rules were about speed.

[tis]

I would certainly consider an unsafe speed as operating in a "careless and negligent" manner. I think that wording takes care of anything.
Thank you jrc.

[fatlazyless]

It's simple,.....just like the NH roads & highways all have speed limits....so should the waterways....it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. 45mph day-25mph night!

And don't forget, going 45 in a boat is hardly a slow speed, it is indeed a very fast speed! !:):):):)

[wifi]

Oh yes, the buzz word "safety". When ever towns want new police or fire stations they start chanting "safety". After all, who can deny their fellow man "safety"?

I prefer facts and figures over emotional cover all statements. Not taking either side here.. yet

[KonaChick]

It's simple,.....just like the NH roads & highways all have speed limits....so should the waterways....it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. 45mph day-25mph night!

And don't forget, going 45 in a boat is hardly a slow speed, it is indeed a very fast speed! !:):):):)

It's apples and oranges FLL....imagine the 150' rule on highways?? :laugh:

[jrc]

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch....I'm not saying that those laws constitute an arbitrary speed limit. I'm saying that they legislate against any situtation where excess speed causes dangerous or unsafe conditions.

An arbitrary speed limit regulates to a speed without regard to anything else. These laws regulate behavior that is unsafe, careless or negligent.

We have all seen situations where traveling over 45 MPH is safe. We have all seen situations where traveling at 44 MPH is unsafe. There are places and times where 10 MPH is unsafe and careless and negligent.

If you think that these laws are unenforcable against speed alone, you are right. But an MP can clearly use these laws against anyone, if their speed causes an unsafe situation.

[Airwaves]

I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

[GWC...]

I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.
about as successful as the 150' rule...

Reminds me of the Titantic and the iceberg incident... :eek:

Guess you did not see the movie or Ballard's showing of the aftermath at the bottom of the ocean... (http://www.titanic-titanic.com/discovery_of_titanic.shtml) :rolleye2:

[fatlazyless]

NH State Rep Sherman Packard (R) Rockingham is currently in his ninth term and has served for about 18 years. From 1996-2006 he was the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and is now the ranking Republican on this committee.

Elected to the Sturgis Motorcycle Hall of Fame in 2003, he's been a long time advocate for "motorcycle-no helmet option' policy in NH.

"A solution looking for a problem" were his words and he voted no to the HB-847 speed limits bill.

Had he still been the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, would HB847 have passed with its' very strong 236-111 vote?:cool:

On February 2, 2006, the NH House passed HB162 by a much closer vote of 193-139 . It has 400 members, total.

[SIKSUKR]

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch. tis was asking for a rule that involved imprudent speed, there is no such rule.
.

How much more clear can imprudent speed get than with the speed limit we ALREADY have,headway speed when within 150 ft?This covers all that's needed on both sides already.THERE CAN BE NO BOAT SPEEDING 45 OR WHATEVER EXAGERATED SPEED PROPONENTS MAKE UP WHEN WITH 150 FT.Why is this not a speed limit in your eyes?

[Bear Islander]

The is no speed limit of any kind at this time. There is no "reasonable and prudent" language in the rules we have now.

Almost all of the opposition arguments revolve around the issue of safety. Safety is the most important issue to many speed limit proponents. However it is not the only issue.

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

[Airwaves]

GWC wrote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves
I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.
about as successful as the 150' rule...

Reminds me of the Titantic and the iceberg incident...

Guess you did not see the movie or Ballard's showing of the aftermath at the bottom of the ocean... Actually I had the pleasure of speaking and interviewing Bob Ballard twice personally. Funny, neither time did he mention a violation of Rule 6 or 150' rule during his exploration of Titanic or Bismark.

If you are trying to point out that had Rule 6 been in effect when Titanic was afloat then she may not have hit the iceburg, that is probably true.

I don't know if Rule 6 was in effect or not back then but it is today and imposes a speed limit on all vessels on federal and international waters and it acts as a tool for law enforcement to bring charges against the skipper who ignores it much as the current NH rules regarding Conduct Near Other Vessels and the Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats currently do if law enforcement choses to use them.

Bear Islander wrote:
Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.I think we have put the safety issue aside since even the Marine Patrol research has shown the lack of a speed limit on Winnipesaukee is not an issue to safety. Erosion? It gets back to the issue of what causes more erosion, a boat on plane or a cruiser pushing a bow wave that washes up to it's flybridge (a sight I personally spotted this past summer) Pollution? How does limiting speed reduce pollution? Noise? Unless the Go Fast boats disappear which is unlikely, the noise will not be effected. Congestion? No one is going anywhere, the Marine Patrol research proved that. Equitable use of a limited resource...that's where it lies! An attempt to get a type of boat you don't like off the lake!

One other point, funding. I draw your attention to an Associated Press item today that I will have to paraphrase because of copywrite issues but it will be in your local paper tomorrow.

Revenues for January were $6.8 Million below estimates, receipts are $11.4 Million below estimates for the year. Gov Lynch is asking agency heads to address the shortfall.

So where are you going to get the money to fund this "Solution looking for a problem"?

[overlook]

The is no speed limit of any kind at this time. There is no "reasonable and prudent" language in the rules we have now.

Almost all of the opposition arguments revolve around the issue of safety. Safety is the most important issue to many speed limit proponents. However it is not the only issue.

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

No speed limit? What about Headway speed, and no wake zones.
It has never been proven that additional speed limits will increase safety.
Erosion, the faster a boat travels on plane, the smaller the wake.
Noise has already been addressed, and just this past year.
Pollution, Thats a volume of boats issue, not speed.
Congestion is just that, Safe passage address that issue in relation to speed.
Equitable use, it is already 9 to 1 in your favor, and that ratio will not get better.
In the real world, the lake just gets conjested on summers with good whether. Common sense says stay closer to shore. Thats what I do when in my kayak.

The solution: EDUCATION not IGNORANCE, and of course COMMON SENSE

[Lakegeezer]

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?I can't agree that the points raised here are more than enough to justify a speed limit. The point about noise is somewhat valid, as boats are louder as they go faster - but then again, they are gone faster too. Congestion is a poor argument, because faster boats are - woosh - out of the fray faster. The rest of the points are all valid issues, but boats going over 45 aren't the problem. Boats of all sizes and speeds are the problem.

In fact, if we want to switch to the issue to water quality and erosion, the separation rule is a huge cause of environmental issues. When boats slow down to pass and then come back on plane, bigger wakes are generated than if they had remained on plane. I'm not advocating that we eliminate the separation rule, but those who violate it are being kinder to our water quality and shore line. Its a trade-off we make.

As for the children's camps; not being able to go out on weekends may be a real-world problem, but not one that would be solved by a feel-good speed limit. Boats that are going over 45 are likely to be far from shore and more likely to be taking extra care to watch where they are going. The kids should learn not to be scared of them anyway. Fast boats don't cause any more accidents than the slow ones. Its the captain boneheads (fools at any speed) that are the danger to the camp kids. Just too many boats is likely another factor. While nobody seems to have a solution to Capt B, or congestion, I would tell the camp directors to encourage the lake community to come together to solve the problems of separation and the right-of-way rules, rather than fighting over an issue that won't solve the problem.

