Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds.... [Archive] - Page 2

Evenstar

03-08-2008, 07:19 PM

How much ? How much safer ? As the survey shows and is apparent to those of us who boat on the lake, the number of boats exceeding 45 is small. The majority of bonehead encounters occur at speeds under the proposed limit and therefore won't be affected by the presence or absense of a speed limt. The increase in safety (more below) is going to be minimal at best.
As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

As for safety being increased with lower speeds, OK, but why not 35 or 25 or 10 mph ? Certainly these would all be safer than 45 mph. Why not those limits? Why not a night-time limit of NWS?
It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has already had to compromise enough.

Speed limits on RT93 aren't set to make it as safe as possible w/o consideration for anything else otherwise we'd see them around 35 or so. I can understand your desire to feel safer but at what cost, what limitations for others ?
And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

It's been stated that Winni should have a speed limit to better catch drunk boaters. It's been stated the Littlefield's* actions that night somehow support a need for a speed limit. I'd laugh at both arguments where it not that the thinking behind them (as best as I can determine it) further perpetuates the LCD disease. What ever happened to the "reasonable man" line of thinking ? If we are to limit peoples actions, let's not limit what a "reasonable man" could do safely. So what can be expected from a "reasonable man" in Evenstar's situation ?
I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?

. . . but the point is that at speeds well over 45 mph, a "reasonable man" isn't going to run you down. When boaters nearly miss you it isn't because their speed is so high they don't have a chance to react (unless your contention is that these boats were doing 80), it's for other reasons. They may think their distance from you is an acceptable one. Could be they weren't paying attention. Could be they're being malicious. Could be a bunch of other things (BUI among them) as well but none of them make 45 mph as being the proper limit.
So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

But it ain't 45. Until the discussion starts to revolve around facts and reason vs wants, I'll just keep wondering about what kind of "free" world we'll be leaving to the next generation.
It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

fatlazyless

03-09-2008, 06:35 PM

March 16, 2006, was the day when the NH Senate voted no to HB-162, the last time around. So, what day, probably coming soon, will the NH Senate make a decision on HB-847?

Hey, if you don't like your senator's vote on HB-847, you can always vote them out, next November. New Hampshire is one of only two states, Vermont and New Hampshire, where the senators, representatives and governor serve for just two years as opposed to four years::argue:

Mee-n-Mac

03-09-2008, 06:42 PM

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

While the study may not have been a rigorous as a good university study, I don't think it so flawed that nothing can be learned of it. Basically it says what people boating on the lake know, there aren't that many boats out there going over 45, let alone way over. The problem is blown out of proportion.

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has already had to compromise enough.

You've missed my point. Let me try to be clearer. What's the proper method to set a speed limit ? Do we toss up a bunch of numbers and see which has the most appeal ? Do we pick the one that the absolute "safest" w/o regard for any other consideration ? There was a time when engineers did the analysis to set speed limits. To some extent this is still partially true in this country. It's certainly not true for the proposed law. Where's the analysis that says 45 mph is the proper limit ?

I'll address your idea of "compromise" further below.

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

It would affect only a minimal number of boats. So what ? How about if I, having a run of the mill boat speed-wise, ganged up with all the others like me and tried outlaw both high speed boating and kayaking because they both were a PITA to our (majority) boating pleasure. We would be the majority, would that then make it right ?

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

So what if the 4 or 400 MP officers you spoke said it would help them catch BUIs. Try that justification on driving your car and see how well it plays. Set the speed limit on RT93 to 45 mph with the intent that it'll catch the DUI's because they'll probably be unable to contain themselves at such a slow speed. That such a limit would unfairly impact people who, not being drunk, can safely drive at > 45 mph doesn't/wouldn't bother you ?

Again you're now letting the worst of "us" dictate what the rest of us may legally do even if it's the case that when we do it (vs the impaired), it doesn't actually harm anyone.

Regarding see you in your kayak, I do believe it sets a limiting case. Prove to me that 45 mph is that limit. Your evidence so far is more anecdotal than the study you call flawed above. How hard to see is your boat ? Harder to see than the Mt Washington that's for sure, but also not invisible. How do we get from anecdotal evidence to something more concrete ?

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?
So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

I can understand your reasons, I just don't "buy" them. Consider the plight of a pedestrian walking down the road. Should a drunk or inattentive or malicious driver pass them by as they are walking, they too are in potential danger. Should we limit the speed on that road to such a rate so as to give them time to jump out of the way ? What if that person is my mother who can't react all that quickly ? Should the speed limit be set even lower then ? I'd say the speed limit should be set such that the normal driver, unimpaired and paying attention, will be able to see the pedestrian and avoid hitting him/her at that speed. (The pedestrian has his role to play as well) And that at much (we can debate about how much more) more above that speed, this would no longer be true. Then we go after those who drive unsafely due to alcohol or whatever. You attack the problem w/o unduly restricting the normal guy.

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

I'm not one who believes compromise is a bad word. But the present proposed bill isn't based on compromise. The thinking isn't that more often than not that boats at 55 mph pose a clear and present danger to the public at large and therefore should be restricted. It's the same you posted above, the lake is so big and 27 mins is short enough and 45 if "fast enough" ... all opinions which have has much validity as someone saying 25 or 65 is "fast enough". Let's say that kayaking and true high speed boating are incompatible. Certainly at some high enough speed this is true. The "compromise" you seem to favor is the one where you get to practice your recreation where and when you want, unrestricted and they "can take it to the ocean". Compromise to me might have been you get part of the lake and they get part of the lake. Perhaps it would have been "you" get days XYZ and they get days QST. Perhaps something different. Had I said "You can kayak on Squam and many other NH lakes, they're only minutes away" and called it compromise would you have bought that line ?

I'm not against laws, just bad ones.

Mee-n-Mac

03-09-2008, 06:55 PM

Unsafe operation of boats is a minor problem on Winnipesaukee.

Finally we agree. Glad you're bad on your meds. :D

(Kinda depends on one's perspective, though). :D

A bad day for the boat owner really isn't my concern in this debate, and not yours either I suspect. But hey if I posted a couple of pics to plane crashes in the Lake and made the inference that unsafe general aviation was a problem on/over Winnipesaukee what would that say ? How about if I started a campaign to ban floatplanes from the lake at all times because it's too crowded and the planes might land and hit someone.

Surely this pic must be proof of that .... :rolleye2:

fatlazyless

03-09-2008, 07:36 PM

Well, it could be this week, or the next week, or the next week, before the Senate addresses HB-847....it is difficult to say...I read in today's Union Leader that the legislature has way too many bills to process, and then the UL did a typical UL slam against the Democratic nanny-staters.

Hopefully. come November's election, New Hampshire will see a flip-flop that returns the Granite State back to its' long time Republican majority, and any HB-847 speed limits law will be rescinded and all motor boat incurred, automobile insurance points accrued, will be totally annulled retroactively, and then shredded into 10,000 pieces.

For the next hundred years, people will wonder how the heck New Hampshire happened to stray off its' comfy Republican plantation for those horrible two years of November, 2006 to November, 2008? Like, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED HERE?

In just four years, the Union Leader will be referring to the 11/06-11/08 years as 'the lean years', and all will be right with NH, once again!

Hey gee-whiz, maybe HB-847 will get yes'ed on April 1st! .........april fool...ah-ha.........ha-ha-ha......ha-ha!!

www.floridaboathaulers.com:D:laugh::D

phoenix

03-10-2008, 09:57 PM

Lt. Dunleavy may break a record for the most replies on one thread

Island Girl

03-10-2008, 10:08 PM

The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG

GWC...

03-10-2008, 11:38 PM

Lt. Dunleavy may break a record for the most replies on one thread
The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG
May want to rethink the situation...

Ice-in Watch 2006 ( 1 2 3)
Island Girl 03-06-2006 06:43 AM
by Diamond Isle 221 28,791

Boat Sinking????? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
sa meredith 01-07-2008 11:15 AM
by Senter Cove Guy 306 35,894

codeman671

03-11-2008, 01:37 PM

The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG

The 2006 ice-in was 29k views, not replies. It was only 221 replies, less than the 259 on this thread. Certainly not as much outside traffic coming in to watch this thread, but more posters involved.

Bear Islander wins so far with the highest number of posts on this thread. I think the Winni thong should be his prize although there is an argument on another thread about what size. :D

User Name Posts
Bear Islander 55
hazelnut 26
fatlazyless 13
ITD 11
codeman671 11
WeirsBeachBoater 10
Evenstar 10
Wolfeboro_Baja 9
Dick 9
Acres per Second 8
KonaChick 5
Mee-n-Mac 5
GWC... 5
Lakegeezer 5
parrothead 5
Dave R 5
chipj29 4
Islander 4
Skip 4
Skipper of the Sea Que 4
Rose 4
jrc 4
Resident 2B 3
Hottrucks 3
EricP 3
JayDV 3
Alton Bay 3
kjbathe 2
SIKSUKR 2
brk-lnt 2
trfour 2
BroadHopper 2
Island Girl 1
Rattlesnake Guy 1
daveg 1
Mark 1
Mashugana 1
Steveo 1
Island Lover 1
Neanderthal Thunder 1
rickstr66 1
winnilaker 1
phoenix 1
Seaplane Pilot 1
winnidiver 1
overlook 1
Cal 1
Woodsy 1
nightrider 1
michael c 1
Sunset Bob 1
Show Thread & Close Window

Island Girl

03-11-2008, 02:20 PM

mea culpa!!! I stand corrected!

IG

Island Girl

03-11-2008, 02:30 PM

Ice-In Watch 2007 (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=491420) 270 replies 25,361 views

lol
IG

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=491420

codeman671

03-11-2008, 03:08 PM

Ice-In Watch 2007 (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=491420) 270 replies 25,361 views

lol
IG

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/search.php?searchid=491420

Not so fast, gotcha!

Here is the top one I found for both replies and views:

306 replies 35,914 views
Boat sinking thread

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5102&highlight=forum

More replies, less views:

368 replies 11,928 views
Speed limit test zones

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5030&highlight=forum

The kayak cut in half was a close third.

Don has the unfair advantage, I am sure he could find one to trump us both... Can't you tell I am suffering from serious cabin (need to be there) fever???

Mee-n-Mac

03-11-2008, 03:10 PM

Well this thread may have some rank but it ain't #1.

Kayak cut in half (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4936) - 292 replies and locked
Boat sinking (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5102) (that Cobalt) - 306 replies and has potential
Speed limit test zones dead (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5030) - 368 replies and locked

Cabin Cruiser Operators (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4668)- ran a good race but - 251 replies
Forum Fest III (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3644) was also in the running - 244 replies

EDIT : Dang, I shoulda hit that post button 2 mins ago .... ;)

Island Girl

03-11-2008, 03:15 PM

Those reading these posts might think we have too much time on our hands!!!!!

IG

hazelnut

03-11-2008, 05:41 PM

:(

I have my work cut out for me... Bear Islander has me by a 2-1 margin.

No thong for me this time.

Evenstar

03-11-2008, 07:03 PM

While the study may not have been a rigorous as a good university study, I don't think it so flawed that nothing can be learned of it. Basically it says what people boating on the lake know, there aren't that many boats out there going over 45, let alone way over. The problem is blown out of proportion.
The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, they did nearly everything wrong.

You've missed my point. Let me try to be clearer. What's the proper method to set a speed limit ? Do we toss up a bunch of numbers and see which has the most appeal ? Do we pick the one that the absolute "safest" w/o regard for any other consideration ? There was a time when engineers did the analysis to set speed limits. To some extent this is still partially true in this country. It's certainly not true for the proposed law. Where's the analysis that says 45 mph is the proper limit ?
I haven’t missed the point at all. Squam, which is the second largest lake in NH, has had a 40mph daytime speed limit for years. From my experience it is fairly well enforced and seems to work well. This is called precedence – having a speed limit on a NH lake is not something new (which is why I never did understand the “need” for a pilot program on Winni).

It would affect only a minimal number of boats. So what ? How about if I, having a run of the mill boat speed-wise, ganged up with all the others like me and tried outlaw both high speed boating and kayaking because they both were a PITA to our (majority) boating pleasure. We would be the majority, would that then make it right ?
You would never be able to ban kayaks from the lake. Kayaking is one of the fastest growing recreational sports in America and NH’s economy depends on recreation. According to the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium study (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2006/341%20papers/warnick341.pdf), from 1993 to 2003 kayaking experienced (by far) the fastest growth of any water-based recreation activity in the Northeast. Over this 10-year period, kayak use grew by 16.0% (power boating only grew by 2.3%). And our numbers are still growing. If you actually tried to ban kayaks on Winni, it would just unite us against powerboaters. I really don’t think that you want that.

So what if the 4 or 400 MP officers you spoke said it would help them catch BUIs. Try that justification on driving your car and see how well it plays. Set the speed limit on RT93 to 45 mph with the intent that it'll catch the DUI's because they'll probably be unable to contain themselves at such a slow speed. That such a limit would unfairly impact people who, not being drunk, can safely drive at > 45 mph doesn't/wouldn't bother you ?
Now you’re missing the point. The Interstate is designed for high speed and has a minimum speed limit. It was designed for high-speed transportation. Winni is not part of a high-speed transportation network.

Regarding see you in your kayak, I do believe it sets a limiting case. Prove to me that 45 mph is that limit. Your evidence so far is more anecdotal than the study you call flawed above. How hard to see is your boat ? Harder to see than the Mt Washington that's for sure, but also not invisible. How do we get from anecdotal evidence to something more concrete ?
Powerboaters have stated that they often have trouble seeing kayaks. I have had way too many close calls from powerboats, because the operator didn’t notice me until they were way too close. Many other paddlers have experienced the same type of close calls.That’s “concrete” enough for me.

… you posted above, the lake is so big and 27 mins is short enough and 45 if "fast enough" ... all opinions which have has much validity as someone saying 25 or 65 is "fast enough".
My point was that a 45 mph speed limit is not an actual “hindrance” to anyone, and that the lake is not a big as many try to make it out to be. I could easily paddle the entire length in an afternoon. There’s less than 2 square miles of the entire lake that is over a mile from a shore.

Let's say that kayaking and true high speed boating are incompatible. Certainly at some high enough speed this is true. The "compromise" you seem to favor is the one where you get to practice your recreation where and when you want, unrestricted and they "can take it to the ocean". Compromise to me might have been you get part of the lake and they get part of the lake.
The difference is that recreation does not pose a threat to anyone’s safety. I kayak and sail on the ocean, so I know that there’s a way more room there than there is on NH’s largest lake. The compromise is that this bill was originally written to include all NH lakes. Now it has been watered down to just cover Winni – and it has a 2-year sunset clause. My side has compromised enough already.

Formula260SS

03-11-2008, 09:09 PM

Those reading these posts might think we have too much time on our hands!!!!!

IG

we do...............

Mee-n-Mac

03-12-2008, 01:33 AM

:(

I have my work cut out for me... Bear Islander has me by a 2-1 margin.

No thong for me this time.

... it's quality not quantity that matters ! :laugh:

FWIW : I really don't want to see the thong on either you or B.I. (and don't even mention FLL) :eek: ;)

SIKSUKR

03-12-2008, 12:45 PM

Wow,I'm actually amazed that my big mouth only chimed in twice in this thread.That's worth a thong!XXL please

Cal

03-12-2008, 07:45 PM

Wow,I'm actually amazed that my big mouth only chimed in twice in this thread.That's worth a thong!XXL please

I know what you mean. I was only listed as one time but could say a whole lot more but have better thing to do with my fingers:rolleye2:

Taz

03-12-2008, 08:42 PM

I never understood how this could even get as far as it did. Its simple. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! The only thing the supporters can supply is their alleged opinion. I say alleged because its obvious to me that the supporters reasons having nothing to do with safety or speed. Laws should never be based on opinions or false fear, they should be based on facts.