Oh, and I would also encourage a fast-boat driver to come in (bass boat or jet-ski would be my preference) and give the kids a thrill - one that they may soon lose the right to legally experience.

[gtxrider]

I hope the bill does not pass since I am planning on repowering the Jet Ski:cool:

[WeirsBeachBoater]

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?I love this one.... Let me ask you this. Do you think it is reasonable and prudent to take campers, who by their nature are new to kayaking, canoes, or sail boats, out into the broads? Let me qualify that further, lets say for the sake of argument it is a week day, light traffic, but we all know how quickly the lakes mood can change. Storm kicks up. Now you have inexperienced boaters in a bad situation. I have never seen GFBLS run out of control between Sandy and Cow or Long Island. I have however seen SI sailboats challenge the Sophie C? I have never seen GFBLS run circles near 3 mile, or drag race amongst the buoys near Camp Lawrence. I never have seen GFBL's run wide open at Brewsters rowing skulls or Sailboats. I have seen B/A set up their sailing course in a way that made it a hazard to boats entering and leaving the town docks.

So who is creating the "situations" the GFBL crowd or the Camp and their Crews???

[Bear Islander]

You can't eliminate the Capt Boneheads. But you can make some of them go away. When Capt B. looks around for a lake to torment, he is more likely to select one where he can go full speed with impunity.

Or look at it the other way around, having no speed limit at all, when other lakes do, is like a "Boneheads Welcome" sign on our lake.

The opposition logic has become so twisted that now campers in canoes, sailboats and kayaks are the problem, because they get in the way of the powerboats.

If the lake ever gets so congested that camp canoes and powerboats can't co-exist, then the powerboats will need to go. Including mine.

[EricP]

If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law.

So, either the report is accurate, in which case very few boaters will be affected. Or it is very inaccurate (as I tried to point out) – which means that a much larger percentage of powerboats on Winni travel at speeds above 45mph.

Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

If 99% of the population were bald and a law was proposed that hair length couldn't exceed 1" then it's ok because only a small percentage of people would be affected?

This may seem like a ridiculous example but the proposed law is just as ridiculous.

[Resident 2B]

The lake is not crowded in most areas. It is crowded around the Weirs and between Meredith Neck and Bear Island on weekends. It is a bit congested around a few of the marinas also on weekends, but most of the lake is not crowded even on weekends. This is only between the hours of 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. on good weather weekends. It is also crowded around the Weirs for fireworks on Friday nights in July and August.

In fact, it is less crowded now than it was five years ago, and it was not crowded in most places then either. The cost of gas has had an impact.

Let's be fair in making these statements. The citizens of NH that have never been to the lake during the summer get the wrong impression and start to make decisions and support HB's based upon misinformation.

R2B

[EricP]

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?None of your arguements have anything to do with speed. You will never be happy, and even if the speed limit passes you will find something else to complain about. Isn't there a speed limit on Squam? Please move there.

[jrc]

Come on, if it wasn't for misinformation, this argument would have been over years ago.

270:1 Declaration of Policy. –
...
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. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species.
...

We're supposed to share the lake, some people want to ban certains uses they don't like. They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

[Evenstar]

270:1 Declaration of Policy. . . . provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species. . . .
We're supposed to share the lake, some people want to ban certains uses they don't like. They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

RSA 270:1 can and has been used to show the need for a NH lake speed limit. How is allowing high speed powerboats to travel at over 15 times faster tha the maximum speed of other boats on the same lake "safe and mutual enjoyment"? (And I could have a field day with the environment, water quality, and endangered species part, but I won't even go there.)

I know plenty of people who won't kayak on Winni because of the high speeds. It is very unsafe when powerboats invaded my 150 zone because they are going too fast to see me in time (and this is not "bending the truth"). Slower speeds are safer, because slower speeds give a person more time to react. That's a fact.

Most people that I know who are in favor of a lake speed limit are for it because they feel that the lake has become unsafe for smaller, slower boats. They are not out to ban any group, just slow people down. No class of powerboat is being forced off the lake by a speed limit - they will just have to slow down.

HB847 is all about sharing the lake. It's called a compromise. How is traveling at unlimited speeds a compromise? The high speeds of some powerboats are virtually forcing other boaters off the lake - which I see as a selfish act - these high speed powerboaters are not sharing the lake - they are hogging it.

[Cal]

They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.



Let me have an AMEN , BROTHA, how true , how true.:laugh:

[Bear Islander]

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

This "secret agenda" stuff is pure nonsense. Do you folks have these paranoid tendencies in your normal lives? Or is it just when you think about speed limits?



And once again we seem to have forgotten that many NH lakes already have speed limits, and have had them for a long time. Therefore this "270:1 Declaration of Policy" stuff is moot.

[ITD]

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

This "secret agenda" stuff is pure nonsense. Do you folks have these paranoid tendencies in your normal lives? Or is it just when you think about speed limits?



And once again we seem to have forgotten that many NH lakes already have speed limits, and have had them for a long time. Therefore this "270:1 Declaration of Policy" stuff is moot.


It's not a "secret agenda" Bear, you come right out and say it, you're one of the few with the guts to do it. Nobody said it was a "secret agenda", just the real agenda, the safety issue is BS, no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.

[Bear Islander]

I believe I have made my reasons clear. However, I have never said it was about revenge or spite.

So again....

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

[Evenstar]

. . . the safety issue is BS, no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.
I never said that I "almost" got run over. I said that powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast.

You claim the speed limit isn't a safety issue, and your "proof" is that any boater who has stated that they have experienced a dangerous encounter with a high-speed boat on Winni must be "bending the truth" - because of some group conspiracy. The only boating group that I'm a member of is the Intercollegiate Sailing Association (which I have to be registered with to compete as an NCAA athlete). I'm pretty sure that neither the ICSA nor the NCAA are part of an anti-powerboat conspiracy.

I was at the hearing last March where many people told of dangerous speed-related encounters. One of our current Senators told me that her husband experienced a speed-related close encounter while kayaking. So I'm not the only one who has experienced these dangerous encounters.

Look, we're not all lying - the only reason that I am for a speed limit is that I have been in dangerous encounters, which would have probably not occurred (or been nearly as dangerous) if the boat had been going slower. Plus a speed limit is a tool that the MP can use to clamp down on things like BWI - so this is entirely a safety issue for me.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Weren't kayaks built for exploring shallow waterways? Like rivers and streams? I am just saying!:laugh:

[Dave R]

I believe I have made my reasons clear. However, I have never said it was about revenge or spite.

So again....

Revenge for what?

Spite against who, and Why?

Revenge for the needless death of your neighbor and friend, John Hartman.

Spite against folks who drive boats like the one that was driven over your friend's boat, causing his death.

I was under the impression this was your agenda from the beginning, no?

[Bear Islander]

Revenge for the needless death of your neighbor and friend, John Hartman.