I have been boating on Winni for almost 30 years and mostly weekends when its busiest and I never experienced or witnessed a close call with a high performance boat, only recreational bow riders that were traveling much slower than the proposed speed limit.

Bear Islander

03-13-2008, 11:07 PM

..... THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! ...

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

brk-lnt

03-14-2008, 05:52 AM

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding 45MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

winnilaker

03-14-2008, 08:05 AM

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

There are MORE accidents that support banning waterskiing, tubing, wake boarding type sports. Why aren't you pushing for that?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

Since when does the proposed speed limit relate to water quality. Why don't you support all eliminating motorized craft? Now that's improving water quality!

How about all the businesses that oppose the speed limit? Last count there are more businesses that oppose the speed limit than support, hmmmm.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

Has a SINGLE camp director ever gone to Marine Patrol or the State to ask for assistance in protecting the kids. Hmmm, very odd if no, could this be them jumping on YOUR band wagon.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

There's plently of evidence that the elderly cause more accidents on our roadways, try banning them!
http://ezinearticles.com/?Elderly-Car-Accidents&id=302159

There is more evidence supporting tractor trailers are dangerous to our roadways, try banning them!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/25/national/main1239138.shtml

There's evidence for anything, walking across the street is dangerous, so. But it's still safer to boat on Winni and clearly speeds over the proposed limits are not the problem.

I understand fear, I ride a motorcycle, I ride with fear all the time. Doesn't mean I won't do it. Doesn't mean I want existing laws changed to curve my fear. What it means, is that I understand the resources available to me and I compromise by enjoying ones that make me feel the safest.

Skipper of the Sea Que

03-14-2008, 08:35 AM

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough? {snip}
You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

Of course accidents exist and people die in some accidents. In the speed threads boating accidents are reported and are important to help justify a perceived need for boat speed limits. So, are there similar statistics about snowmobiling accidents?

Snowmobilers: are there many sled collisions (unreported) or accidents?

There's a very large percent of boating hours on the Lake compared to Snowmobile hours on the Lake IMO. Overwhelmingly more people on boats for more hours a year than there are people on snowmobiles. Fewer targets (excuse the term) for snowmobiles than there are for boats but look at the death and accident rates.

I read about far more accidents and deaths that involve SNOWMOBILES rather than boats around the Lake. I conclude that boating is much safer than snowmobiling. Are there advocates and/or pending legislation to regulate snowmobiles to protect the public from them and them from each other?

I'll address the camps and kayaks in another post when I have more time. I hear the deaths excuse as a need for boat speeds and look at boating deaths compared to snowmobile deaths and it makes me think and wonder ...

Bear Islander

03-14-2008, 09:19 AM

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

Testimony that speed limits will decrease business is evidence against a speed limit. I was pointing out the opposite kind of evidence. Obviously there is evidence on both sides. But to say the pro speed limit side has NO EVIDENCE is false. Conflicting evidence does not equal not evidence.

SIKSUKR

03-14-2008, 10:00 AM

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. .

I must be misinformed.There have been far more deaths that occurred with speeds far UNDER your magic 45 mph.Where is your passion for those dead people?
The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

I can say the same thing.The opposition likes to argue away the fact that by far the most boating deaths occur under the proposed 45 mph.However the accidents ARE real,the statistics ARE undeniable and the victims ARE still dead.

codeman671

03-14-2008, 10:13 AM

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.

brk-lnt

03-14-2008, 10:19 AM

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits.

While it's interesting to use data from other lakes as part of your argument, I think there are many things about Winnipesaukee that make it a unique case. So data from some other lake on speed-related accidents is barely more than mildly interesting here.

For the speed-related accidents you cite, I have never claimed that there have been zero speed-related accidents. Anytime humans are involved in something there will be deaths and accidents. You can regulate and legislate the piss out of something, and some people will still find a way to kill or maim themselves. That doesn't really support your argument.

Furthermore, while speed may have been a factor in these accidents, I don't see any data that speed was the ONLY factor. Were there other violations of existing laws that if obeyed would have prevented these accidents?

Also, what is the proportion of speed-related accidents and safety issues to the non speed-related accidents and safety issues.

Your arguments in favor of the speed limit law seem to revolve around the idea that implementing a speed limit will have a lake-wide effect on safety and quality of life for all recreational Winnipesaukee participants. The statistics and "facts" presented seem to indicate that implementing a speed-limit law is neither a "low hanging fruit" item, nor is it something that addresses the majority of issues that causes an unsafe environment on the lake. Read another way, it's easy to see why many people see ulterior motives in this law, it's solves little (if any problems) and seems to be of some real benefit or value to only a small minority of the overall population that has some sort of a vested interest in activities on the lake.

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

And my neighbor used to complain about kids on his lawn. That doesn't mean that his complaints are any more than the rantings of an old man.

hazelnut

03-14-2008, 11:47 AM

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

Erosion? Pollution? Hogwash!!! You bring up pollution as an issue related to the Speed Limit debate. You have to be kidding. There are hundreds of other more important pollution issues to deal with before you remove relatively clean burning V8 I/O boats from the lake. A 2 stroke pollutes in one day what an I/O would in a whole summer. Then you try and sell erosion??? Come ON! One Cabin Cruiser will destroy everything in its wake faster than a fleet of speed boats. Talk about a reach!

Bear Islander

03-14-2008, 04:31 PM

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.

Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?

Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.

The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!

Yes, deaths happen at low speeds as well, they happen at no speed, on land, in the air, on skimobles etc. etc. The only relevant question is do they happen in boats at speeds greater than those proposed, the answer is YES! All of your comments along these lines are nothing but misdirection or denial. Lets stick to the point.

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/03/lawmakers-put-the-brakes-on-boats/

hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

codeman671

03-14-2008, 04:51 PM

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

I'll respond to the rest later, but lets start with the Quabbin. It is a MAN-MADE body of water that was CREATED to be a water supply. It is not a natural body of water like Winnipesaukee is. It was CREATED to supply water to millions of people. You will also note that no direct contact with the water is allowed, no swimming or wading for instance is possible. Don't ya think that makes it different than Winnipesaukee????

A few quotes from the Mass Department of Conservation and Recreation:

Quabbin Reservoir is one of the largest man-made public water supplies in the United States. Created in the 1930s by the construction of two huge earthen dams

Things to know before you go
The primary purpose of DCR water and surrounding lands is drinking water supply. Public access, therefore, is carefully regulated and controlled to protect over 2 million people’s source of drinking water. State regulations require all entry and exit through gates or other designated areas only. Anything that could pollute the water supply system, such as litter or refuse of any sort, is prohibited. Please observe restrictions on recreational activities. Direct water contact activities, such as swimming and wading, are strictly prohibited by regulation.

Outboard motors shall have a rating of not more than one-half the BIA or OBC rated horsepower for the boat and shall not exceed 20 horsepower, except that outboard motors for Commission boats less than fourteen 14 feet six inches in length shall not exceed ten horsepower

Source- http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/quabbin.htm

So tell me Bear Islander, is this a solid comparison to Lake Winnepesaukee? A basically uninhabited man-made body of water that does not have the depth that Winnipesaukee does and has a sole purpose of being a public water supply? Get over yourself...Who is misdirecting or in denial now???

codeman671

03-14-2008, 04:59 PM

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/03/lawmakers-put-the-brakes-on-boats/

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

Dave R

03-14-2008, 05:24 PM

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!

I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

The Long Lake Accident cannot happen here because half the people involved were killed and one of the boats was destroyed. Talk about silly arguments! It was already against the law to collide with another boat, to operate under the influence, and to operate at night without lights, and those laws did not help.

I thought one of the purposes of the speed limit was to increase traffic on the lake through tourism. Isn't that why some businesses support the limit?

hazelnut

03-14-2008, 05:43 PM

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!
hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

WE need the clue???? Ummmm yeah. Runabouts, Speedboats, and the like are NOT NOT NOT the offenders. If you want to champion a pollution effort start with 2-strokes and jet skis. If you want to champion an erosion campaign start with the cruisers. If we had a lake that banned 2-strokes and cruisers THEN and only THEN could talk less pollution and erosion. Getting rid of a FEW speed boats will have a little to no impact.... Here's a $20 keep the change.

My new nickname for Bear Islander is: "The King of Misinformation" a moniker that is well deserved.

Cal

03-14-2008, 06:42 PM

I'm getting so discusted with this ,I hope you get your speed limit and every "go fast" goes somewhere else and now that YOUR lake is so safe , for every "go fast" that leaves you get 10 more Captain Boneheads in their 18' smokey , oil dripping two cycle bow riders to add to the congestion and idiocy of weekends on the lake.
I will personally laugh my azz off because you just shot yourself in your foot:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Airwaves

03-14-2008, 06:58 PM

Bear Islander

03-14-2008, 08:58 PM

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

Way back in 1973 the director of a New Hampshire children's camp had a problem on his lake. He petitioned the state for help, and eventually a speed limit was set on that lake.

You and I discussed this earlier in this same thread. That was the "decades" I was referring to in my post. Sorry if I made it to obscure. For the evidence you seek go back and read your own post!

I guess we are in the "let's pick apart every little thing he says mode" now.

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

hazelnut - As I keep reminding people, I have always wanted to get ride of the big cruisers. I hope they ARE next. I am confident that the lake will have a horsepower limit eventually. The new two strokes are much better than the old ones. They have to be to meet the new federal standards.

I am in favor of a ban on two strokes on the lake, that will be a hard one to sell however. It will come eventually, it will have to. The lakes gas guzzling, gas in the water, oil in the bilge days are numbered.

Acres per Second

03-14-2008, 09:10 PM

"...A bad day for the boat owner really isn't my concern in this debate..."
How about three bad days for extreme boating?

For 2002, 2003, and 2004, we were experiencing serial crashes of ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee. :(

Lakegeezer

03-14-2008, 09:25 PM

I am in favor of a ban on two strokes on the lake, that will be a hard one to sell however. It will come eventually, it will have to. The lakes gas guzzling, gas in the water, oil in the bilge days are numbered.Can't wait for those nuke engines to appear. No emissions, plenty of horsepower. Powered by powdered granite. :laugh:

fatlazyless

03-14-2008, 10:19 PM

Just checked the status of HB847, and nothing new happening since it passed the House on January 31. Did, however, notice that one of the House sponsors who is on the Transportation Committee is Sid "Live Free & Lovett" Lovett, a Democrat from Holderness.

Guess what? Holderness is the home town of Squam Lake. Looks like the movie 'On Golden Pond' could be coming to a Big Lake near you, sometime soon! :D

I have no clue, but it would be interesting to know if he lives right on Squam Lake? The Squamies are coming, the Squamies are coming....,it's like a Squamie plague with no jetskis, no houseboats, and Squam's 40/20 speed limit. Hey now, there's a 5mph concession....how 'bout that?

codeman671

03-14-2008, 10:47 PM

I guess we are in the "let's pick apart every little thing he says mode" now.

And how 'bout that Quabbin...??? I'd still love to hear your thoughts on how the two lakes are similar. Do you propose a 10hp limit? How about no swimming, skinny dipping (or chunky dunking it if is the case), or playing at the beach?

Getting back to one of our previous conversations, I had no issue with you comparing Long Lake in proximity and in relation. A drunk driver is a drunk driver, there was one on Long Lake and people died. There was one here and an individual died. I doubt the outcome would have been different if other types of boats were involved. You don't have to be doing 60mph+ to crush a 14' boat or kill someone seated in the back of a 22' boat . And one of those incidents did not involve excess speed for the conditions.

I fail to see the logic however when comparing isolated incidents in other parts of the country as some love to point out. Accidents can happen anywhere, and for the overwhelming odds (including here) speed is not the major contributing factor. As far as snowmobiling, cars, etc more people die every year in these other vehicles than in boats. Speed lmits are not saving those people. What is taking their lives is drinking and driving, inexperience, etc.. Sure, limiting speed at some level can save lives, but when the incidents that people claim are the causes are actually provoked by large amounts of alcohol a speed limit didn't save anyone.

Bear Islander

03-14-2008, 11:33 PM

hazelnut

03-15-2008, 12:50 AM

Quabbin and Winnipesaukee both provide drinking water for thousands of people. That is the relevant similarity. The relative numbers of people drinking the water doesn't matter.

Winnipesaukee is still in the pristine range, but the quality is dropping. When the water quality drops below pristine you will see some drastic changes. There will be calls for severe restrictions and they will pass in a walk. With respect to boats we are in what will be called the good old days. Every year anti pollution laws, codes and standards are increasing in this country. It is happening everywhere. If you think Winnipesaukee is immune you are in fantasy land.

Do you really think there will be 1500HP boats on this lake in twenty years. Not a chance. Try 100HP or less, that is my guess.

I don't think we will have nuke boating, but electric is a definite possibility.

Sure we may have electric boats or Nuke boats or whatever boats. I would WELCOME any new innovative idea that would lessen pollution. However, I could care less if said new style electronucleo boat does 75MPH as long as it is clean burning. Speed Limit does not solve a pollution problem. Who knows with new technology we may be whizzing around on 100MPH electric boats. Whooooopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Rattlesnake Guy

03-15-2008, 12:57 AM

Dave R

03-15-2008, 08:19 AM

Winnipesaukee is still in the pristine range, but the quality is dropping. When the water quality drops below pristine you will see some drastic changes. There will be calls for severe restrictions and they will pass in a walk. With respect to boats we are in what will be called the good old days. Every year anti pollution laws, codes and standards are increasing in this country. It is happening everywhere. If you think Winnipesaukee is immune you are in fantasy land.

Where's your water quality data? How do you know the quality is dropping? I have been unable to find anything newer than the 2005 UNH student project that drew its biggest conclusions from 1986 to 1999 data.

WeirsBeachBoater

03-15-2008, 08:42 AM

I have an idea to help the alleged pollution problem! I think I will get together a group, called the WMA, Winni Mainlanders Association. Petition the legislature to take all island property by eminent domain. That will instantly clean up the water quality by taking hundreds of boats off the lake, stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake. Now look what you have done, I am starting to make as much sense as FLL or BI.... Geez:laugh:

fatlazyless

03-15-2008, 08:59 AM

What we need is something that can roam the lake in tiny numbers that have a high perceived danger but have little actual risk of hurting anyone to scare the 1000s of potential polluters away. If we could just think of something.:rolleye2:

Hey there Rattlesnake Guy, yes it's true that rattlesnakes are pretty decent swimmers. They have to be, just to writher out to their island. Plus, they could supply the bike week venders with the raw material for custom biker boots, and belts........another win-win!

Bear Islander

03-15-2008, 09:20 AM

... take all island property by eminent domain..... .....stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake....

What makes you think failed septic systems are only an island problem? I suspect islanders are more aware and more diligent than mainlanders about this problem.

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

hazelnut

03-15-2008, 11:01 AM

Cal

03-15-2008, 11:53 AM

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

RLW

03-15-2008, 12:13 PM

Lt. Dunleavy may break a record for the most replies on one thread

I don't believe it. As in all threads, everyone has a tendency to go off subject like myself answering this quote.:)

Bear Islander

03-15-2008, 03:58 PM

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

You might not have posted that if you had ever seen me drive my Seadoo. I love speed, next year I will be going Mach 4 as I leave the atmosphere.

Pollution is not my first concern, nor is speed. The direction the lake is going in is my first concern. It's all about bigger, faster, louder and get those kayaks out of my way. The opposition has actually suggested that children's camps may need to hire Marine Patrol details to protect their boats. Talk about clueless!!!

As with all things in life there are limits. How big is to big for this lake? How fast is to fast? Are there places that kayaks and canoes should not go?

Next summer visit a children's camp on Winnipesaukee for a day. Talk to the director and waterfront staff. I think you will find a new perspective.