Spite against folks who drive boats like the one that was driven over your friend's boat, causing his death.

I was under the impression this was your agenda from the beginning, no?

No. I barely knew the man.

And that accident is not a good example of the accidents I would like to prevent. Last summers accident on Long Lake is much more to the point.

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.

If you want to go back and read my posts you will find my first choice was always a HP limit. And I am not so much concerned with the way the lake is now. Where the lake will be in 5 or 10 years is my reason to support HB847.

[pm203]

Where the lake will be in 5 or 10 years is my reason to support HB847.

So, let's support a new, feel-good law based upon your opinion of what you speculate may happen in the future 5-10 years from now? I guess I get it now. It,s worse than I thought.

[Lakegeezer]

Look, we're not all lying - the only reason that I am for a speed limit is that I have been in dangerous encounters, which would have probably not occurred (or been nearly as dangerous) if the boat had been going slower. Plus a speed limit is a tool that the MP can use to clamp down on things like BWI - so this is entirely a safety issue for me.Evenstar, most boaters have had their 150 zone violated by Captain B, that is not in dispute. Do you think your close encounter was going over 45. Anything over 30 can seem "fast" when you are almost standing still, and "fast" is the term most are complaining about, not "over 45". One point of view you might consider is that those driving over 45 are likely to be more alert because of their speed, and more likely to see you in plenty of time. Those going a relaxing 30 are probably the ones that don't see you until its almost too late.

Your point about giving the MP an excuse to stop the faster crowd for BWI brings up the non-existant safety issue again. Historically, boats going over 45 don't cause more accidents than slower boats and don't deserve to be checked for BWI any more than a kayak does.

Even if the incident that scared you was a boat doing 46+, I honestly believe that very few Captain B incidents happen above the proposed limit. Restricting hundreds of boaters in using their boat as designed because of the fast but still under 45 Captain Bs is unfair and disruptive to solving the real safety issue you faced, failure to give proper separation.

[codeman671]

I never said that I "almost" got run over. I said that powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast.



Evenstar, don't you think the statements "almost got run over" and "had close calls" have some similarity in your posts? I do in your case...


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.


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


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 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


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

You have claimed to have had close calls and had boats come very close, how is this different from "almost being run over"? As usual, your posts contradict each other. "Close calls" to what then???

I only had to go back two weeks for this, I am sure if I wasted another 10 minutes to look further I would probably find plenty more. :laugh:

My point, other than to poke a bit of fun at your expense? I simply feel, as others seem to agree that your experience on the lake is limited at best and you do not have the time spent on the lake that many of us do to truly see the problem for what it is. High speed is not the issue, it is overcrowding, drinking, inexperienced boaters, failure to maintain proper watch, etc that makes people feel unsafe and by banning a few boaters that you may attribute the problem to you will accomplish nothing in the end.

25mph vs 28mph? Come on Bear Islander...I certainly agree that 28mph is higher than 25mph but either way HB847 would have no effect here. No MP in their right mind is going to make a stop for an estimated 3mph over. We all know what was involved in that incident. Taking booze out of the equation though, do you have any deaths on Winnipesaukee to discuss that are truly attributed to speed only and not alcohol related in the last 5-10 years?

[ITD]

.....................Look, we're not all lying.......................





I rest my case...........:rolleye1:

[overlook]

You can't eliminate the Capt Boneheads. But you can make some of them go away. When Capt B. looks around for a lake to torment, he is more likely to select one where he can go full speed with impunity.

Or look at it the other way around, having no speed limit at all, when other lakes do, is like a "Boneheads Welcome" sign on our lake.

The opposition logic has become so twisted that now campers in canoes, sailboats and kayaks are the problem, because they get in the way of the powerboats.

If the lake ever gets so congested that camp canoes and powerboats can't co-exist, then the powerboats will need to go. Including mine.

Statistically it is proven that the captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits.
Any type of activity on the lake has a possibility of becoming a problem.
When the lake gets congested, I find another activity to make my day. I would never be so self centered to suggest elimitating someones use of the lake on the basis that I do not participate or condone.

YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH CO-EXISTING

[Evenstar]

Weren't kayaks built for exploring shallow waterways? Like rivers and streams? I am just saying!:laugh:
From http://www.chicagokayak.com/kayak_%20history.htm:

"Kayak" in Inuit means "hunter's boat". "The boats primary purpose was to hunt animals on inland lakes, rivers and the sea. In many places where the native kayakers lived they had to turn to the water for food because the land was not fertile enough to support their population. It was also used for transportation across open water and rivers. Most but not all kayaks are considered seaworthy."

My 16 foot sea kayak is not a flexible plastic kayak, but is made out of a rigid composite material (similar to fiberglass) and is not made to bounce off rocks in shallow waterways, but is designed for traveling long distances on large open bodies of water. It is make for large waves and even has a rudder, and a compass.


You have claimed to have had close calls and had boats come very close, how is this different from "almost being run over"? As usual, your posts contradict each other.
You have yet to show proof that I've ever contradicted myself, so please stop accusing me of doing so - that is libel. Again, I never said that I "almost got run over" - Yes, I've post that I have had close calls, but a close call is not exactly the same thing as "almost being run over." Plus you were responding to my previous post where all I said was that "powerboats have invaded my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast."

I simply feel, as others seem to agree that your experience on the lake is limited at best and you do not have the time spent on the lake that many of us do to truly see the problem for what it is. High speed is not the issue, it is overcrowding, drinking, inexperienced boaters, failure to maintain proper watch, etc that makes people feel unsafe and by banning a few boaters that you may attribute the problem to you will accomplish nothing in the end.
So, now you have to have some magical minimum amout of time on Winni to be able to perceive when you're in danger? I could easily argue that only NH residents have the right to debate a NH speed limit. Just a single occurance of a highspeed boat violating my 150 foot zone on Winni was enough for me to know that speed is an issue (and I've more than one occurance).

I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

Again, how is a 45 mph speed limit "banning a few boaters"? It is banning what many feel is an unsafe practice. Again, whenever someone like me recounts a personal experience that shows why we see speed as a safety issue, you and others here try to discredit them or accuse them of being part of some non-existant conspiracy.

I have talked with several MP officers (four to be exact) - all were in favor of a speed limit law. Two of the officers said that they felt it would help them to spot someone BWI, since they often speed.

I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill. You don't have to agree with me, but please don't accuse me of having any hidden agenda.

[Dave R]

No. I barely knew the man.



Sorry, I think I confused you with someone else with a similar screen name that supports speed limits.

[codeman671]

You have yet to show proof that I've ever contradicted myself, so please stop accusing me of doing so - that is libel. Again, I never said that I "almost got run over" - Yes, I've post that I have had close calls, but a close call is not exactly the same thing as "almost being run over."

Huh? Libel? Give me a break. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...This is a heated topic that many of us are quite passionate about. Whining about being personally attacked, being picked on, libel, etc makes you sound like a child. This is not personal, don't take it as such. I don't lose sleep over it when someone makes a comment about me or has a conflicting view, neither should you.