Rattlesnake Guy

03-15-2008, 04:10 PM

Les,
Glad to see my suggestion was to subtle for you.

fatlazyless

03-15-2008, 07:12 PM

Here's an advance preview of what I'm gonna say when HB847 passes the senate.

Well golleeeee....I'm speechless....I don't know what to say, so why don't I just say,

sometimes you win,

& sometimes YOU LOSE!

::banana::cheers::cheers::banana:

Hey, if you like the lake at 75mph, you'll like it ten times better at 45mph,
so just slow down & look at the view,
& use less gasoline, understand!

Going 45mph is a wicked fast speed for most normal boats.

This has been a public service message brought to you from your local mental health rehabilitation center! ..b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b...:D

Bear Islander

03-15-2008, 10:46 PM

There is a saying in sports .... get cocky, get stuffed!

And something about waiting for a fat lady to sing or a Governor to sign the legislation.

Dave R

03-16-2008, 08:36 AM

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

Have you seen the water quality results for the last 5 years?

I do see what you mean by ever increasing restrictions, but we both know it's never been about pollution.

BTW, in that thread, it was determined that I can legally take my boat on Squam, I just can't take a porta-potti and a bed at the same time.

Airwaves

03-16-2008, 02:57 PM

As I bring your attention to post #277 written by AL, Skipper of the Sea Que an my response at #289, both on page 3 of this thread, there is another search underway for a missing snowmobiler (http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=82953)

Bear Islander

03-17-2008, 08:36 AM

Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster.

So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter?

Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

I do not speak for WinnFABS, but I will point out that the "B" in WinnFABS stands for "boating". I must assume that is why they are not involved in snowmobile legislation.

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)

Gilligan

03-18-2008, 07:55 AM

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)
Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

Bear Islander

03-18-2008, 10:56 AM

Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.

If we assume statistics show automobiles cause more deaths than trains, planes or snowmobiles. Then by your logic, we should stop all efforts to make trains, planes and snowmobiles safer. Once we have automobiles nice and safe we can start work on one of the others.

Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but your methodology is idiotic. There is no logical or particle reason why all safety efforts can not proceed in parallel. There is NOTHING whatsoever about the speed limit movement that is stopping snowmobile safety efforts or even slowing them down.

The WinnFASS idea is not really a joke. It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.

At least I, and others that support speed limits, are trying to do something positive. You may believe that we are misdirected, but at least we are not sitting on our fat asses and whining about snowmobile dangers not being addressed by WinnFABS!

If you think snowmobile dangers on the lake need to be addressed then put down the remote control and stand up and do something about it. Feel free to hit me up for a small donation.

Airwaves

03-18-2008, 02:20 PM

BI wrote in part:
It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.
And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

fatlazyless

03-19-2008, 01:58 PM

Just checked the quik bill search at the NH Senate and after passing the house on 1/31, it now shows 3/13: "Introduced and Referred to Transportation and Interstate Cooperation."

On March 16, 2006, hb162 was drowned in the senate by a vote of 15-9.

Wonder what it will be this year, and when it will occur? The legislature is in session today and tomorrow, but I have no clue as to when hb847 will splash across the senate floor?

Reminds me of a saying from the back of a marina forklift: If you want to go splash,
you best have the cash!

After that hb847 gets passed, I wanna see a NH Marine Trades Assoc bumper sticker that says: We have the cash, so where's our splash? :D

Evenstar

03-19-2008, 03:27 PM

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.
I've posted this several times, but have been pretty much ignored every time: The absense of boat fatalities and collisions is NOT proof that the lake is save. What about close calls?

There are no statistics on close calls, but that doesn't mean they are not happening. In fact it has been my personal experience that they happen rather often.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.
I've shown why that study was not even a valid study. They basically did everything wrong; in fact that study was so flawed that it could be used for an example of all the things not to do, when you are attempting to do a valid study.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?
I'm actually in favor of having lake speed limits apply to snowmobiles.

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!
My goal is to make NH lakes safer, period. The original bill was for all NH lakes, and that's still my goal. I honestly feel that a speed limit is a good way to make any lake safer. It's not the only way, but it is part of the overall solution.

Bear Islander

03-19-2008, 08:44 PM

BI wrote in part:

And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

Any "reasonable" person can understand that what happens on the ice in winter has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with HB847. It's just misdirection and denial.

Plus safety is not an absolute. There is no such thing as a "safe" lake. Safety is relative, and speed limits will make it safer.

Your restrictions that only certain accidents count, and only if the speed can be absolutely determined, and only if it happened boat to boat etc. etc. are silly, more denial. Winnipesaukee does not have an invisible safety shield that protects it from serious accidents. The Coast Guard considers speed to be one of the primary causes of boat accidents. They don't recognize any exception for this lake.

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

codeman671

03-19-2008, 09:11 PM

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

It has been answered in the past. I have answered it prior to. It can happen here. It can happen here with or without a speed limit!!!

A speed limit will not stop a drunken driver from speeding. If he is smashed and wants to drive, I don't think a speed limit will deter him from cranking it up. We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake, we have also seen that you don't have to do over 30mph to kill someone here. If a person gets hammered and gets behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, so what makes you think that a speed limit will curb their behavior???

If you want to stop the deaths, stop the drunks. Why have MP hang out just around the corner from the Meredith docks watching people come out of the NWZ? Why not have them at the dock watching people get in their boats. Why don't local police put some focus on policing at the docks as well? We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats.

How about spot checks leaving the Naswa? Stop the drunks and lives will be saved.

hazelnut

03-19-2008, 09:45 PM

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

Airwaves

03-19-2008, 09:54 PM

BI wrote:
You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

So reality doesn't matter, what matters is you get a type of boat you don't like off the public waterway.

My point about what happens on the ice that is being ignored by your crowd while you wage a crusade against Hi Performance boats with a solution in search of is to feature the statement you just made. SAFETY IS NOT THE ISSUE even though it says so in the acronym WinnFABS, Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating SAFETY.

Thanks

Bear Islander

03-20-2008, 01:17 AM

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

Safety is an issue, it's not the only issue. Even if you could do the impossible and make the lake completely safe, that does not solve all the problems. We have talked about pollution and overcrowding. That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.

A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake. We are talking about a crowded limited resource. There are limits, and we have reached them. How big is to big? How fast is to fast? My answer is that 90 MPH is way to fast for this lake. That the big cruisers are to big for this lake.

And again the biggest problem is the direction the lake is going in. I will bet the average boats horsepower has risen steadily for decades. I am guilty of this as well. I started power boating in the 60's with a 2.5 HP. Since then every boat I have had has been considerably more horsepower than the one before it. We need to start going in the OTHER direction.

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Skipper of the Sea Que

03-20-2008, 06:11 AM

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Airwaves and all (and al too :laugh:) hear a lot more than you think.
Many are questioning the reasoning that more speed limits should be the next step (and a necessary step) in making things better.

Many folks are concerned about the ITEMS quoted above. Speaking for myself, I just do not think speed limits are the solution.

Overcrowding and sharing a public resource. Yep, on a nice summer weekend it is crowded. Lets say you want to take your family or group on a boat trip from Meredith to Alton Bay to get ice cream across from the public dock. Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph? I imagine the 60 mph boat will use HALF as much lake time as the slower boat. That would ease boating overcrowding but not the crowds waiting for public dock space. Then we could argue about boating use by time (a 3 hour tour) or by destination (A specific trip from point A to point B and maybe C). However, either way, speed limits will not help this overcrowding.

Noise should not be addressed by speed limits. Fishing boats at 6 AM make too much noise for me while I'm trying to sleep. The remedy was closing the near by launch ramp until 8:30 or 9 AM. Noise limits and enforcement, not speed limits will help with noise.

Kayaks are being pushed off the lake you say. Fix it with speed limits. Heck, my wife doesn't want to go out mid day on a busy summer weekend in our 24 footer because there are too many boats and to many wakes, not because of their speed. My kids (now 22 and 18) love a crowded lake ride. But, If my wife wants a boat ride we go before 10 AM. Or we will go out later in the day. Or go out during the weekdays. She loves a sunset cruise and it's not crowded. Timing our boating, not speed limits is our answer. No one kind of craft is being pushed off the lake by speeding boats. Overcrowding is not just an alleged problem for kayaks. The same with alleged fear.

Wouldn't the false sense of security brought about by speed limits bring MORE boats to the lake. Not GFBLs but more trailered boats from out of the area. Increasing crowding and decreasing safety.

How do people know about the current rules of the lake? How do they know about the 150 foot rule and other lake or NH specific rules? Is it posted at all launch ramps? Nope. On billboards? How do tourists find out about these rules? Too many don't. But they have Boater Safety Certificates - sure, but NH has made it so that it is easier to get an acceptable on-line certificate from another state with NO testing on NH specific rules, like the 150' rule. Speed limits gonna fix that too? Nope. If visitors and some regulars don't know about the 150' rule how will they learn about any new speed limits?

We are listening but do not agree with all that we hear. However, this is the USA and you have every right to be wrong :).

hazelnut

03-20-2008, 07:44 AM

...Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over...

Well said and I do believe in your sincerity. I also agree with you on a few points. YES the lake is getting too crowded. Water Quality is a major concern. Safety, noise, fear all good points. We just totally and completely disagree on a solution that will actually work. I slide more towards the right on this issue. Making laws as a "lets throw this against the wall and see if it works" approach is a horrible way to govern.
My fear is this law will pass and the powers that be will pat themselves on the back and say "well we did our job, the people wanted a safer lake and we delivered." The reality is the lake will be no safer and none of the issues you mentioned above will be addressed. Where does that leave us? Will the lawmakers undertake real measures to address the concerns or will they be fed up with "Lake Winni" talk and table any discussion addressing real concerns. Especially when it will cost money to enact the measures such as increased patrol and enforcement. I believe you have even said yourself that they won't throw any more money into any initiatives involving policing the lake. So instead this blanket arbitrary 45MPH speed limit gets thrown in the books as a safety solution and as a solution to the problems you listed? It just will not work! It also sets us back several years in terms of addressing the real problems and that is a fact.

Bear Islander

03-20-2008, 08:01 AM

Gilligan

03-20-2008, 08:21 AM

Airways, Hazelnut, Skipper of Sea Que, and a few others have excellent posts. While speed limit advocates are changing their tune and grasping at straws.

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.
Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but your methodology is idiotic. There is no logical or particle reason why all safety efforts can not proceed in parallel. There is NOTHING whatsoever about the speed limit movement that is stopping snowmobile safety efforts or even slowing them down.

I never said stop everything. My methods are not idiotic. I am pointing out that the number of deaths by snowmobile far and away exceeds death by boat. IMO that may be more of a concern than speed limits. We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. Safety efforts can work in parallel. Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?

At least I, and others that support speed limits, are trying to do something positive. You may believe that we are misdirected, but at least we are not sitting on our fat asses and whining about snomobile dangers not being addressed by WinnFABS!

I applaud you for not sitting on your fat behind and whining about snowmobile dangers. Who is continually whining about boat speed limits?

If you think snowmobile dangers on the lake need to be addressed then put down the remote control and stand up and do something about it. Feel free to hit me up for a small donation.

I am not on a crusade. I never said stop trying to make the Lake safer. I care about safety for all and that includes boaters and snowmobile riders and everyone. I disagree with you and Evenstar about the need for speed limits and the results that speed limits will bring about.

My methods are not idiotic. We should prioritize resources relative to danger and importance. Put more money into AIDS research than you use for finding a cure for hangnails. The method is the degree of relevance. We don't stop one in favor of another. We look at what needs to be done and adjust our effort accordingly. Research cures for cancer and AIDS and CP and other major problems at the same time. You put quite a spin on my comments.

Bear Islander

03-20-2008, 08:37 AM

...We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. ... ....Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?....

There is a Winter Sports Forum and almost every thread is about snowmobiles. There is a speed limit for snowmobiles, but for some reason it does not apply on lake ice.

hazelnut

Using a radar gun now and then, that they already own, will not break the MP budget.

Acres per Second

03-20-2008, 08:53 AM

"...Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph...?"
You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. :( On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.

"...A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake..."
How many acres-per-second is that? :D

"...BI wrote in part:
Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe...!"

Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs (http://freebies.about.com/b/2004/02/16/discover-boating-dvd-free-cd-roms-and-dvds.htm)to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

"...It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years..."

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

"...It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years..."

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three? :confused:

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

"...It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit..."

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test? :(

"...It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate..."
For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

"...It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter? These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period...!

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

"...We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats..."
You previously asked about a compromise? :confused:

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them.... :rolleye1:

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

fatlazyless

03-20-2008, 08:56 AM

As for the reason why the 45mph land speed limit does not apply to snowmobiles when on a frozen lake surface? It probably has something to do with the same legislative reasons why a three seat jetski is legally a boat.

Now, if the motorboat speed limits soon gets passed, is it likely that it will be rescinded if the Republicans regain a majority in the legislature? It's an interesting question. Senator Joe Kenney is a Republican, and supports the boat speed limits, and he could well be the Republican candidate to oppose Gov Lynch in November.

SIKSUKR

03-20-2008, 09:42 AM

That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.
One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

I will bet the average boats horsepower has risen steadily for decades. I am guilty of this as well. I started power boating in the 60's with a 2.5 HP. Since then every boat I have had has been considerably more horsepower than the one before it. We need to start going in the OTHER direction.
This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

codeman671

03-20-2008, 10:35 AM

This has got to be the most hypocritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right? Can you say AL GORE? You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

True, and what kind of pollution will a rocket joy ride into space introduce into the atmosphere? How much pollution does a plane bring pleasure hikers to the Poles put into the air? Pretty hypocritical to claim pollution here when one does extra-curricular activities elsewhere that are just as damaging.

Go ahead, put the HP limit in place. Everyone that wants a large cruiser can just buy an older, more polluting one and continue to use the lake to get by your model year limit. The newer the technology, the cleaner the burn.

Evenstar

03-20-2008, 10:55 AM

One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

That's totally untrue!

How could you possibly know my reason for joining this forum? You really should get your "facts" straight before posting criticism about me or my posts.

The truth is that I joined this forum to learn more about Winni, as I was planning to kayak on the lake. Here's my first post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15021#post15021). My "coming here" really had nothing at all to do with the speed limit bill, although I've always been in favor of a speed limit on ALL NH lakes. The truth is that I didn't even "hear" about this debate until after I had joined this forum.

I have been totally honest here and have never once misrepresented my experience or my time on the lake. I never once implied that I had kayaked on Winni, before I actually did. In fact I posted several times that I had not yet paddled on Winni.

I've only kayaked on Winni a few years, and not nearly as much as I would have liked too - mainly because my best friend doesn't feel very safe on a lake where we have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled there. That's a fact.

If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers? Here are some more facts:

You see way more kayaks and canoes on Squam, and on all the other large lakes in NH. This is especially true for sea kayakers . . . who tend to be the most experienced paddlers. I have never seen more than a couple of sea kayaks on Winni on any given day - yet I have never been on Squam without seeing dozens of sea kayaks. Why is that?

I’m on several paddling forums – No one has EVER recommended Winni as a good place to kayak, in fact the opposite is true - I've been told that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on.

Winni isn’t even in AMC’s book on places to kayak in NH. And at the Sea Kayaking in NH website, Winni was never even mentioned.

It's also a fact that many of my paddling friends will not join me on Winni, "because of the high speeds that boats go on that lake" (their words, not mine). And some of those people used to paddle there regularly. So several people I know personally have actually been driven off the lake due to the high speeds of the powerboats.

That's the honest truth, whether you believe it or not.

hazelnut

03-20-2008, 11:05 AM

....Finally, something concrete to enforce.

As opposed to the 150foot law?

Bear Islander you claim that only wind powered vessels and Kayaks will be drawn to a safer lake but NOT the thousands of runabout owners who will feel "safer." Sorry my friend you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you agree that Winni will be a draw for the wind and paddle crowd you have to allow for the possibility that Winni will become more attractive to the family trailered runabout crowd. To deny that is disingenuous at best. IMHO I'd rather have the comparatively small crowd of GFBL's than the onslaught of small runabouts trailered to the lake each day. At least most of the GFBL crowd has a stake in the lake being that they probably own real estate on or around the lake. I'd rather not attract the transient crowd who might not care what shape they leave the lake in when they leave.

P.S. I don't include the wind and paddle crowd in that comment, as they usually respect mother nature.

fatlazyless

03-20-2008, 11:31 AM

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

And, on the brite side for all the go fast- be louds, HB847 does not take effect till January 1, 2009, as it is now written. So, that gives you one last summer to cruise at 65mph or more. And hey, if the Repubs regain their NH majority in Nov '08, probably the speed limits will get drowned again.

I can hear Republican Senior Political Advisor, Gene Chandler (R) Bartlett speaking from the house podium: "In memory of the late you-know-who, let's kill this whacky HB847 and steer NH away from the NANNY STATE." Full speed ahead & let's go back to the good old days.

As that well known English jet-skier, Lord Byron, said back in 1888, "all power corrupts, and all power corrupts," absolutely, or something, or something! :D

codeman671

03-20-2008, 11:54 AM

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

Not at all, I have no reason to be nervous. I have no vested interest in the outcome either way. I don't own a boat that goes over 55mph, my average top speed that I run is 45-50mph. Honestly, I could care less. What I don't want is another useless unenforced law that people are claiming to be necessary. One that was pushed through due to lies, misinterpretations, misinformation, deception, etc.

When pollution is brought up as an overall point to push for a speed limit I feel the need to point out other activities that are just as polluting. Finely tuned GFBL's are going to burn more efficiently than an older 2 stroke, a family cruiser, etc. Fire up your old aluminum boat and watch the oil slick in the water...

hazelnut

03-20-2008, 12:13 PM

And there it is Codeman. Plainly stated you do not even own a GFBL and neither do I. As a matter of fact I can emphatically state that I will NEVER own one. I think they are one dimensional and I have no use for them as I have children and they do not make good family boats. I stand to lose absolutely NOTHING with the passage of this law.

FLL you are missing the point big time. This is not a personal issue. Obviously it is to you as you have shown with your immature childish posts with the we win you lose happy dancing banana gimmick. If that isn't inflammatory in nature I don't know what is Don? I digress. Anyway, FLL there are some individuals in this country, like it or not, that disagree with the passage of laws based on a problem that is non existent. This law addresses Speed. The problems of the lake are not speed. They are in no particular order overcrowding, safety, pollution, ignorance to name a few. The Speed Limit does not address these concerns. With the passage of this law we are only delaying any potential we may have had to actually address the issues concerning Lake Winnipesaukee. You will se no measurable change in the areas of concern after this law passes. Sorry!

Bear Islander

03-20-2008, 12:39 PM

..This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

I purchased my current boat many years ago.

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward. I also believed there were WMD's in Iraq!

My share of the fuel to get me to space or Antarctica is less than a 1,800 horsepower GFBL cruising the lake for a weekend.

KonaChick

03-20-2008, 12:41 PM

With the economy the way it is and appears to be heading plus the cost of gas, maybe the overcrowding issue will soon be a non-issue.

brk-lnt

03-20-2008, 03:34 PM

The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

A response for the prosecution:

1) There is no single definition for "too big".
When I bought my boat at Silver Sands, I saw a 53' Carver parked there. While I personally think that 53' is too big (or, more accurately somewhat pointless) for this lake, that is only my own opinion. Others might say my 24' cuddy is too big, and still others might think that 75' is plenty comfy.

2) There is no single definition for "too fast".
The best answer is probably a variable speed limit, much like there is not 1 single speed limit that governs all blacktop. 55 MPH is too fast through the Weirs channel, but not too fast for the broads.

3) Who cares? The average everything in the US is in the rise. From drink sizes to houses. HP as applied to boats is sort of interesting. Boats have no variable transmission, the engine shaft rotation to propeller rotation ratio is fixed, as is the propeller pitch (save for some very extreme edge cases). Boats also never have to climb hills, nor do they coast down hills. So, the HP required to move a given hull at a given speed is fairly constant (winds, currents, and weight loading can affect this). Cruiser planing hulls have a maximum speed before they start to chine-walk and become very unstable, there is a very real cutoff point where more HP cannot be effectively utilized. Most operators never operate their boats anywhere near this speed. So, the fact that engine HP may be increasing on average doesn't mean much by itself. You certainly can't draw the conclusion that more HP == more speed. You might be able to draw conclusions of:
a) Boats are getting heavier/larger on average
b) People are buying engines larger than necessary and under-utilizing these engines

You keep tossing these straw-man arguments into the mix, they don't really seem to make a lot of sense. If your concern is overall lake safety and enjoyment, rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems. While there are always cases of people with more money than brains, Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats. The surface area and configuration just do not support those types of vessels in a way that makes them a cost-effective purchase for most people.

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Your position along the lines of "we know a speed limit won't do much, but in lieu of even more laws in others aspects of boating, we'll take whatever additional legislation we can get" really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position. Being that I'm an avid DIYer, the term "use the right tool for the job" comes to mind. You don't try to hammer in nails with a wrench because you don't have a hammer. You go and get a hammer, even if it's more net effort than just using the wrench to do a half-assed job of pounding nails.

You want to make the lake better, safer, more enjoyable? I'd be all for it, if the approach was logical and likely to be effective. Throwing more poorly thought out laws on top of the current stack of un-enforced laws is simply a lazy approach. Fight for a proper solution, or get out of the ring.

brk-lnt

03-20-2008, 03:42 PM

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward.

By "moving forward" are you downgrading your boat to something more in-line with your personal opinion of what is appropriate for the lake?

Bear Islander

03-20-2008, 06:52 PM

...rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems....

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

... really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position...

I'm not looking for credibility or sympathy. I give my honest opinion no matter which side it favors. Truth told to reasonable people brings it's own credibility.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

brk-lnt

03-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

In theory, if the 150' rule were either enforced or followed along with no wake zones being enforced/followed, 99% of what you claim to be the "upside" to the speed limit law (safety, land erosion, etc.) would be met by currently existing laws.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

I never said they didn't exist, just that this lake is not generally attractive to those kinds of boats, you can't get "full" enjoyment from them. Refer to my money/brains caveat in my original post, some people will still bring their big toys to the kiddie pool, but as a percentage of the overall boats on the lake, performance boats and large cruisers are an overall minority.

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

You have produced arguments and data that further convince yourselves. You haven't offered logical support of your arguments. This is of course becoming a circular issue, so it's probably not a rat-hole worth going down.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

And I suppose I'm not posting here to try to convince the prosecution to see the fallacy of their arguments.

Airwaves

03-20-2008, 07:11 PM

Let me take this opportunity to clarify a few points.
First:
BI wrote:
Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Every one of those points you touched on is true and needs to be addressed, except one, I do not own or operate a boat that will exceed 45 MPH! If you look at the thread asking about gasoline tank size you would realize this.

Evenstar wrote:
If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers?
Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

APS wrote:
Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?
Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country!

As for the push for the use of PFD's, as a member of the Coast Guard family I can tell you it has nothing to do with speed but everything to do with saving lives. Even as we tow a disabled boat to shore we require all POB, persons on board, to wear a life jacket during the tow, as we require all Coast Guard personel to wear life jackets at all times while underway. Nope, not speed just trying to prevent the loss of life when someone falls overboard.

Bottom line:

Your side has admitted that boating safety is not an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee when it comes to speed. 99-point-1 percent of boaters clocked by radar last summer were traveling at speeds under your limit.

Did you feel safer?

I commend you and WinnFabs for bringing the issue to a debate and causing a close look at what is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee. However you went wrong when it was shown that the problems on the lake had to do with the violation of existing rules, such as safe passage and lack of enforcement, not excessive speed.

What WinnFabs and their supporters should have done at that point, that would have had the support of nearly all of us, is to refocus the effort to lobby for more Marine Patrol personnel and enforcement of existing laws.

You (collectively) didn't do that and it sparked this unnecessary fight.

Now that New Hampshire is facing a $50,000,000 deficit over the next couple of years I hope that you will work with your opponents to look for solutions, not unfunded mandates for the Marine Patrol.

I am always willing to talk, PM me with ideas.
AW

Mee-n-Mac

03-20-2008, 07:49 PM

You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. :( On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.
How many acres-per-second is that? :D

Aaah the ole foolishness of the fast boat "using up" more of the lake. To answer the above question directly, it's 60 times less than would be "used up" in a minute. Or 3600 times less than would be "used up" in an hour. Why not ApM or ApH, they're as equally meaningless as ApS and could "boast" bigger numbers to boot ! (a favorite tactic of yours)

Last I checked the lake was still there after the "fast" boat used it. When I'm waiting for the boat with the RoW to pass, I'd rather it be faster rather than slower so I wait less. When I have the RoW, the faster I'm moving the less the other guy has to wait. This is simple enough for most to grasp. The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving. I can't use their lake space at all. At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses.

Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the above conclusion. The USCG stats show a declining to flat fatality rate, and accident rate, the last decade. Doesn't sound like it's getting more dangerous to me. Then again these stats include some ocean water so perhaps you're trying to indicate that the safe waters of the oceans are masking the unsafe inland waters ???

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs (http://freebies.about.com/b/2004/02/16/discover-boating-dvd-free-cd-roms-and-dvds.htm)to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

That's in your opinion of course. Mine my say it's more to do with flat or decling boat sales. And since you're retired you probably don't understand why someone who's in the working world these days might not either have the free time nor free $$s to spend on a new boat. Here's a question ... what do you think PWC sales vs those of conventional boats ?

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

And how many would have been changed by a speed limit ? Nobody knows ! (but I could guess, and say very little)

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three? :confused:

Wow, just think of all the extra time he would have served for violating, by 3 mph, a speed limit. The mind boggles ! :rolleye1:

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

Or perhaps by going 1 mph slower he might have parked his boat on top of the Hartman's and sunk it and drowned them all. Perhaps if he had been going 10 mph faster his course would have passed in front of the Hartman's and missed them entirely. But by all means please do bring up this incident as something to do with speed limits, I'd love another opportunity to show just how silly that line of reasoning is ! :coolsm:

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test? :(

I would. You have suspiscions, now back them up with evidence. It's what we would call science.

For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

No disagreement on those.

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

You previously asked about a compromise? :confused:

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them.... :rolleye1:

No doubt you'll find crashes related to fast speeds. So what ? (see more below)

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

Funny, I keep hearing about it not needing enforcement .... :rolleye2: But so what, they could feel just as good and have just concrete a law with limits of 35/10 or 55/35. What makes any of these (or some other numbers) correct ?

Silver Duck

03-20-2008, 08:05 PM

I average about 150 hours per season, mostly on weekends, visiting all areas of the lake.

I can think of only three areas that feel overcrowded, i.e., the "slot" between Bear Island and Meredith Neck :eek:, the area between Eagle Island and the Weirs :eek: :eek:, and, sometimes, portions of Winter Harbor.

Now, if WinnFabs wants to push for a speed limit there, I'm aboard big time! In fact, headway speed as a limit seems about right to me :D (though it may be a major PITA for island folks heading out of Sheps and Handy Landing.)

But, honestly, to me it's seemed that over the last two seasons, at most times most areas of the lake have born a distinct resemblance to those "Where is everybody?" :confused: Virgin Atlantic commercials. My wife and I have often remarked on that subject.

Silver Duck

Mee-n-Mac

03-20-2008, 08:08 PM

Skipper

Speed limits are not the best solution to ALL of these problems. That would be a horsepower limit. However speed limits will IMPROVE all those things.

Other lakes that have enacted speed limits report improved conditions. The same will happen on Winnipesaukee. Your argument that speed limits will bring more power boats, confusion and congestion is ridiculous on it's face and contrary to experience.

It's not Skipper's argument though. It's the one brought up by various supporters, that small and normal boats, not just human powered craft, are too scared to be on the lake. Presumably if the fear factor is removed then "they will come". I tend to doubt this but that's their argument.

Speed limits will bring more "boats", but they will be of the human or wind powered kind.

And this is preferable ... why ?

FWIW : I doubt the above.

The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

I'll answer them if you do.
1) Don't really know but I do know that the size won't be affected at all by a speed limit. Cruisers aren't fast.
2) As stated before it depends on where and when and the conditions but as an upper limit .... 100 mph.
3) Yes, who cares.

Evenstar

03-21-2008, 12:19 PM

Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

There are many facts that support a speedlimit, but most of the anti-limit crowd just dismiss them as non-facts, exagerations, or non-issues

My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni. So our views are based on our actual experiences on the lake, not on any "fear mongering".

The same is true with other people who I have talked with. Most of my paddling friends as sea-kayakers, which is not a timid group, but are rather had-core paddlers. Most of their views are based on their own experiences on the lake. Sea kayakers are not that easily scared.

I know a woman who owns a family camp on Winn and she decided to open up a kayak shop to sell kayaks and to provide tours and instruction. She wanted to run her business from her camp, but ended up opening her store in Lincoln. Her tours and white water instruction is on the Pemi River. She told me that Winni is just too dangerous for that type of business – because of the high speeds that some powerboats travel. This woman is a certified expert kayak instructor, with many years of experience, and she feels that class II and III rapids are safer than kayaking on Winni.

Again, from my own experience, and from what others have told me, close calls between powerboats and paddlers happen rather often. So far we have been really lucky that no one has been killed.

As I’ve point out several times the statistical chance of me being run over by a powerboat increases as the speeds of powerboats on the lake increases. When a mistake happens the consequences of that mistake increase exponentially as speed increases.

The four MP officers that I spoke with personally all want a lake speed limit law - that's also a fact. They see a speed limit as a "necessary" tool.

When compared with our neighboring states NH has the worse boating accident record:
NH has the highest number of boating accidents of all 4 states
NH has 11 times more boating accidents / square mile of inland water than the next highest state. (Source: United States Coast Guard Boating Statistics 2001 – 2005)
NH has the highest number of boating accidents / number of registered boats.

Mee-n-Mac

03-21-2008, 05:13 PM

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, they did nearly everything wrong.

No, not really. The only thing they did that I'd object to is advertise some of the test zones. The data from those areas may be suspect.

I haven’t missed the point at all. Squam, which is the second largest lake in NH, has had a 40mph daytime speed limit for years. From my experience it is fairly well enforced and seems to work well. This is called precedence – having a speed limit on a NH lake is not something new (which is why I never did understand the “need” for a pilot program on Winni).

You missed my point. Go back and read my 2 posts on this matter. What makes the limits (45/25) chosen for Winni, or those on Squam, the "safe" ones ? Where's your science to back up those numbers ?

You would never be able to ban kayaks from the lake. Kayaking is one of the fastest growing recreational sports in America and NH’s economy depends on recreation. According to the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium study (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2006/341%20papers/warnick341.pdf), from 1993 to 2003 kayaking experienced (by far) the fastest growth of any water-based recreation activity in the Northeast. Over this 10-year period, kayak use grew by 16.0% (power boating only grew by 2.3%). And our numbers are still growing. If you actually tried to ban kayaks on Winni, it would just unite us against powerboaters. I really don’t think that you want that.

Again you missed my point. Forget the practicality or legalities, would you think my proposal to be fair ? If not, why not ?

Now you’re missing the point. The Interstate is designed for high speed and has a minimum speed limit. It was designed for high-speed transportation. Winni is not part of a high-speed transportation network.