You mean to tell me that your multiple posts of close calls and a comment of being within a second of being hit is not the same thing as you stating in fact that you "almost got run over"? From a literal standpoint, no you did not state in the exact words "almost got run over" however your posts have clearly indicated that you felt that way.


"Kayak" in Inuit means "hunter's boat".

Maybe the Winnipesaukee definition should be "hunted" instead of "hunter". :laugh: How about a new encyclopedia for Winnipesaukee? We can call it Winnipedia instead of Wikipedia!

These boats that you claim violated the pre-existing 150' rule (and I don't doubt that they have as it happens to me often) actually done what they should and stayed well away you would never have been in danger. The rules to keep everyone safe are on the books already, education and enforcement is the key to safety.

[Bear Islander]

Statistically it is proven that the captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits.
Any type of activity on the lake has a possibility of becoming a problem.
When the lake gets congested, I find another activity to make my day. I would never be so self centered to suggest elimitating someones use of the lake on the basis that I do not participate or condone.

YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH CO-EXISTING

There are no valid statistics that prove "captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits".

However if that were true the the proposed speed limits will make no difference whatsoever. If nobody is speeding, there will be no violations. So what is all the fuss about?

When the lake gets congested you are able to find another activity to "make my day". I live on an island, we can't pick and choose when we use the lake.

[SIKSUKR]

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.
.

Yes it is.The point were trying to make is if that drunk had been going 25 do you think the results would have been any different?You know as well as we do the answer is no. Of course there have been accidents with speeds greater than 45/25.There have far more at speeds less than 45/25.Maybe we should have a much lower limit than 45/25.

[Evenstar]

Huh? Libel? Give me a break. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...This is a heated topic that many of us are quite passionate about. Whining about being personally attacked, being picked on, libel, etc makes you sound like a child. This is not personal, don't take it as such.
Legal definition of libel: (n.) “To publish in print, writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.”
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
It really doesn’t matter how “heated” a topic is, or how passionate you are about it. If you cannot take part in a public debate without resorting to personal attacks, you really should stay out of the debate.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You mean to tell me that your multiple posts of close calls and a comment of being within a second of being hit is not the same thing as you stating in fact that you "almost got run over"? From a literal standpoint, no you did not state in the exact words "almost got run over" however your posts have clearly indicated that you felt that way.
I have explained that I am extremely literal. I can’t help that. So when someone accuses me of making a statement that I never made, in an obvious attempt to discredit me, it really bothers me. My statement was in response to ITD’s comment that “the safety issue is BS no matter how many times Evenstar tells us she "almost" gets run over by a "high speed" boat that comes within 150 ft of her when she is in her kayak.”
<o:p></o:p>
ITD misquoted me, because what I actually posted was: It is very unsafe when powerboats invaded my 150 zone because they are going too fast to see me in time. The two happen to have completely different meanings, and when I tried to point that out, you (who were note even part of that discussion) jumped all over me, and quoted me 5 times to show everyone how I supposedly contradicted myself. THAT was a PERSONAL attack on me. It was an obvious attempt to discredit me, it was intentional, and it was malicious – so it is definitely libel according to the legal definition. So back off.
<o:p></o:p>
These boats that you claim violated the pre-existing 150' rule (and I don't doubt that they have as it happens to me often) actually done what they should and stayed well away you would never have been in danger. The rules to keep everyone safe are on the books already, education and enforcement is the key to safety.
You guys keep bringing up the “fact” that the 150 foot rule is all that needs to be enforced to keep people like me safe. The problem is that that 150 foot rule is often unintentionally broken because the operator of a powerboat does not see us in time – because he was going too fast!!! The 150 foot rule alone is NOT protecting me from high speed boats.

My main argument (just in case you’re missing it) is that a speed limit will slow down the powerboaters (who are traveling faster than their ability to spot small, slow-moving boats) to a speed in which they will have more time to notice us – which will enable them to stay outside of our 150 foot zone. It is my contention that a speed limit law will decrease the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

[winnidiver]

Last August on a Sat.I was heading from Lee's Mills to Wolfeboro with my dive gear to watch my son take his last certification dive at Clark's Point.I was down past Parker at about 7:00 am going around 35mph when I heard a noise.It sounded like a big wave,like a boat slowing fast,I heard it over the noise of my own motor.I looked back behind me on the starboard side and saw a bass boat with his bow straight up in the air.If I had been in the stern I could have touched him .I turned hard to port and when he got the bow down he gunned it and turned right,and took off.I never saw him again.Was he going over 45?I don't know.I do know if he had been going slower he would have had more time to see me during the few times he was looking ahead.I don't know what he was doing in that boat but it wasn't driving.We were the only two boats in sight so I guess he got careless.He almost ruined what turn out to be a great day. What's the answer slow down or pay attention? All I know is you can't legislate "pay attention". PS My son did get certified and now we dive together.

[overlook]

There are no valid statistics that prove "captain boneheads are not exceeding the proposed speed limits".

However if that were true the the proposed speed limits will make no difference whatsoever. If nobody is speeding, there will be no violations. So what is all the fuss about?

When the lake gets congested you are able to find another activity to "make my day". I live on an island, we can't pick and choose when we use the lake.

MP data for violations, and the latest Coast Guard report shows that most violations are occurring under the proposed speeds. They do record the speed, I will agree that the speeds are not conclusive, but the types of violations indicate speed was not the problem. For example the most common speed related accident is a skier or tube. A skier that cuts the wake can exceed 45, the boat is should only be at 36 at most unless they are barefooting. Most collisions happen under 10, docking or poor maneuverability.

You can pick and choose when you travel to and from, Just like I attempt to avoid the Wiers when it is congested. (Ever try to maneuver 38' twin with 34" props, engaging one at a time to maintain the flow of traffic and then some rental boat cuts out of Thurston's) we have our concerns too.

The performance boats that are traveling in open water at high speed are not violating any current law, and I might add there is no such thing as UNLIMITED SPEED. E=MC2

[gtxrider]

I want to know what statistics are used to determine a speed limit is needed. Is it the number of accidents caused by high speed? How many were there on the lake last year? I think tax dollars can be better spent! Just like Arlen Spector looking into whether or not the PATS taped the RAMS walk thru. Lets worry about cutting waste in government.

MY 2 CENTS

[GWC...]

From http://www.chicagokayak.com/kayak_%20history.htm:
I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.
One would think you would prefer the Baidarka to the kayak.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~akahgp/Social/kayaks.gif

[Cal]

However it does get me riled when people make silly statements like "there has never been an accident on Winni involving speeds greater than 45/25". 28 is more than 25 no matter how you do the math.


What riles me is when an ESTIMATE of 28 mph is portrayed as FACT , while speed limit FACTS gathered by the same organization are potrayed as wrong.
Which way do you want it? Or do you enjoy talking out of both sides of your face to suit your needs:confused:

[GWC...]