Again you missed my point. You present the opinions of some MPs that a speed limit might help catch BUIs and that, because of that, it's a good idea. Try that reasoning out in the car world. If you don't like my example of Rt 93 then try a limit of 15 mph on all other roads. Certainly it would help catch DUIs for exactly the same reasons the analog would help catch BUIs. If you don't like the reasoning in the car world, I don't see how it "works" in the boating world.

Also consider what makes Rt 93 "safe" for "high" (ha) speeds.

Powerboaters have stated that they often have trouble seeing kayaks. I have had way too many close calls from powerboats, because the operator didn’t notice me until they were way too close. Many other paddlers have experienced the same type of close calls.That’s “concrete” enough for me.

Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have.

My point was that a 45 mph speed limit is not an actual “hindrance” to anyone, and that the lake is not a big as many try to make it out to be. I could easily paddle the entire length in an afternoon. There’s less than 2 square miles of the entire lake that is over a mile from a shore.

The difference is that recreation does not pose a threat to anyone’s safety. I kayak and sail on the ocean, so I know that there’s a way more room there than there is on NH’s largest lake. The compromise is that this bill was originally written to include all NH lakes. Now it has been watered down to just cover Winni – and it has a 2-year sunset clause. My side has compromised enough already.

It's more than a hindrance to people who want to boat faster than 45 mph. Up to some limit I don't see that danger to you and other paddlers from anyone paying attention. While there's more room on the ocean, I don't get your reasoning on this point. If you kayak on the ocean aren't you in danger there too ? Aren't you less visible in the large swells typical on the ocean ?

EDIT : As to compromising, why not have certain sections of the lake speed restricted and others not ? Why isn't this a fair compromise ?

Evenstar

03-21-2008, 11:03 PM

No, not really. The only thing they did that I'd object to is advertise some of the test zones. The data from those areas may be suspect.
"May" be suspect? give me a break. There are all sorts of errors in the way that the study was done and in the report itself: The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

On top of that, data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represents the entire study group. And studies of this type are never considered to be viable when members of the test population know about the study (or when the locations of the two main study areas were well known).

Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

So 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as most here seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study).

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

You missed my point. Go back and read my 2 posts on this matter. What makes the limits (45/25) chosen for Winni, or those on Squam, the "safe" ones ? Where's your science to back up those numbers?
No, I didn’t miss your point. My “science” is the logic of precedence - which is based on what has already worked elsewhere. Squam has had a 40/20 mph speed limit for many years, which has been enforced by the very same Marine Patrol. So perhaps this would be a better limit, since it has been used successful on a large NH lake for years.

Again you missed my point. Forget the practicality or legalities, would you think my proposal to be fair? If not, why not?
Look, I didn’t miss any of your points – yet you’re totally missing (or ignoring) most of mine. The problem is that you’re trying to push my answers into your own slant – and I’m not letting you do that.

What would be your justification for banning kayaks from the lake? Especially sea kayaks, which are designed especially for large bodies of water. What harm or danger does a kayaker present to anyone? We make no damaging wakes, do not pollute the water, and are nearly silent on the water. A speed limit does not target any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit targets any type of vehicle.

Again you missed my point. You present the opinions of some MPs that a speed limit might help catch BUIs and that, because of that, it's a good idea.
No, I didn’t. And BUI is just one of many reasons. A lake is a body of water that we use for recreation – Interstate highways are specifically designed for high-speed transportation. Yet even Interstates have speed limits. Allowing unlimited speeds on our lakes makes no sense at all. Most people don’t even realize that our state permits boats to travel on most of our lakes at unlimited speeds, and when they do find out, most are appalled.

Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have.
I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline.

Up to some limit I don't see that danger to you and other paddlers from anyone paying attention. While there's more room on the ocean, I don't get your reasoning on this point. If you kayak on the ocean aren't you in danger there too? Aren't you less visible in the large swells typical on the ocean?
But we’re talking about a lake where high speed boats have actually hit islands – which are a LOT more visible than my kayak. My point is that 40 or 45 mph may very well be that limit. No one is totally attentive 100 percent of the time, and sun, spray, and fatigue all reduce the ability to see a small boat in time. High speeds just increase the danger when there is inattention, or when visibility is at all reduced (or when someone is BUI). You can argue all you want, but that’s a fact.

As far as kayaking on the ocean goes: Swells do not really make a small boat less visible. That’s because 50% of the time I’m on top of the swell – which actually makes me more visible than on flat water – since I’m that many more feet higher. Another thing – swells and large waves tend to slow down most high-speed powerboats.

EDIT : As to compromising, why not have certain sections of the lake speed restricted and others not ? Why isn't this a fair compromise ?
Here's my compromise: Get rid of the amendments that changed this bill from "all NH lakes" to just Lake Winnipesaukee, and added a 2-year sunset clause. Then I'll be willing to discuss your compromise. So far, my side has had to make all the concessions.

Acres per Second

03-22-2008, 07:38 AM

"...I can think of only three areas that feel overcrowded, i.e., the "slot" between Bear Island and Meredith Neck :eek:, the area between Eagle Island and the Weirs :eek: :eek:, and, sometimes, portions of Winter Harbor...But, honestly, to me it's seemed that over the last two seasons, at most times most areas of the lake have born a distinct resemblance to those "Where is everybody?" :confused:
Except for a view years ago from the deck of the Mount Washington, I can't speak to Meredith or Eagle Island's situations; however, I have seen what you described here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2357) to family boating in Winter Harbor.

People are staying away from Winter Harbor and it could be due to the frequent visits by ocean-racers to two Winter Harbor addresses in particular—why those two addresses, I don't know. :confused:

Wake-surfers and overpowered boats towing tubes appear to be adding to Winter Harbor's unfriendly waters as well.

"...The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving...At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses..."
That makes no sense at all.

This little boat may be in your way, but I'd rather be in front of his one acre of "Safe Passage" than the many, many, many acres a Nor-Tech has responsibility for in front of him every second at 130-MPH. (Or a Skater at 140-MPH or jet-boats at 150-MPH.)

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/AndMyBoatIsSoSmall-1.jpg

"...Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country! ..."
Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating :eek:, with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside. :eek: :eek:

"...And since you're retired you probably don't understand why someone who's in the working world these days might not either have the free time nor free $$s to spend on a new boat.
Although all who perish on our waters are rightfully missed, retirees have a right to a full life and fully-enjoyed pensions.

The view from the middle of an unpowered boat—or any boat at anchor—upon the approach of an unproven driver at the wheel of an extreme ocean-racer isn't one of those enjoyments. Giving up weekends to the cowboys is one thing: giving up night travel has become another.

"...Wow, just think of all the extra time he would have served for violating, by 3 mph, a speed limit. The mind boggles ! :rolleye1:
What speed limit could he have observed? There was none.

"...Or perhaps by going 1 mph slower he might have parked his boat on top of the Hartman's and sunk it and drowned them all. Perhaps if he had been going 10 mph faster his course would have passed in front of the Hartman's and missed them entirely..."
Of your two extremes, only by going slower would he have certainly missed the Wellcraft.

He was approaching from their right rear quarter, and overrode the slower boat's rearmost seat. With all involved having much to lose, a speed limit could have changed everything. Sadly, my warning of Winnipesaukee's excessive-speed problem appeared in newsprint on August 9, 2001. (And wasn't taken to heart by August 11, 2001.) Seven years hasn't improved the view from my dock.

"...You have suspiscions, now back them up with evidence. It's what we would call science..."
Having spent an entire career in science, I know good science.

As I previously addressed, much was left to learning-curve, guesswork, and a dismissive attitude towards collected numbers: NHMP only played at becoming scientists.

Airwaves

03-22-2008, 01:23 PM

Evenstar wrote in part:
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni. So our views are based on our actual experiences on the lake, not on any "fear mongering".
Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. As an anecdote let me tell you a quick story that happened to me last week. I was driving down Rt 133 on a dry sunny day, traffic was light, I drove past Avid Technology and there was a traffic cop standing there. He began to give me the signal to slow down. I looked at my speedometer, I was doing 35 MPH, I looked up and the officer was still signalling me to slow down. He was standing in front of a sign that says Speed Limit 40!
Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.
I know a woman who owns a family camp on Winn and she decided to open up a kayak shop to sell kayaks and to provide tours and instruction. She wanted to run her business from her camp, but ended up opening her store in Lincoln. Her tours and white water instruction is on the Pemi River.
I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?
As I’ve point out several times the statistical chance of me being run over by a powerboat increases as the speeds of powerboats on the lake increases.
So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.
The four MP officers that I spoke with personally all want a lake speed limit law - that's also a fact. They see a speed limit as a "necessary" tool.
They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.

There are already two laws on the books in NH that address all the concerns that you have raised:
270-D:2 VI. (a) (the 150' rule) and
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.

Airwaves

03-22-2008, 11:12 PM

Posted by APS:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country! ..."
Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.

Funny how APS takes my response to his quote, but forgets to include the statement he made that I responded to, so let's review shall we? THE ORIGINAL POST BY APS
APS:
Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Then my entire response to APS on that topic:
Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country!

As for the push for the use of PFD's, as a member of the Coast Guard family I can tell you it has nothing to do with speed but everything to do with saving lives. Even as we tow a disabled boat to shore we require all POB, persons on board, to wear a life jacket during the tow, as we require all Coast Guard personel to wear life jackets at all times while underway. Nope, not speed just trying to prevent the loss of life when someone falls overboard.
At that point APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat.
Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.
Did I quote anything from a decade ago? No, but there was a PWC death on Lake Winnipesaukee last year but to the best of my knowledge it had nothing to do with speed or a collision.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).
Golly gee Mr. Wizard, if your business is falling off because of the economy or other factors I guess marketing is out of the question!
Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing.
Of course, that's it! The downturn in boat sales is due to unfriendly boats, BTW as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!
As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.
Just as New Hampshire can't report a speed for the accident in Meredith, that is a bogus argument and you know it. I guess you don't believe in forensic evidence either?
A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating , with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside.
And we come back to an argument that the speed limit folks ignore, but now and again throw up trying to link it to boats on Lake Winnipesaukee that don't exist (ocean racers). A magazine that includes information on "extreme" drinks! Of course! It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right?

Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?

Acres per Second

03-26-2008, 08:33 AM

"...Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?
Well...let's just take a peek inside Extreme Boats magazine....

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/ExtremeBoatsMagazineCover-200x300.jpg

At the Helm - Fall Heatwave Poker Run
Extreme Mail Box - Letters from our readers
Offshore Racing - "War of the Worlds"
Extreme Girls - Nikki
Extreme Drinks - (Featured this month—Champagne) :rolleye1:

"...It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right...?
The number of accidents attributable to high speed will be suppressed when collision speeds are unknown.

"...We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake...If a person gets hammered and gets behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, so what makes you think that a speed limit will curb their behavior???
1) Long Lake has no speed limit—today. Similarly-sized Lake Geneva has a 15-MPH limit at night—easy for a concerned citizen to act with a single cellphone call. (And flashing blue lights can be seen for many miles).

2) NH's "hit-and-run" boating law is an example of a penalty that had never occurred to the Senate before 2001. It was clearly and obviously necessary.

The needed Winnipesaukee speed limit comes with newly-enhanced penalties for the sociopathic risk that brings drugs, alcohol, thrills, and excess speed to Lake Winnipesaukee. At some moment in time, the would-be impaired will learn of this new law and go elsewhere.

"...[concrete]...as opposed to the 150foot law...?"
Speed-recording instruments aid enforcement because it's a "concrete" measure. No instrument exists to scientifically aid the 150-foot rule—a rule unknown to too many visiting certificate holders.

"...The USCG stats show a declining to flat fatality rate, and accident rate, the last decade. Doesn't sound like it's getting more dangerous to me...Then again these stats include some ocean water so perhaps you're trying to indicate that the safe waters of the oceans are masking the unsafe inland waters ???
1) Trends are down primarily due to a decade's-worth of restrictive requirements on Jet-Ski operation.

Jet-Skis were targeted due to underage demographics, pollution, unique noise, unsafe operation, blunt trauma injuries, poor mechanical ergonomics leading to mishaps and too-frequent tragic headlines.

There are hundreds of thousands of US acres where Jet-Skis are not permitted to operate.

2) Ocean? I presently overlook Florida ocean waters with a multitude of overpowered and overweight boats: there's no reason for speed limits where I am because there are thousands of square miles of ocean out there!

(Or noise limitations either, 'cause there are no hills).

"...they could feel just as good and have just concrete a law with limits of 35/10 or 55/35. What makes any of these (or some other numbers) correct ?
Lake Geneva has speed limits: 35/15. One must be careful what one wishes for.

"...APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat..."
Haven't we all been watching a progressive PFD "push" by the CG?

The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway. :(

"...there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!
"Race on Sunday...Sell on Monday"? :confused:

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France? :confused:

And Lastly...How about adding this to the certification test?

Someone asked about an eye test: here's a question of perception for NH's boating certificate test...

Question 45: Tunnel Vision...
These two images are the very same view of Lake Winnipesaukee:

Which view simulates 60-MPH, and which is the view at headway speed?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/WinniComSwimmersTooFarOut3.jpg

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/WinnComSwimmersTooFarOut2-1.jpg

Hottrucks

03-27-2008, 09:38 AM

thought I would pass one what Exteme is

http://www.digitalexcellent.com/kayaking/types-of-extreme-kayaking.php

Airwaves

03-29-2008, 02:28 PM

APS wrote:
The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway.
You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself!
Extreme Drinks - (Featured this month—Champagne)
If you say so :laugh:
The number of accidents attributable to high speed will be suppressed when collision speeds are unknown.
Of course, just like with the Marine Patrol research it doesn't back your point of view so therefor it must be wrong.
APS wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!

"Race on Sunday...Sell on Monday"?

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France?
Yep, Mercedes, Porche on land, Donzi, Formula on sea. All companies that sponsor professional race teams and their professional racing equipment is not "stock" off the showroom like the beginning of "stock" car racing that morfed into NASCAR.

In case you hadn't noticed those NASCAR racers aren't off the showroom floor any longer either!

Evenstar

04-02-2008, 08:37 PM

Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. . . . Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.
I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.

I’ve already posted several times why I have a pretty good idea of what 40 mph looks like on the water. No one’s 100% accurate, but I can tell when a boat is going way faster than 40 mph. Besides, a speed limit is the LIMIT – it doesn’t mean that it is always ok to drive that fast – perhaps that officer had a good reason for telling you to slow down.

I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?
I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.
Read some of my recent posts. I’ve explained all this numerous times before.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

As I’ve pointed out in my previous post (up in #348 in this thread):
1.) data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime hours over just 11 weeks
2.) only a relatively small section of the lake was covered
3.) the two main areas were very well advertised

The Broads was not even included in the study - even though that is the section of the lake where boats generally hit the highest speeds – why was this area of the lake left out of a speed limit study?

I cover a lot more of the lake in any one of my paddles than what those pilot areas covered, and my paddles were not limited to just those 11 weeks. So why is it so difficult to accept that I have at least one close call during 6 to 8 hours of paddling?

They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.
They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.
It’s not “my new law.” The law that I wanted would have covered all NH lakes – and it would have been permanent. I don’t see that enacting a speed limit will add a significant amount to the Marine Patrol budget.

As I’ve pointed out: Squam Lake has had a speed limit for years – which is enforced by the exact same Marine Patrol. If they can enforce it on Squam, they can enforce it on Winni.

Airwaves

04-05-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Evenstar
I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.
And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.

Originally posted by Evenstar
I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.
And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.

Originally posted by Evenstar
Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm
While the Former Commanding Officer of US Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce, CWO Krzenski (C.O. in 2000 not now) did write the above, he also wrote this:
Statistics have repeatedly demonstrated that accidents and deaths are significantly reduced when boating education is increased. Every boater should be encouraged to take a recognized boating safety course. Some boat insurance companies actually provide discounts for completion of these courses. Please call the U.S. Coast Guard's Customer Service Hotline at (800)-368-5647 to determine the location and date that the next boating safety course is offered near you.
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/022599f.htm
Since this is the first year New Hampshire requires the operators of all powerboats to have obtained a safe boating certificate I submit to you that you and the supporters of a “solution in search of a problem” are jumping the gun! Statistics show boating is getting safer and this is the first season that safe boating certificates are required in New Hampshire.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.

Originally posted by Evenstar
They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?
They have the tools now if they want to use them. Yes a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court. If you have to ask what an unsafe speed for the conditions that exist are then you don’t belong on the water.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.

Hottrucks

04-06-2008, 02:34 PM

Hey Bi i think I found a way around the Speed limit someone sent this to me and i thought you'd get a kick out of it........so let enjoy the summer what ever happens......hope you guys can enjoy the light heartiness of this.....

Look for me this summer!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AApGZECbHwU

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AApGZECbHwU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AApGZECbHwU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Evenstar

04-06-2008, 09:05 PM

And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.
Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.
Again, you're not very good at replying to what I actually posted. Read my posts, before just criticizing what you think I posted. This is a perfect example.

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.
Just because boater education is working doesn't negate the fact that "it has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” And the Chief Warrant Officer was not just talking about Florida boaters. According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/dotclear.gif

a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court.
Name me one casethat has held up in court in NH, where someone has actually been found guilty of traveling at an unsafe speed on any of our lakes.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.
The study was completely flawed from the very beginning. It was nothing more than a political smoke screen. If they were actually serious of recording the fastest speeds on the lake, why was the Broads left out of the speed limit study?

chipj29

04-07-2008, 08:46 AM

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

Bear Islander

04-07-2008, 09:25 AM

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

JayDV

04-07-2008, 10:12 AM

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

An unfortunate story comes to mind. A recent home makeover tv show arranged to makeover a run down house for a family that couldn't do for themselves. The show-people arranged for hundreds of local businesses and people to assist in the project. The family was sent on a vacation in a warm climate for 5 or 6 days. The house was razed and a new one constructed. 24 hrs a day until the house was completed. Materials, services, meals, and manual labor were mostly donated for the cause. A magnificent public effort. The display of community support was emotionally overwhelming. The show pulled off the major coup, the family was welcomed back by the people and city officials.

The drawback was those people that helped got minimal return for their efforts. The rest of the neighborhood doesn't support the new house when it comes to location, location. The people got a small thank you. The city got national acclaim, the tv show's sponsors got their money's worth. And the family got the nice vacation, a new home and belongings, a monstrous amount of cash and unconfirmed (to me) rumor says their rental income house is currently up for sale.

hazelnut

04-07-2008, 10:24 AM

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits...

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."

Bear Islander

04-07-2008, 10:56 AM

In all fairness, in gathering survey responses from the average person-on-the-street fitting the demagraphic "non-boater" a census taker can, and easily does, present the argument in order to evoke the yes/no reply that will support their respective position. The responsibility is to the census taker to accurately present a position with politcal or biased rhetoric. Then the general public can stand and be counted. Of course, as they vote, then the appropriate actions can be taken or laws enacted.

I don't believe your responce IS fair. It pre-supposes a bias. You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed.

The research was done by the American Research Group, Inc. An organization with very high credentials. The poll was not done at the request of speed limits supporters or paid for by them. The group polled was New Hampshire voters, not non-boaters. This is one of the questions...

Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer or not?

Only 9% answered in the negative.

Many that oppose speed limits will report that this is an unpopular law being pushed through by a few. The facts are the EXACT opposite. This law has wide approval by the owners of the lake.

Bear Islander

04-07-2008, 11:24 AM

Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem.

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

ITD

04-07-2008, 11:28 AM

.......You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed........

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............:rolleye2:

Bear Islander

04-07-2008, 12:04 PM

The pot calling the kettle black once again, sounds like you with the study done by the MP last summer.............:rolleye2:

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

JayDV

04-07-2008, 12:25 PM

The difference is that the MP study WAS flawed. As an example the type of boat performing the test and if it was a marked police boat or not, was not considered important enough to even write down!!!

However the MP study results are not surprising, and DO NOT argue against speed limits. More misdirection.

Unlike JayDV, I actually READ a study, poll or report before I post that it is biased and flawed.

After re-reading my post, Bear Islander, I guess I deserved your reply. The intent was not to say you were like that. I have found you to be a learned person and would expect nothing less. For the misunderstanding I am sincerely sorry. The reason I used the quote function was mainly for the "responsibilty" section and I didn't want to have anything taken out of context.

hazelnut

04-07-2008, 02:47 PM

WRONG!

It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

WRONG! Again but that's nothing new. The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM.

The guy weaving in and out of a congested doing even 30MPH area violating the 150ft LAW is the problem. Very rarely do you see a boat doing above 50MPH in a congested zone. The more you argue that point the more you lose credibility so please keep pushing that one it only helps make my case that you are fear mongering. :laugh:

Speed is a relative term BI. I consider it speeding when a guy is doing 45 in and around the Weirs on a Saturday. A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

Bear Islander

04-07-2008, 04:29 PM

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Dave R

04-07-2008, 04:47 PM

I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

So what you are saying is she'd rather have students do something that everyone in the business knows is dangerous instead of doing something that has a perfect safety record? And this is someone who's opinion you value? If she is basing her decision on liability, she needs a new insurance agent.

codeman671

04-07-2008, 05:27 PM

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.

codeman671

04-07-2008, 05:48 PM

According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/dotclear.gif

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades?

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.

NH only has 18 miles of coast whereas Florida has over 8000 miles. Do you think that the 988,000 registered boats all boat on inland waters? I think this was the most skewed comparion to date on this site.

You may want to do some recalculating...

hazelnut

04-07-2008, 06:05 PM

"It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem".

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough.

Clearly I did and I stand by the point that the person actually doing 35MPH "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem!"

Not the fantasy land scenario that you have concocted to insight fear. So once again please continue down this path as it further digs you deeper and deeper into a hole built on fear mongering and twisted logic.

...awaiting tall tale with regard to 75MPH boat weaving through a crowded bay. :rolleye2:

Airwaves

04-07-2008, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Evenstar
My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni
How fast, how close, where and how many times?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
You dislike the results, so you assume they must be flawed
Where have I seen that before? :rolleye2:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
It is the idiot going 75 mph "in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem
And while you are playing with words your intent is clear, to imply that this is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when it fact it is NOT! Fear Mongering at it's worst!

Evenstar

04-07-2008, 10:17 PM

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?
Not all boats are powerboats, and not all boat owners/users are on powerboat forums. Plus our lakes are not for the sole benefit of powerboat owners.

I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?
Winni is not a limited access highspeed tranportation system. There is nothing unreasonable about wanting to run a kayak business from your property on NH's largest state.

And Evenstar you are SO open minded. Let us bask in your open mindedness. Remember you are the one who supports a law that is solely based on discrimination. You can spin it any way you like but the law is just a means to an end. You are putting all your eggs in one basket with this one, praying that there will be a mass exodus of all the High Performance boats. In the end that is all your crowd cares about. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am all for laws, rules, regulations etc. that promote safety on the lake. Targeting the guy going 75MPH across the broads WILL NOT promote safety. It's the idiot doing 35MPH in a congested bay with swimmers kayaker's and sailboats that is the problem. This activity will continue and your crowd will have the cry wolf stigma with lawmakers when you try for additional legislation and funding for safety initiatives. Talk to us after the law passes and let me know how "safe" you feel on the lake. My prediction, you'll feel just as you do now.... "ascared."
Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.

A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

So what you are saying is she'd rather have students do something that everyone in the business knows is dangerous instead of doing something that has a perfect safety record? And this is someone who's opinion you value? If she is basing her decision on liability, she needs a new insurance agent.
I’m taking about the degrees of liability, not insurance coverage. And NH hardly has a “perfect safety record” – in fact, NH has by far the worse boating safety of any of our neighboring states.

This woman considered her options and concluded that taking clients out touring on Winni in kayaks is more dangerous than taking them down class II and Class III rapids. She is a certified kayak instructor both for coastal waters and for white water and yes, I do respect her opinion.

I think that is a bit of a skewed comparison. How much of Florida is the Everglades? How navigable by powerboats are the Everglades? The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) and covers an expansive 730 square miles compared to 72 square miles of Winnipesaukee and an average depth of 43 feet. The drainage basin that it dumps into covers 4600 miles of more, basically un-navigable water. The map on the site that you linked to shows the bottom 20% of the state to be basically swamp.
First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that. But he’s on your side, so you’re not about to call him out on this “skewed comparison.” I was merely bringing up the fact that Florida is also much larger than NH and has a LOT more inland water for all those boats. And, as you so kindly pointed out, many of those registered Florida boats are off that 8000 miles of coastline, so there’s actually a much smaller percentage using those 11,761 sq miles of inland waters.

Airwaves

04-07-2008, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Evenstar:
First of all, I’m not the one who brought up Florida, Airwaves did that.
HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"?

YOU!

I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post.

And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate.

Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.

hazelnut

04-07-2008, 11:48 PM

Hazelnut, as someone who has fought personal discrimination, I take great offense in your post. The truth is that I’m a very open-minded person. And I’m not “spinning” anything, nor am I part of any group. I’ve stated many times that I’m not anti-powerboat, and that my goal is not to force any type of boat off any NH lake. Yet apparently you don’t believe me - so I also greatly resent that you are, by your accusations, calling me a liar.
A speed limit does one thing – it makes it illegal to exceed a certain speed. How does that discriminate against any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit discriminates against any type of motor vehicle? There’s a big difference between fighting for my rights to safely kayak on the lakes in my native state and being afraid. My safety has been violated by high-speed powerboats, on way too many occasions. Most “reasonable people” (a legal term) would agree that high speed is certainly a factor in safety – it isn’t the only factor, but slowing down boats will make any lake safer. BTW; I’m not a timid person – I’m currently on crutches basically due to my lack of fear. Borrow a kayak and try to follow me out on the main lake someday – you’ll likely be the one “ascared,” not me.

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms. Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore??? By the way I own two kayaks and NO "speed boats." My bow-rider does 45. Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal. Bravo for fighting discrimination etc. I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.

My post/posts have only ever been about one main point. Passing and or supporting laws, ANY laws that do not actually address a real concern/problem is down right irresponsible. I've heard it here time and time again from others on "your side" that there will never be adequate funding to actually address the safety concerns so we might as well just support the speed limit. Again, the means to an end. So again and again supporters of the limit have been asked and continuously fail to provide proof that SPEED is the major public safety issue ON WINNIPESAUKEE and therefore we need a SPEED limit ON WINNIPESAUKEE. All we ever get back are circumstantial, fictional, what-if, I'm scared, blah blah blah.....

Evenstar

04-08-2008, 12:51 AM

For one I do Kayak and I am NOT ascared. I Kayak in areas where power boats infrequently go. I also use my brain and kayak along the shore. It is a large resource that we can all share. Kayaks are great and I welcome them with open arms.
Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”

Unfortunately you are closing your mind to other peoples idea of recreation. You support a law that stops those people from enjoying their speed boat to its full potential. That is discriminatory, sorry if you don't like it but facts are facts. They haven't hurt anyone
It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”

. . . yet you scream you're scared and if something scares you we should all stop doing it so you're not scared anymore???[/quote
When have I ever written that I was scared? I have written that I have had close calls, and that my safety has been violated – neither is being scared. If I was scared, I would not kayak on Winni.

[quote]Highway limits and boat limits = Comparing Apples and Oranges. Not even going to bother with that one.
Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.

You obviously internalized and spun my post to make me seem like the big bad guy calling you a liar???? Pure silliness. Stick to the issue this is nothing personal.
You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.

I stick by my post and I will further explain to you that this law will not make you feel safer. The same idiots who populate our lake with little to no regard for safe boating will be out in full force. If you think that a 45 MPH speed limit will increase your safety in a Kayak out in the middle of the lake you are kidding yourself. A boat within 300 feet of you doing 35 will scare the *#$% out of you. If you were so open minded as you say you are you would at least concede that this law will not address the safety issue.
Boats 300 feet away from me, going 35mph have never scared me. I’m supporting this law because I’ve personally seen the difference that a lake speed limit has. Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?

Mashugana

04-08-2008, 08:51 AM

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

hazelnut

04-08-2008, 11:49 AM

Now you’re suggesting that I’m not using my brain because I choose to take my sea kayak out on the main lake, instead of just staying “along the shore.” So why is it that you feel that it is smarter to “stay along the shore?”
As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.

It is not discriminatory to support a law that places a maximum speed for ALL boats. No one has the right to put others at risk, just so that they can “enjoying their speed boat to its full potential.” To not support this law is to support the idea that those with the most (horse)power get to control others use of the lake - as you already seem to feel that kayaks should be limited to just the area along the shore.”
No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.

Of course you’re not going to “bother,” since you can’t argue against my logic. Lake speed limits do not discriminate against speed boats any more than highway speed limits discriminate against motorcycles (or fast cars). Doesn’t a highway speed limit infringe on the “right” of a motorcyclist to “enjoy their bike to it full potential?” Seems a lot like comparing apples to apples to me. Yet whenever someone makes a good analogy that refutes the anti-speed limit claims on this forum, it is brushed off with the old “comparing apples and oranges” side step.
*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.

You made it personal by accusing me of being closed-minded, discriminating, trying to force one type of boat off the lake, and being part of a group. All of which is untrue, and which I have previously stated was untrue. So you are clearly calling me a liar. Perhaps you are the one who should “stick to the issue,” rather than resort to personal attacks on others.
Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU:
"Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."

....Squam Lake has a 40mph speed limit – not only does it feel safer than Winni, it also attracts way more paddlers – many of whom don’t feel that it is unsafe to venture away from the shore. Why is that? Oh, sorry . . . this is probably one of those apples and oranges thingies again. So is Squam the apple or the orange?
Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 11:58 AM

... Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?[/b]

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

Lakegeezer

04-08-2008, 12:48 PM

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 01:39 PM

I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean here BI. Lower polution, OK; I agree - faster speeds equals less MPG and means more gas burnt per distance. That gives us more carbon emmisions and more exhaust gasses in the lake.

Erosion and congestion, I don't get. Having observed boats crusing by for over 15 years, my conclusion is that the faster a boat goes, the less wake it leaves behind. Also, the faster it goes, the faster is is "out of here and over there". A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft.

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

KonaChick

04-08-2008, 01:57 PM

Boats that have moved to another body of water do not cause ANY erosion or congestion on Winnipesaukee.

The opposition has claimed many times that the economy of the lakes area will be ruined when high performance boats leave the lake. We have seen evidence on this forum and elsewhere that boats are already leaving the lake because of coming speed limits. A speed limit will effect the future purchase decisions of Winnipesaukee boaters. It is ludicrous to assume high performance boats will continue to operate in large numbers on Winni.

Over the years the number of performance boats on this lake will decline, just like they have on all the other lakes that have enacted speed limits.

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 03:11 PM

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

ITD

04-08-2008, 03:30 PM

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats. It's kind of like painting a brick house, it makes a few people feel better, but then it starts peeling, causing problems while solving nothing.

KonaChick

04-08-2008, 06:43 PM

A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup. A high performance boat can be beautiful and fun. But the lake is to small and fragile for their growing numbers.

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

Evenstar

04-08-2008, 07:27 PM

As I said it is a large resource so I use the shoreline and the less traveled areas while I let the Powerboats use the large areas of the lake. It's called sharing. You know give and take.
The main reason that I own a sea kayak is because I happen to enjoy going out on large lakes (not just hugging the shoreline) – that’s what my boat is designed for. I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” Yes, compromise involves give and take – but so far the paddlers have been the only ones who are giving and the power boat operators are the ones doing all the taking. That’s not compromise.