I paddle several hundred miles each year and was on the water last summer from mid April until mid November - and I'll be going back on the water by the end of this month. I doubt that you spent as much time on the water as I have in the past year. No, not all of it was on Winni, most of it was on other large lakes in NHG, and a great deal of this time has be spent on the big, scary ocean. I am a very experienced boater, I know exactly what I saw and what I experienced.

That's odd...
I live up in Littleton, only a couple of miles from Moore Reservoir, which is a dammed up (~10 miles) portion of the Connecticut River. Moore is a totally undeveloped lake, where it’s not uncommon to see a bald eagle or two. I do most of my paddling up here, but I do get down to the Lakes Region fairly often as well, as it’s only about an hour drive for me. I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn. So I was excited when I discovered this site, with all the information about the Lakes Region! Anyhoo, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you all know that I love this site … especially these forums.

[Evenstar]

That's odd...


Maybe you should just start a "Bash Evenstar" thread. Frankly I'm getting a bit sick of constantly having to defend myself here.

That post of mine that you quoted is 3 years old! It would have been nice if you had mentioned that. I happen to be a very fast learner, and a very dedicated kayaker and sailor.

I have learned a great deal over the past 3 boating seasons.

I have paddled roughly 800 miles on NH lakes since then (I keep a journal).

I have attended a navagation workshop (on coastal navigation) at UNH.

I had attended two advanced paddling seminars.

I have white water kayaked on class III Rapids.

I have kayaked on coastal waters.

I am employed by the athletic department at my university, where I am responsible for the instruction and supervision of kayaks used by students, and have had rescue training (where I operate a Zodiac on the bay), as well as cpr and first-aid training.

I am also an NCAA athlete, as a member of my university's sailing team, and a registered member of the Inter-Collegiate Sailing Association. My team is currently ranked 8th in North America (out of 118 colleges). I am training with and competing with likely future Olympic athletes. My coach also competes in international sailing regattas.

I have to study and know the "Racing Rules of Sailing", which includes both the International Sailing Federation Racing Rules and the US Sailing Rules. The book is an inch thick.

My last race was on Nov. 3rd, at MIT, on the day that a huricane was just off the east coast.

I think that quallifies me as being "a very experienced boater."

If you still don't believe that I'm very experienced, you're invited to try kayaking with me sometime, or perhaps you would like to try ocean sailing in Feburary on Naragansette Bay in a 13 foot Vanguard. I doubt that you would last 30 minutes out there - we have 3 hour practice sessions on the two bays here, 4 days a week. And then we spend weekends competing all over New England.

[Hottrucks]

because the operator of a powerboat does not see us in time [/U]– because he was going too fast!!! The 150 foot rule alone is NOT protecting me from high speed boats.


So what your really saying is that because of the poor visablity of your boat everyone else should be punished.....OR.....I would be willing to bet that if someone pulled up along side you going 6 mph or less that you wouldn't be scared.....

which is it???

[codeman671]

That's odd...


I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn.

All that experience gained in just a few years. Amazing...

I think you may like these even better:


The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning.


I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.


While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.


When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.


Apparently you don't know kayaks very well. My avatar image is a 16' sea kayak. That's the type of kayak that I'm planning on taking on Winni.

And my personal favorite:


Ok, I have no personal experience with fast boats, so I'm likely a bit clueless here.

[Hottrucks]

Now thats funny I don't care who you are.........

[Evenstar]

So what your really saying is that because of the poor visablity of your boat everyone else should be punished.....OR.....I would be willing to bet that if someone pulled up along side you going 6 mph or less that you wouldn't be scared.....

which is it???

No. That's not what I am saying at all. My 16 foot sea kayak and I are very visible. It is the idiots that are traveling too fast to see me that are the problem. 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.

You guys keep claiming that only 1% or the boats on Winni go over 45 mph - So how is "everybody else" being punished???

My own experience has been that some powerboat operators are traveling at speeds beyond their ability to see smaller boats. The obvious solution is to slow these boats down.

I sail (and kayak) on the ocean - I'm not a timid boater - I compete as an NCAA athlete as a member of my university's saling team. Competition sailing is a very demanding, intense sport. And we practice and compete in all types of weather and conditions. And no one would pull up beside me at 6mph or less, unless I let them. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Evenstar.

This is not a slam and is a sincere question.

You are the only person I know who has traveled 800 miles in a kayak.

I would like to understand if you tend to kayak close to shore or across the broads or what percentage of miles would you attribute to each?

The second question is, do you perceive that boats violate the 150 foot rule with you because they don't see you or don't care?

Do you have a feeling for how often boats violate your 150 foot circle at a speed above 6mph.

Thank you in advance for helping my understanding.

[Evenstar]

All that experience gained in just a few years. Amazing...

Apparently I'm a pretty amazing woman, because if you go up a couple of posts, you'll see why I feel that I can state that I'm a very experienced boater.

BTW: All those quotes, including your favorate one, were things that I wrote more than THREE years ago!!!, and all were made before I even purchased my sea kayak, and all were made before I ever kayaked on Winni.

What I wrote back then (which you so helpfully took the time to find and post) actually show that I had no hidden agenda before I first kayaked on Winni. The entire reason that I'm so for a speed limit now is that I had dangerous encounters with high speed boaters on my very first paddle on Winni (and I have had additional encounters since).

[winnidiver]

I am really not in favor of speed limits on the lake.My personal observation is most boats don't go over 45.But I thought I would stick up for Evenstar.Go though the forum threads for last summer and read all the Capt B stories.Now what makes you think that it is unbelievable that boats come too close to her.On any summer weekend and most week days in July and August I can have quite a few boats go by me to close,and I am in a 19' cuddy. When I am in my kayak I am mostly in bays and narrow parts of the lake so they go even closer.I guess my kayaks are more stable though I have never been swamped.

[Resident 2B]

I am really not in favor of speed limits on the lake.My personal observation is most boats don't go over 45.But I thought I would stick up for Evenstar.Go though the forum threads for last summer and read all the Capt B stories.Now what makes you think that it is unbelievable that boats come too close to her.On any summer weekend and most week days in July and August I can have quite a few boats go by me to close,and I am in a 19' cuddy. When I am in my kayak I am mostly in bays and narrow parts of the lake so they go even closer.I guess my kayaks are more stable though I have never been swamped.


Winnidiver,

You are correct. That is what is really happening on the lake.

I believe that boats come too close to Evenstar in his or her opinion. I also believe that Evenstar is very concerned about this.

I kayak as well and I also have a powerboat. There are two different lakes when I am in the kayak vs. when I am in the powerboat. However, I have not read anything that tells me the powerboats that are concerning Evenstar are traveling more than 45 MPH. I just read that they are going fast. When you are in a kayak and a boat is within 400' of you going 30 MPH, from your observation point, it is going fast!

I have one rule with the kayaks. I use this rule and my children aged 12 to 24 also use this rule. The rule is: On weekends and when there are a lot of powerboats in the area, stay within 150 feet of shore. We are located very close to the exit of the Weirs Channel, on the lake side. This is a very busy place! This rule works great for us!

None of the boats that come close to us are moving more than 10 MPH. If these boats observed the 150’ rule, they would not be moving more than 6 MPH that close to shore. From time to time a boat traveling 15 to 20 MPH comes close, but that boat is well below the proposed 45 MPH speed limit and already violating the 150' rule.

We also tow the kayaks to other areas of the lake to enjoy the various wildlife and other lake environments. While in the kayaks, we always make sure our paddles are brightly colored, that we wear bright colored PDFs and that we pay close attention to what is happening around us. This is the kayaker's version of maintaining a proper lookout.

We completely enjoy both our powerboat and the kayaks, even though we are close to the Weirs a busy part if the lake. We feel that there is a time and a place for each and everything regarding our boating on the lake.

We do not kayak in the middle of the broads. Wherever we kayak, we make sure we are highly visible by wearing the bright colors We do not kayak more than 20' from shore at night, but we do kayak at night with the proper lighting.

I feel the rules we have today on the lake, specifically the 150' rule, if properly followed and strongly enforced; give us the boating environment we want in both our kayaks and our powerboat.

If there was to be additional speed limits on the lake, in addition to the numerous no wake zones and the headway speed 150' rule, they should be made in the interest of all safety minded boaters. This includes the GFBL crowd. 45 MPH across the entire lake is too restrictive to all boaters, but 25 to 30 MPH at night seems to make sense.

My personal opinion is we should not be kayaking in broads more than 500' from shore. To do so shows a complete disregard for personal safety and all common sense. A rule restricting speed to 45 MPH daytime for some areas of the lake while allowing higher speeds in the broads really makes sense to me. This gives something for everyone. Some may feel this is too complicated, but to me with the numerous no rafting zones and no wake zones, different rules for different areas of the lake already exist.

I realize the folks with homes on the islands are very concerned about the speed of powerboats and I do not question their concern. However, there are no islands in the broads, so why are they so concerned about what happens out there?

We have a big lake that is absolutely wonderful. It should be available for everyone, while maintaining the safety of everyone. The current proposal in this year’s HR 847 is too restrictive and not at all supported by any collected speed data on our lake. Because we have the 150' rule, comparing our lake to lakes without the 150' rule makes no sense at all.

If the MP were able to focus on enforcing the existing 150' rule, coupled with the safe boating education certificate now and for the first time applicable to everyone, our lake will be a safe place for all.

If the MP gets stretched with enforcing the current rules and also enforcing a new 45 MPH daytime speed limit across the entire lake, it will be more dangerous kayaking where safety minded folks kayak: within 150' of the shore. This is because without more MPs at an added cost, how can we expect them to do what they do today, plus enforce the new speed limit? The MP are already doing the best job that they can do in making our lake safe.

The kayaker part of me and of my family is very concerned that the 45 MPH speed limit across the whole lake will dilute the enforcement of the existing 150' rule close to shore, making safety minded kayaking significantly less safe.

Please think about this!

R2B

[Bear Islander]

I agree that a 45 mph limit in the broads in not necessary. It could easily have been part of a compromise, but "NO LIMITS" was the opposition stance.

The only problem I can see with an exception is how do you specify exactly where the excepted area is. If people can't figure out what constitutes 150' how can they agree where "The Broads" is.

Perhaps it could be specified by a minimum distance from shore. The must be a distance that would only work in the broads.

[Hottrucks]

One thing I have not heard anybody say is How far is 150 feet....ok 50 yards!! I think alot of the problem lies in the judgement of distance...I would like to see marker bouy's with large signs showing what 150 is....this way people could get a better idea of what safe passage is....with a few well placed high travel areas in the no wake zones this would enlighten ALOTof PEOPLE

[Dick]

I kayak as well and I also have a powerboat. There are two different lakes when I am in the kayak vs. when I am in the powerboat. However, I have not read anything that tells me the powerboats that are concerning Evenstar are traveling more than 45 MPH. I just read that they are going fast. When you are in a kayak and a boat is within 400' of you going 30 MPH, from your observation point, it is going fast!

I have one rule with the kayaks. I use this rule and my children aged 12 to 24 also use this rule. The rule is: On weekends and when there are a lot of powerboats in the area, stay within 150 feet of shore. We are located very close to the exit of the Weirs Channel, on the lake side. This is a very busy place! This rule works great for us!

None of the boats that come close to us are moving more than 10 MPH. If these boats observed the 150’ rule, they would not be moving more than 6 MPH that close to shore. From time to time a boat traveling 15 to 20 MPH comes close, but that boat is well below the proposed 45 MPH speed limit and already violating the 150' rule.

We also tow the kayaks to other areas of the lake to enjoy the various wildlife and other lake environments. While in the kayaks, we always make sure our paddles are brightly colored, that we wear bright colored PDFs and that we pay close attention to what is happening around us. This is the kayaker's version of maintaining a proper lookout.

We completely enjoy both our powerboat and the kayaks, even though we are close to the Weirs a busy part if the lake. We feel that there is a time and a place for each and everything regarding our boating on the lake.

We do not kayak in the middle of the broads. Wherever we kayak, we make sure we are highly visible by wearing the bright colors We do not kayak more than 20' from shore at night, but we do kayak at night with the proper lighting.

I feel the rules we have today on the lake, specifically the 150' rule, if properly followed and strongly enforced; give us the boating environment we want in both our kayaks and our powerboat.

If there was to be additional speed limits on the lake, in addition to the numerous no wake zones and the headway speed 150' rule, they should be made in the interest of all safety minded boaters. This includes the GFBL crowd. 45 MPH across the entire lake is too restrictive to all boaters, but 25 to 30 MPH at night seems to make sense.

My personal opinion is we should not be kayaking in broads more than 500' from shore. To do so shows a complete disregard for personal safety and all common sense. A rule restricting speed to 45 MPH daytime for some areas of the lake while allowing higher speeds in the broads really makes sense to me. This gives something for everyone. Some may feel this is too complicated, but to me with the numerous no rafting zones and no wake zones, different rules for different areas of the lake already exist.

I realize the folks with homes on the islands are very concerned about the speed of powerboats and I do not question their concern. However, there are no islands in the broads, so why are they so concerned about what happens out there?

We have a big lake that is absolutely wonderful. It should be available for everyone, while maintaining the safety of everyone. The current proposal in this year’s HR 847 is too restrictive and not at all supported by any collected speed data on our lake. Because we have the 150' rule, comparing our lake to lakes without the 150' rule makes no sense at all.

If the MP were able to focus on enforcing the existing 150' rule, coupled with the safe boating education certificate now and for the first time applicable to everyone, our lake will be a safe place for all.

If the MP gets stretched with enforcing the current rules and also enforcing a new 45 MPH daytime speed limit across the entire lake, it will be more dangerous kayaking where safety minded folks kayak: within 150' of the shore. This is because without more MPs at an added cost, how can we expect them to do what they do today, plus enforce the new speed limit? The MP are already doing the best job that they can do in making our lake safe.