No one is putting anyone at risk. You are using scare tactics. I'm sure you have had close calls just as I have. To pin the blame on boats exceeding 45MPH is laughable. You must be a magnet then. I'll have to follow you around then and be enlightened.
I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

*Sigh* Since you forced me to do this here we go. Highway limits are in place because PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!! Nobody has died on Winni due to excessive speed. So now it's back on you. Every time we ask you to give hard concrete evidence as to why we need a speed limit YOU side step it and say you have had "Close Calls" or your safety is compromised. Way too circumstantial to base legislature on, sorry.
You aren’t going to be cited with excessive speed when there’s no speed limit – “excessive speed” is just too subjective, so MP will almost always cite the operator with something else first. Operators of fast boats have had accidents on winni at speeds over 45mph – they’ve even run into islands! So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely. I’ve had close calls on Winni with boats going over 45mph, that came well within my 150 foot zone, because they didn’t see me – that’s been my honest experience, but that’s not good enough for you. That is not sidestepping – that’s recounting my actual experience.

A great deal of legislation is based on the experience of residents. One of the Senators told me that her husband has had similar close calls with high-speed powerboats – so that’s not going to have any effect on her vote?

Do I REALLY have to do this Evenstar? Ok here we go: DIRECT QUOTE from YOU: "Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things."
Feels like Kindergarten here but.... You started it. I believe that was directed at Airwaves but I suppose I could take offense I guess I fall into the "many others here" who refuse to consider your "facts."
Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.

Squam is the Apple. Winni is the Orange. It's obvious why each lake attracts different types of boats. That is the beauty of New Hampshire. There are lakes for every type of boater. So you think a Speed Limit dictates why Speed Boats don't populate Squam? Ummmm OK I was thinking more along the lines of its size relative to Winni. My guess is that anything over 45 on Squam would shrink it to a 5 minute ride end to end.
Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

HELLO! Who was the one quoted "Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce"? YOU! I pointed out that USCG Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, something you conveniently "forgot" to post. And the fact of the matter is that much of Florida's "inland waters" are exactly what has been described, swamp. By far most of Florida's 988,000 registered boats are used in the Atlantic or Gulf, not inland so you quoting the former CO of a Coast Guard Station in Florida is not applicable to the Lake Winnipesaukee debate. Now to say I am the one that brought up Florida? You have lost all credibility in this debate with me.
Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me.

Bear Islander

04-08-2008, 08:15 PM

You still did not answer my question. Are there large numbers of performance boats on Lake Winnipesaukee? I stick by my statement that I just don't see large numbers of boats on the lake..some, but not large numbers.

Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?

When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

Lakegeezer

04-08-2008, 09:12 PM

There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?Wow! This is great. Maybe this is the answer to spark the rennovation of Weirs Beach. Put a race course out on the broads and have weekly speed trials. No wake of course, till out past Govnr's Island. With speed boats at the Weirs and sailing from Fays, the West side lake economy should pick up nicely.

Airwaves

04-08-2008, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Not to quibble but it depends on what you call large numbers. There are a lot more than there used to be. And the numbers will grow as other lakes enact speed limits. Many states have limits, Maine is considering them now.
Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
There are performance boaters on Winni now that have moved here because the lakes they came from passed limits. Lake George for example. Do you want Winni to be the only lake for performance boating?
Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".
Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 01:17 PM

Since you seem to know more than we do, how many are there on Lake Winnipesaukee? Personally last summer I saw two!

Funny, the two I saw had NH bow numbers. I thought New York issued bow numbers that begin with NY? Hmmm...

Where is this summer camp that seems to be the target of performance boats and what are the boats doing that would keep campers out of the water?

It seems to me that if performance boats were causing problems and havoc among summer campers somewhere on Lake Winnipesaukee then there would be a records of multiple calls to the Marine Patrol and local police in the town where the infraction is occurring. It would also seem to me that when questioned by legislators the Marine Patrol would present those reports, unless of course there were no reports or they are unfounded.

You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

If I understand you correctly you only saw two performance boats on the lake last summer. Are you having problems with your vision, or do you have some extreme definition of the term "performance boat"?

codeman671

04-09-2008, 01:22 PM

I never claimed ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

No infractions you say? Then pray tell what is the issue??? Why are YOU targeting performance boats then?

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 02:00 PM

No infractions you say? Then pray tell what is the issue??? Why are YOU targeting performance boats then?

I explained my position of summer camps earlier in this thread. See post 35, 38, 40, 45, 59, 64, 66, 69, 87, 92 and 104.

#87 is the best one, but do not miss the part in #90 where Woodsy thinks children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children.

Also interesting is #36 where Dick, who opposes speed limits, claims any camp director that allows a canoe out on Winnipesaukee should be fired.

It's nice when the opposition makes your arguments for you.

hazelnut

04-09-2008, 02:20 PM

... I’m not willing to give up using the main lake just because some speed boats owners fell [sic] that they have the right to use their boats “to their full potential.” ....
This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care. Due to the fact that it currently is NOT a law it is well within their rights to go 75MPH across the broads. Once this law is passed they will lose that right after they did nothing to deserve losing it in the first place. You still have the right to go across the broads either way. You will of course tell us all that it is dangerous now but it will be safe or safer after the law. I maintain that it will not be any safer due to the inattentive careless boaters that populate the lake.

I am relating what my own actual experience has been. How is that “scare tactics?” I never said that I have never had issues with boats going under the speed limit - just that all my close calls have been with faster boats. If you followed me, you would have to venture away from the shore, where the faster boats are.

All I'm saying is that I've been on this lake since the late 70's early 80's and I've boated sailed kayaked cruised on everything from a 10 foot rowboat to driving the Doris E. herself and I've had my share of incidents. The way you relay these incidents and the volume of them that only seem to involve one type of boat seems to be quite a stretch, or perhaps embellishment. You can whine about how I'm calling you a liar now but all I'm saying is that you must have one heck of a dark cloud hanging over your head to have had that many "incidents."

.... So I feel that we’ve been very fortunate that no one has yet run over a paddler. A speed limit with not prevent that from happening, but I believe that it will make it less likely.....
So we should just make it a law? That solidifies my point. Legislature without a problem to solve. Lets go around making laws to prevent things that MIGHT happen. That is a dangerous and very LIBERAL way to govern.

Now you're using my response to someone else to justify personally attacking me? My reply was just my impression of what it feels like to me to reply to Airways. From his responses I felt like he was not being very objective, but was taking a very narrow view on things - and that most of my points were not reaching him. I wasn’t calling Airways a wall, nor was I calling him closed-minded. And it is true that my facts and my hard questions are almost always ignored by most here.
Yes I am using your own words against you. Stinks doesn't it? If you want to throw out attacks whether in general or towards one individual be prepared to have those words come back to haunt you. By your comments anyone who does not agree with you is not open minded or objective or "narrow minded."

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Hey thanks for posting the stats to prove my point. If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. Oh I see it's semantics, Small Apples and Big Apples. What???? If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG!?!?!
Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

DoTheMath

04-09-2008, 02:30 PM

Funny - maybe if Winni is "too small" for big-bad-performance-boats-that-can-travel-the-length-in-no-time... then maybe it is "too big" for it-would-take-me-all-weekend-to-get-from-one-end-to-the-other-in-my-plastic-bottle-paddle-powered-boat!? ;)

Just some food for thought!?

(Keep up the good fight Hazelnut! :o)

codeman671

04-09-2008, 02:47 PM

I explained my position of summer camps earlier in this thread. See post 35, 38, 40, 45, 59, 64, 66, 69, 87, 92 and 104.

#87 is the best one, but do not miss the part in #90 where Woodsy thinks children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children.

Also interesting is #36 where Dick, who opposes speed limits, claims any camp director that allows a canoe out on Winnipesaukee should be fired.

It's nice when the opposition makes your arguments for you.

My main point was the fact that you mentioned performance boats had made no infractions...Rather comical given some of your stands.

I have no problem with the concept of keeping our children safe. In case you forgot or did not know, my house faces Camp Lawrence. The issue that I have is the boats that do not heed the 150' rule who constantly are coming too close to their ski boat (the white center console) or us when we are wakeboarding in the bay between Mark and Bear. It is not the peformance guys doing this.

codeman671

04-09-2008, 02:56 PM

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 03:13 PM

My main point was the fact that you mentioned performance boats had made no infractions...Rather comical given some of your stands.

I have no problem with the concept of keeping our children safe. In case you forgot or did not know, my house faces Camp Lawrence. The issue that I have is the boats that do not heed the 150' rule who constantly are coming too close to their ski boat (the white center console) or us when we are wakeboarding in the bay between Mark and Bear. It is not the peformance guys doing this.

One again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said performance boats were not committing infractions. I also never said performance boats were committing infractions. I never talked about performance boat infractions at all.

I have said that the New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. I had talked to Winnipesaukee camp directors that claim they are afraid to send their small boats out on the lake. That is all the evidence I need to convince me the lake needs a speed limit. All the other arguments I put forth are just extra.

A speed limit will not solve the problems you mention, nothing will. They are however a step in the right direction.

codeman671

04-09-2008, 03:48 PM

One again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said performance boats were not committing infractions. I also never said performance boats were committing infractions. I never talked about performance boat infractions at all.

I have said that the New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. I had talked to Winnipesaukee camp directors that claim they are afraid to send their small boats out on the lake. That is all the evidence I need to convince me the lake needs a speed limit. All the other arguments I put forth are just extra.

A speed limit will not solve the problems you mention, nothing will. They are however a step in the right direction.

Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.

I never claimed ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 04:26 PM

Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.

Airwaves posted that I was claiming performance boats were committing violations at summer camps. I corrected him by saying I had never made that claim. What are you finding so confusing?

Please tell me the post number where you think I made that claim so I can go back and review it.

Islander

04-09-2008, 04:46 PM

Mashugana

04-09-2008, 05:15 PM

I asked: Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

Your reply did not answer my hypothetical question. Noise is addressed in the rules as well as the 150 foot rule. You want speed limits to limit noise rather than the noise laws?

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.
Errosion? Look at the picture of that big boat throwing that huge wake at well below 45 mph. Speed limits won't help there. It is not a safety issue relating to speed.
Congestion? Fast boats will be out of the way quicker than slow boats. Some claim that speed limits will attrack more small boats leading to more errosion, polution and congestion but that is not my point.

Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today. Would a speed limit make the lake safer? How can it make the lake quieter? slow boats have blaring stereos and some have loud engines too. Will there be less errosion from those plowing boats? Will campers be able to use the lake more often on weekedays?
Please do not dismiss the question. Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer.

Thank you.

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 06:13 PM

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow. Your get out of the way theory is quite frankly mashugana. It takes a lot of open water for a boat to be able to travel at 90 mph. Boats going headway speed use up very little space, you can have quite a few of them in a very small area. Naturally I am giving you the extreme examples, however the theory holds true for all speeds.

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

Evenstar

04-09-2008, 06:22 PM

This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care.
Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.

All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. . . .If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG! Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.

So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.
I wrote: "At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni." That is a true statement. Starting at the tip of Alton Bay, and keeping at least 200 feet from shore, I get that is 20.4 miles to the end of Center Harbor.
Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.
Power boat owners hit rocks all the time on Winni. Read my comments above concerning Squam, Winni, and Champlain.

Airwaves

04-09-2008, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.
Gee, let’s review in post #289 you wrote:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".
So if performance boats are not causing infractions near summer camps why have you implied that they are reason to limit summer camp activities? If there are no performance boats causing problems near summer camps why bring it up? Fear mongering again!

BTW, you still haven’t answered the specific question I put to you, neither has Evenstar and way back when APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well.

Originally posted by Evenstar:
Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me
Nope, sorry you knew you were quoting a CWO from Florida and that he was writing based on his experiences as the CO of a CG Station in Florida. BTW I believe the Coast Guard operates in the Atlantic and Gulf in Florida and leave the inland waterways and swamps to the State of Florida to patrol,

But it’s interesting that you admit comparing Florida boating to Winni is comparing Apples and Oranges in your statement directly above the one in which you deny bringing up Florida

Originally posted by Evenstar
Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange.
So which is it? Quote a Coast Guard official speaking about ocean boating (USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH) and say he’s really speaking about Winnipesaukee, or that the ocean and Winnipesaukee are completely different?

So, any of the three of you going to answer the specific questions I asked? APS you’ll have to go back through the threads and look for them yourself!

Lakegeezer

04-09-2008, 07:55 PM

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow. Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50. If I'm two miles away, I can adjust my spead to sync up with the 50 MPH boat speeding through the graveyard, and have my turn while on plane. If I have to wait for the trollers, I have to come off plane and add extra exhaust to the waters to come back on plane aftewards. I am in the vicinity longer so create a more concentrated plume of exhaust. Plus, I create more wake by coming off and back on plane. In this case, the faster the better. Here's another example. If a boat crosses the lake at 60 rather than 30 mph, they are on the water half as long, so out of more people's way, meaning less congestion. Boats at headway speed take up huge space. Not only are they a blockage, but they back up others who wish to get by.

Silver Duck

04-09-2008, 08:44 PM

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

Bear Islander

04-09-2008, 09:07 PM

Mashugana

04-09-2008, 09:54 PM

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws. I don't think you want to answer that question because the answer will not support the speed limit cause. You, Evenstar and other speed limit fans know that we already have the rules we need. We just need to enforce the rules and laws we already have.

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either. What will never happen, all the speed deaths or my answer? Might it be that you think I could never change my position on the subject? I am not stuck in the groove. I have an open mind. Speed limits are not the answer here.

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems. You brought up erosion as a benefit of speed limits. I simply responded that speed limits will not reduce erosion by using the big boat example. Others have presented valid arguments about erosion, speed and plowing boats. Speed Limits are not the answer to that concern

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats. My inital question still is valid. There are rules and laws about maximum noise limits. Noise Limit laws deal with NOISE. Speed limits will NOT lower the level of loudness allowed by law. I'm not that "crazy" to believe it would. Many slow boats can make plenty of noise and have loud sound systems.

I concur that there will never be 100% rule compliance including any potential speed limit rule. My question takes away the variable. It assumes the current rules are followed and enforced 100%.

When you skirt the question it speaks volumes about your position.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-10-2008, 07:47 AM

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws. Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.. I know that some boaters like to be loud and some big fast boats are so expensive that no $$ is left for a good muffler :laugh:.

Noise is not a new issue. I remember a forum thread from 8 years ago on the subject. Someone wanted to make their boat louder to get closer to the legal limit. That whole thread from the archives makes me laugh a bit. Anyway, there was a post that addresses making any size boat sound loud. I'll reprint it below but you can read it and the thread if you wish:
The original post from 2000 Forum Archive (http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=11149)

Re: More Sound Please - I've got your answer!!!

Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ) <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 5:54 p.m.

In Response To: More Sound Please!!! (Screw-Canoe)

I have an excellent cassette and CD of a LOUD boat motor at various stages of RPM. No need to modify your engine, just plop in my tape or CD and PUMP up the volume. Track 1 for idle, Track 2 for fast acceleration, and etc...

I assume you have a 5,000 watt stereo system on-board so that you can play your music loud enough for all of us within 5 miles of your boat to enjoy (whether or not we want to). SO, why modify your engine when you can buy MY tape or CD and achieve your goal of sounding like a BIG GUN on the lake?

Of course my tapes and CDs come with a "self destruct" remote mechanism I can use if/when I get annoyed at the noise.....

AL
-------------------------

Go Fast does not necessarily mean Be Loud. Going slow does not mean quiet. varoom varoom under the Weirs Bridge is not fast or quiet. It is the boaters choice to be loud or not. When I was on my honeymoon (lakeside of course) it was the loud fishing boats that woke us up, not the big fast boats you speak of. Many motor boats of all sizes and types were able to be considerably loud at idle, during warm up and out on the water.

As has been said several times. Sound level laws are already in place. To add a speed limit in an attempt to lower sound levels is not the way to insure less boat noise.