The kayaker part of me and of my family is very concerned that the 45 MPH speed limit across the whole lake will dilute the enforcement of the existing 150' rule close to shore, making safety minded kayaking significantly less safe.

Please think about this!

R2B

Resident 2B -- You have nailed it !

[Cal]

I think that quallifies me as being "a very experienced boater."

Sometimes you are your own worst enemy:(. So with your impressive boating experience resume above you "think" that qualifies you to be called "very experienced"? You sound very well trained. Experience comes from time and mileage , not classes or text books.
I've boated / owned / operated / sailed boats from canoes , through numerous sailboats , small outboards , large outboards , larger I/Os , from walking speed to over 90 mph for the past 50 years. 800 miles a season is low for me (logged on a GPS). I've done as much as 1500 a season. Here I thought I was very well experienced:eek: Aside from being older than dirt , whats that make me:laugh:
Last monday , there was a patient in my office who was a fortyfive years old commercial tugboat captain who pilots a 90' 3600 hp tug from Louisianna to Cape Cod moving oil barges. He lives aboard his boat 2 to 3 weeks at a time then off a week. Now THERE is some experience. He made me feel like a new kid.
Believe me , youv'e only scratched the surface;)

[Evenstar]

Sometimes you are your own worst enemy:(. So with your impressive boating experience resume above you "think" that qualifies you to be called "very experienced"? You sound very well trained. Experience comes from time and mileage , not classes or text books.
For your information 99% of my "classes" have taken place out on the water. You guys say that the problem is boater education, yet when I bring up my own education, you rip me apart (yet again).

I'm really sick of others here making statements about how inexperienced I am - when I can almost guarantee that I can out kayak and out sail most of you. This is supposed to be a community forum - not a place to personally attack anyone who doesn't happen to agree with you. I would hate living in a world where everyone agreed with me (That would be a really boring place.), but I always try to respect the views of others. However, I quickly lose respect for anyone who has to stoop to personal attacks to debate an issue.

Dictionary defintiion: Experienced: –adjective
<TABLE class=luna-Ent minmax_bound="true"><TBODY minmax_bound="true"><TR minmax_bound="true"><TD class=dn vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">1.</TD><TD vAlign=top minmax_bound="true">wise or skillful in a particular field through experience: an experienced teacher."
—Synonyms 1. skilled, expert, practiced, veteran, accomplished, versed, adept, qualified.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Since I am very skilled, practiced, accomplished, versed, and adept at kayaking, that means that I should be able to say that I'm very experienced at kayaking. Since my kayak is a boat - that gives me the right to state that I'm a very experienced boater. You you think that I am exaggerating my skill, you're invited to try kayaking with me anytime.

I'm a competing member of one of the top colligiate sailing teams in North America - and I'm a NCAA athlete and a registered member of the Inter-collegiate Sailing Association of North America. So I have proof that I'm qualified - by the governing authority for sailing competition.

From collegesailing.org: "College sailing began on an informal, club basis in the 1890's, and organized racing started in 1928. It has grown to include more than 200 active colleges, and racing now occurs on every weekend during fall and spring seasons and on many weekends during the winter. It is a truly coeducational sport, and it has proved itself the best incubator for the development of racing skills. Former college sailors have always numbered significantly among Olympic medallists and America's Cup competitors."


Experience is not solely based on the time you spend doing somthing - it is also based on your level of skill. You could do something for decades, but never become very skilled at it. For example, if you have skiied for 20 years, but never advanced beyond the beginner's slopes, most other skiiers would not consider you to be an experienced skiier - you would still be a beginner in their eyes. Yet someone who wins downhill races is considered to be a very experiened skiier, no matter how long they have been skiing.

Competitive colliegate sailing requires a very high degree of skill. It is very different from recreational sailing - we are always pushing ourselves and our boats to the limits - but we do so while following all the racing rules of sailing. My coach would not allow me to compete unless I had the skill to do so.

And there's a huge difference beween paddling 800 miles under your own power and putting 800 miles sitting on the padded seat of a powerboat, where a motor does all the work. I've operated a powerboat, so I know that it takes a lot more skill to paddle a sea kayak, or to sail a racing boat successfully - expecially in some of the conditions that I have experienced.

<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=def) -->Yes, there are more experienced kayakers and sailors than me. But that does not mean that I am not very experienced at what I do. A person is judged by their peers - my peers consider me to be a very experienced boater.

[codeman671]

Experience is not solely based on the time you spend doing somthing - it is also based on your level of skill. You could do something for decades, but never become very skilled at it. For example, if you have skiied for 20 years, but never advanced beyond the beginner's slopes, most other skiiers would not consider you to be an experienced skiier - you would still be a beginner in their eyes. Yet someone who wins downhill races is considered to be a very experiened skiier, no matter how long they have been skiing.

And there's a huge difference beween paddling 800 miles under your own power and putting 800 miles sitting on the padded seat of a powerboat, where a motor does all the work. I've operated a powerboat, so I know that it takes a lot more skill to paddle a sea kayak, or to sail a racing boat successfully - expecially in some of the conditions that I have experienced.


I agree about most of your explanation of experience above, but if you are very good at something but have not been doing it long I do not think that qualifies as experienced. I am an experienced skier, pretty good but not pro and I have been doing it for 20 years. One of my employees just started this year and being that he is very athletic (triathalons, etc) he got pretty good very quickly. His skill is good, but lack of time does not qualify him to be experienced in my opinion.

I found a pretty good site about the dynamics of kayaks and speed, here is a quote from it:

"Most recreational paddling speeds are about 2 - 3.5 knots. Energetic cruising speeds are largely in the 3.5 - 5.5 knots range. Speeds higher than 6 knots are in the realm of long distance racing and sprinting. Olympic sprint speeds average 9.98 knots (off the chart )."

Figuring that claim to have done 800 miles last year and are probably in the 3-5 knot range on average usually being athletic, that puts you on the water for between 160-260 hours per year in a kayak at absolute minimum figuring that you are not always at those speeds. I have to say that seems a bit much to comprehend when you are so active with sailing, etc.... ???? Sorry, gotta question you on that one... Don't you have a job???

[codeman671]

Evenstar, per your PM I do stand corrected. 800 miles in 3 years, not 1. Post #127. I replied to your PM.

Based on this and the 5mph you state that you travel at, it is 53 hours per season total on the water in a kayak. I will let the rest determine your level of experience in boating overall.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

One thing I have not heard anybody say is How far is 150 feet....ok 50 yards!! I think alot of the problem lies in the judgement of distance...I would like to see marker bouy's with large signs showing what 150 is....this way people could get a better idea of what safe passage is....with a few well placed high travel areas in the no wake zones this would enlighten ALOTof PEOPLE

I agree this would be a great idea. How do we get a half dozen of these reference markers installed? I think we could all benefit by being reminded of what a 150 feet on the water looks like.

[GWC...]

I agree this would be a great idea. How do we get a half dozen of these reference markers installed? I think we could all benefit by being reminded of what a 150 feet on the water looks like.
Two water ski lines or 75' + 75' = 150' :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[WeirsBeachBoater]

There is one in Ctr Harbor, Wolfeboro, I believe Ames Farm, and Meredith. I may have forgotten some. But these are orange cans, with White sleeves and green and black writing. There is a corresponding sign on the dock to tell you that it is 150' to the buoy. These were petitioned by the only organization that really is about safety, NHRBA. NHMP installed these 2 seasons ago!

[Evenstar]

Evenstar. This is not a slam and is a sincere question.
Ok, but if you are truely sincere, you won't try to twist my responses and use them against me (and I would appreciate it if others didn't either). As far as the 150 foot rule goes, it has been my experience that:

the rule is broken a LOT.
it is broken by boats traveling less than 45 mph and by boats traveling over 45 mph.
The danger increases with the speed of the boat. The ones that don't seem to see me are usually the faster boats.You are the only person I know who has traveled 800 miles in a kayak./quote]
The 800 miles that I've logged is over 3 seasons. In at least one of those seasons I was on the water from April 16th until mid Nov, which is 7 months, but if I just use 5 months as an average season, that's 15 months total, which is ~53 miles a month average. I have paddled over 50 miles in 3 days. (Note: my logged time over the past 3 seasons is not even close to the total amount of miles that I have paddled - as it's only from those 3 seasons, and it does not include my paddling time here at my university, on the bay.)

[quote]I would like to understand if you tend to kayak close to shore or across the broads or what percentage of miles would you attribute to each?
First of all I've made it clear that most of my paddling time has been on other large NH lakes, so there's no way that a percentage would have any real meaning. In general, I do most of my paddling 1/4 mile or more from shore. I stay closer to shore whenever I take a beginner with me, or when the water is very cold (although I now have a drysuit, so cold water is no longer as much of an issue.)

The second question is, do you perceive that boats violate the 150 foot rule with you because they don't see you or don't care?
As far as high-speed boats, both. Some obviously didn't see me/us, based on their reactions and expressions (yes, they were that close!). Other boaters and especially guys on PWC, have come directly at us at high speeds, getting way closeer than 150 feet, thinking that it was funny (they were laughing). Others just didn't seem to have a clue that they were doing anything wrong. I would extimate that I have experienced roughly the same number of violations from each group.

Do you have a feeling for how often boats violate your 150 foot circle at a speed above 6mph.
I have seldom been out on a large NH lake, without having my 150 foot space violated at least once. I have never paddled on Winni without it happening several times (and I'm talking about boats well in excess of 6mph).

Thank you in advance for helping my understanding.
You're welcome. :)

[Dave R]

There is one in Ctr Harbor, Wolfeboro, I believe Ames Farm, and Meredith. I may have forgotten some. But these are orange cans, with White sleeves and green and black writing. There is a corresponding sign on the dock to tell you that it is 150' to the buoy. These were petitioned by the only organization that really is about safety, NHRBA. NHMP installed these 2 seasons ago!

Those bouys made me realize I was staying well over 150 feet from other boats, docks, swimlines etc. in the past. I have adjusted and now I occasionally get gestures from folks who think I am too close. This makes me wonder if folks who routinely feel violated by 150 foot violations really know how close 150 feet really is...

That said, I am occasionally the "victim" of obvious 150 foot violations, but I really don't care at all as long as they don't force me to come off plane/change direction, or make water wash into my boat (actual events I've dealt with on Winnipesaukee). NOT ONCE has a GFBL been involved in the above. It's either been big cruisers or ordinary family runabouts.

[Hottrucks]

Maybe the isue here is that the 150 rule is only a NH law not in other states that have it...SO people not in the know break it........Kinda like the window tint thing if your from the south everybody has it ( relation If you use to running rivers) up north window tint is illegal ( relation passing someone on plane in the river is common practice but illegal here )

I have a terrible issue's when I run down in Fla with passing a large boat ( house's) or going by the end of the docks.....I'm going a nice no wake speed and everyone in the boat looks at me like I'm a crack addict as I try to fight my way further from shore....If anyone has been in Tampa bay you'll understand or look into it next time your landing there....( the canals are close to shore so they can get ther boats out kinda like driveways to the street) anyway down ther everyone cruz's along @ a speed that is comfortable in a canal thats not more than 500 feet wide just like driving on a back road

Every one wants to use lake George for an example but I would bet that more people get flipped off and MF'd because they are going to fast to close. I would also bet there's alot more rubbing fenders than is reported...

Food for thought????

[Cal]

This makes me wonder if folks who routinely feel violated by 150 foot violations really know how close 150 feet really is....

I wonder about that too:confused:. I've seen my wife complain about somebody tailgating her while she's half that distance to the car in front of her:rolleye2:
I have my own 150' scale to train myself on. My property in 150' deep so anytime I pull out of the driveway , as I head up the street just have to the left to the fence in the rear of the yard. It is somewhat smaller than you might think. This time of year the boat's there and the bow is 120' from the sidewalk. This could be part of some peoples complaints;)

[JayDV]

Although not exact, 150 ft is about the distance between telephone poles.

[codeman671]

I have seldom been out on a large NH lake, without having my 150 foot space violated at least once. I have never paddled on Winni without it happening several times (and I'm talking about boats well in excess of 6mph).


The 150' rule is the major rule violated, not speed. This is a major point of everyone that opposes the speed limit. I have boats well within 150' of me every day I am on the lake. Try going into Glendale on a Saturday at noon. Total chaos. Having two boats traveling at 45mph at less than 150' can be even more dangerous than 1 at 45mph and 1 kayak. That puts a closing speed of up to 90mph, and the slightest error by either driver can cause an incident. Nobody here is arguing your point that the faster the speed, the less time to react.

I am really never bothered at such close range by performance boats, if for some reason it is they are usually driving at normal, family boating speeds. It is the family boater that poses the problem.

I would gladly volunteer my boat for an afternoon to haul around anyone that doubts it. No MARINE PATROL down the side to change anyone elses reactions. Politicians welcome too! As long as you don't mind hearing a lot of Jimmy Buffett...

[Evenstar]

The 150' rule is the major rule violated, not speed. . . . Having two boats traveling at 45mph at less than 150' can be even more dangerous than 1 at 45mph and 1 kayak. That puts a closing speed of up to 90mph, and the slightest error by either driver can cause an incident. Nobody here is arguing your point that the faster the speed, the less time to react.
But two 45mph powerboats likely see each other, well before 150 feet. This is not always the case with powerboat/kayak encounters.

The problem it that the 150 foot rule is often violated unintentionally.

It doesn't seem to matter that my kayak is a highly visible color - many high-speed boat operators are apparently traveling at speeds that are beyond their visual abilities (or of their attention span). Allowing speeds above 45mph just adds to this danger.

I would gladly volunteer my boat for an afternoon to haul around anyone that doubts it.
And I will make myself available to anyone with a kayak (or who can spective borrow one) who is willing to see this from the paddler's perspective - but I will warn you that we won't be hugging the shore, or staying in the coves.

[SIKSUKR]

Sometimes you are your own worst enemy)

That's an understatement.