Acres per Second

04-10-2008, 08:13 AM

"...A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft..."
"Oh, would that it were true, would that it were true..." (Apologies to John F. Kerry). :rolleye1:

WRONG!...The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM...Speed is a relative term...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!
You can increase the GPS speed of your performance boat by taking it to less-choppy waters; unfortunately, that's where the people are. :(

Even in The Broads, among the sailboats, drifting I/Os, inflatables, kayaks, and even cruisers out there, I'd call that "Reckless Endangerment".

That rich neighbor in his tunnel-hull going past my dock at about 110-MPH—dodging swimmers, tubers—missing a neighbor's Hobie with five pre-teen girls—should have been arrested!

Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him around these past few seasons.... :confused: :rolleye2:

And now, top speeds for tunnel-hulls are over 170-MPH!

"...You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself...!
I wrote over 70.

That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.

[Extreme Drinks: Champagne]
It's 14% alcohol: I wouldn't take a dismissive stance on Champagne as an extreme drink among extreme boaters.

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.
Yup. Every slower boater is the problem—and the drunks who do have the speed to kill?

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) You may want to do some recalculating...
Not any more: it's four feet.

But every Floridian can drive to the ocean within 1½ hours: even on ocean waters, they recorded 80 fatalities recently. :(

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.
I know of one: at 4½ tons, it was too much boat for The Big Lake.

"...Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50...If I have to wait for the trollers..."
Why am I reminded of tailgating by this?

Geesh—leave earlier. :rolleye1:

"...Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread..."
Ae you saying that Mashugana's question wasn't totally motivated to improve the safety of bow-riding passengers—and that it wasn't an altruistic gesture to Winnipesaukee's boating public? :rolleye2: :rolleye1:

"...Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today...Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer..."
We know how to pronounce "assume".

Pronounce after me: ass-u-me.

:laugh:

"...Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats..."
There's no question that high performance boats are increasing in numbers—so are the headlines of tragedy. :(

Nobody answered my speed limit question before—so here it is again:
What headline would cause you to change your mind?

Bear Islander

04-10-2008, 08:38 AM

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits.

As to safety it is possible to flip a boat at high speed and kill the passengers. I don't mention the operator because that is his own responsibility. The State certainly has a duty to protect the children on board. Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

Consider also that a similar argument can be made about highways. If we all obeyed all the other laws why would we need speed limits on our highways? If we all obeyed all the other laws why do we need DWI laws? It's not easy for a drunk driver to kill someone, even himself, without violating some other law. It may be possible, but its hard to think of a scenario.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-10-2008, 11:27 AM

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy. No, your answer is not the reason I am happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. (but WHY) I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits. Kayaks and campers are not as important as WHAT? Answer the question {snip}
Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, (No I'm not) that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! (in reality I don't favor ADDITIONAL limits like 45/25mp) If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. I have no credibility? really? But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!remarks in blue were added by Skipper of the Sea Que

I don't believe anti-speed limit advocates are arguing for absolutely "NO LIMITS". What I hear is, No additional speed limits". For me it means this speed limit bill is not an answer. Some have suggested higher speed limits but we are dealing with a 45/25mph issue here. Those are the limits I don't think will solve problems. There are speed limits already: 6 mph, headway speed, speed limits for passing within 150' of boats, land and people. We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

You (or any speed limit proponents) are not answering the question posed by mashugana and your weak reasons for not answering are that we still need speed limits so why answer the question. You claim the need for more speed limits are to address noise, congestion and erosion. I believe that at least 2 of those 3 are all covered by existing laws. Congestion is another topic. There are more people everywhere. Slowing them down means more people in the same area for a longer time.
Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about erosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

I think his question raises a very good point which has yet to be properly answered. Carry on guys and gals.

winnilaker

04-10-2008, 12:30 PM

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Maybe I can enlighten to some other reasons people don't want speeds limits on Winni and to BE LIKE Squam.

1. Squam Lake Shore owners make every attempt to limit public access to THEIR LAKE.
2. Squam Lake owners have prohibited Jetskis.
I don't need to get into all the other Squam restrictions do I?

Tell me again about Give and Take. Please tell me and everyone here more about how you want Winni to be more like Squam. The more the merrier please!

According to the MP site on restrictions on public waters, how many restrict Kayak use? ......... Waiting..........
How many public waters have restrictions on motorized craft?........ Waiting.......

Tell me again about Give and Take.

Sounds more like Take and more Take, me and me. Regardless of any speed limit, period!!!

If you could get cabin cruisers off the lake, because kayakers could capsize, you would. This is not about a speed limit and you know it, its about who wants to win this battle and the ego that goes along with winning, from both sides. This, "I'm scared to kayak in the broads", may win your necessary votes, but its not the reason nor will it really solve your concerns. But its a battle and history shows life wouldn't interesting without them.

I'm not going to ask you to stop, it's entertaining. But in this case the truths are hidden.

Bear Islander

04-10-2008, 01:02 PM

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
...

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

DoTheMath

04-10-2008, 03:20 PM

I posted this to another thread, but it seems to apply here as well...

So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience - not from watching them on TV, maybe - have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph everyone keeps referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

hazelnut

04-10-2008, 06:27 PM

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.
All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”
Where did I tell you to give up anything. I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force. The get out of my way attitude is not the sole possession of the high performance boat.

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.
So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?
Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)
No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?

I never expect to change your mind but I just love how you can sling comments calling everyone narrow minded and how we "just don't get it" and thngs "go over our head." God forbid anyone else makes the same claim about you. :rolleye2:

Finally, because I'm all done with you, here is some food for thought. You support a law that is based on legislating against could have and might haves. A law that targets a problem that doesn't exist. A law that targets a certain type of recreation, even though these people haven't done anything wrong. Your law is based on fear mongering and whether you like it or not is discriminatory. Whether or not you "take great offense to that" or not is really not my problem it is unfortunately the truth. Just because you do not like how someone else gets their kicks doesn't give you the right to stop them because it scares you. Stop acting as if every performance boater that gets behind the wheel of his or her boat is this uncaring demonic presence hell bent on ruining your good time.

Bear Islander

04-10-2008, 06:36 PM

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

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.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

Silver Duck

04-10-2008, 08:37 PM

BI

You asked "So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?"

My response is H**L No!!!

So far as I'm concerned, any operator of any type of boat that recklessly endangers a child, in whatever way, deserves no mercy. :( At a minimum, confiscate his boat and take away his privilege to operate a boat in NH forever. Tar and feathers might be good, too.:rolleye2: You knock 'em down and I'll stomp on 'em! My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.:eek:

But, as I've said all along, to get my buy-in you need to go after the specific bone heads that are doing the endangering rather than punishing the many for the sins of the few.:(

I also feel that Camp Directors need to exercise due dilligence in protecting their campers, though. For instance, on swims that go outside marked areas there need to be plenty of highly visible safety boats, and I wouldn't let a kid get more than a few feet from shore in a canoe - period. (IMHO, the darned things are death traps. :eek: Stock up on decent kayaks for paddle sports, and tradition be danged.:D)

I'll let you in on a well kept secret. I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

Airwaves

04-10-2008, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by APS:
The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway.

Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself...!
I wrote over 70.
That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.
I guess I wasn’t clear in my post. Yes I know that you wrote there is no reason to wear an off the shelf PFD above a certain speed, which I took to mean you saying there is no reason to wear one at all, apologies if I misinterpreted your point.

Since I am not privy to the details I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not.

BTW, where was the Smoke on the Waters 2005 Poker Run held?

If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire! Now I direct your attention, and that of BI and Evenstar to post #409. Please respond.

Bear Islander

04-10-2008, 11:46 PM

...

But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

Airwaves

04-11-2008, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

Bear Islander...I am confused. You wrote to me;
Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

Yet now you again imply that summer camps (at least one) belives it's too dangerous because of speeding boats? It is a camp director's JOB to be protective of his/her children. I would prosecute any camp director that did not, however their concern in this case is not valid even according to you.

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO. ...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

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.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

While NH has not adopted the USGC Navigation Rules, something I think should be done then improved upon as the state sees fit, 270:29-a and Rule 6 are similar enough that 270:29-a can, and should, be used by the Marine Patrol in instances where the officer believes the operator of a boat was traveling at a speed in excess of conditions that would endanger the lives and safety of the public.

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Now I have to credit you that you have admitted, unlike most of your speed limit advocates, that safety is not the issue. You are trying to eliminate a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

You wrote something I liked. "A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup".
The only problem with that analogy is that Lake Winnipesaukee is not YOUR soup, it's OUR soup.

Bear Islander

04-11-2008, 01:45 PM

I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

Lakegeezer

04-11-2008, 01:51 PM

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions. That should about do it! Solves the kayak and camp problems by defining safe, rather than having it based on fear. Maybe our law-makers should take a new look at this, rather than the mess they are creating.

Airwaves

04-12-2008, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Bear Islander"
I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.
Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:
I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever
Now there is this:
I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps.

So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

Evenstar

04-12-2008, 10:38 AM

BTW, you still haven’t answered the specific question I put to you, neither has Evenstar.
What question havent' I answered?

Nope, sorry you knew you were quoting a CWO from Florida and that he was writing based on his experiences as the CO of a CG Station in Florida. . . . But it’s interesting that you admit comparing Florida boating to Winni is comparing Apples and Oranges in your statement directly above the one in which you deny bringing up Florida
Quoting a Coast Guard commander who was stationed in Florida is not "bringing up Florida." No where is his entire article is Florida even mentioned. The article is not about Forida - so get off my case. You brought Florida into this conversation not me.

So which is it? Quote a Coast Guard official speaking about ocean boating (USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH) and say he’s really speaking about Winnipesaukee, or that the ocean and Winnipesaukee are completely different?
The Commander's article is about boater safety, on ALL bodies of water - and about the rules of navigation. All states' (including NH) boating rules are based on the USCG's Rules of Navigation.

Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.
I wrote “You really don’t get do you,” not as an insult or anything, but because I believe that you really aren’t seeing the problem that I and others are seeing and have experienced. This is not about “enlightenment”, but many speed limit opponents on this forum have been very narrow-minded in the way that they have treated anyone who has had different experiences from them. Just because you have not had a negative encounter with a high-speed boat does not mean that this hasn’t happen to others.

There are all sorts of legislation that is based on fear. Most of the USA Patriot Act is legislation that is based on fear. There are 27 NH RSAs that include the word “fear” and 219 with the word “danger.” There are hundreds of NH laws that were passed to protect the public from unsafe conditions. Many speed limit supporters feel that it is very unsafe to allow power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes. It has been my experience that the 150 foot rule doesn’t work very well at protecting paddlers when power boats are traveling at high speeds.

Paddlers and other small boat owners’ rights have been taken away from them. When you give up the use of a NH lake, due to the fear of being run over by high speed boats, that is losing your rights. You may claim that their fear is irrational, but all the people that I know who will no longer paddle on Winni seem like very rational people who have had to choose between their own safety and being able to use a NH lake. That is just not right, no matter how you try to spin it.

I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force.
I’ve explained this numerous times, yet “you still don’t get it” (sorry, but apparently that’s true). Faster boats have less time to see me, and I have less time to get out of their way. That’s why it is the faster boats that have been the one’s that have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone. “Careless and inattentive boaters” become a much greater danger at higher speeds.

No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?
If Squam did not have a 40mph speed limit, many boats would be going way faster than 40mph on Squam, and I've seen plenty of boats on Squam that are capable of exceeding 45mph. Why is it that you completely ignored what I posted about Lake Champlain</ST1:place? So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

parrothead

04-12-2008, 11:07 AM

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

Bear Islander

04-12-2008, 05:19 PM

Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

Now there is this:

So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

Are you deliberately not understanding something that is so simple?

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

Airwaves

04-12-2008, 05:47 PM

Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".
Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409
So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?

And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429
I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.
Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

Bear Islander

04-12-2008, 11:11 PM

Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389

Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409

And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429

Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

You are taking quotes out of context and attempting to link things that are NOT LINKED.

One of the things you can't seem to get strait is the word "Violations". Boat congestion and speed can be a problem even though there are no violations. As we have discussed many times some people are intimidated by conditions on the lake. This can be true even without any "violations".

I do not believe you are interested in fair discussion, you are only looking for what you think may be an inconsistency so you can use it to attack me. I will no longer respond to these types of posts by you.

Bear Islander

04-12-2008, 11:36 PM

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

We certainly agree that the congestion and lack of boater "intelligence" is a problem particularly on weekends. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have. I personally think they have no place on the lake for several reasons, but that is in many ways a separate argument from speed.

The congestion and lack of intelligence is growing. Already there are days, other than weekends, when camp boating must be limited. My biggest concern is where the lake is headed. If things get worse camp activities may have to be limited even more.

One thing we can do is enact a speed limit. It will not solve the lakes problems but will improve things. A speed limit is a tool the MP can use to limit some of the worst situations.

Continuing to NOT have a speed limit will attract even more idiots to this lake. Especially when other lakes continue to enact speed limits.

Other lakes that have passed speed limits claim they have worked to slow the pace and reduce congestion.

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. With all do respect, as they say, I think that group has a better handle than you on current conditions and what is needed to improve them.

Resident 2B

04-13-2008, 02:28 AM

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experince on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly un-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!

R2B

Acres per Second

04-13-2008, 07:47 AM

"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."
Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow). :laugh:

"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."
Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..

Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed! (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=54276&postcount=235)

"...I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.
It would be up to the individual whether to exceed 45-MPH or not—irrespective of boat design.

(After dark: 25-MPH).

"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."
We're even? :confused: ,,,I never got an answer to:

"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"
(Those NH Senators in opposition? Please include the word "children" in your answer.) :look:

"...My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.:eek:..."
Civil law doesn't protect children as well as it protects retirees. :( But with all the creative penalties around, why did a judge use up a perfectly good jail cell to punish Lake Winnipesaukee's most experienced performance boater? :confused:

I'd have sentenced him to weekends sitting in a kayak, anchored off the lake's most talked-about flashing light, day and night, every June through September—for five years. A diary would be required proof of compliance to record NHMP passings, and scheduled calls to a Probation Officer. (He would be permitted only two D-cells for his light). Like you, I'd ban him from the lake forever after completing his sentence.

Oh yeah...I'd also mandate that he carry the whistle that meets NH boating laws.

...So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats...!?"
When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now. :rolleye1:

Seeker

04-13-2008, 10:50 AM

Just when is the Senate expecting to vote on the speed limit bill? Is it still in committee?:confused:

Islander

04-13-2008, 11:05 AM

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experience on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly UN-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!

R2B

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

Cal

04-13-2008, 12:00 PM

. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have.

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown:rolleye2:

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit:laugh::laugh:

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush:emb:

Airwaves

04-13-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote: by APS:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."

Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow).

Yea, I would say a Great Lake is different. They are Federal/International waterways, patroled by the US and Canadian Coast Guard and they even have tides! There are no Ocean-racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, donchaknow :rolleye1:

Quote by APS:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."

Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..
Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!

Actually if you look back he was quoting my post on that one.

As far as the night-time "Kayak Cut In Half" collision, that wouldn't be the kayak that was on the water in the middle of the night with no lights would it? You remember, the one that was abandonded unlighted in the path of an oncoming power boat traveling at barely headway speed because a spot light was in use and he didn't want to be seen naked? That one?

Quote: by APS
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."
We're even? ,,,I never got an answer to:

Quote:
"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"
The difference is, my question was not a hypothetical like yours is.

I came into this debate not having an opinion on speed limits one way or the other. If your side had been able to show me that speed is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee I would help you lead the charge. You have only been able to show me that the 150' rule is routinely violated.

wehatetoquitit

04-13-2008, 01:20 PM

I'm confused, as I often am ( one living brain cell,which I hope divides soon), when it comes to what everybody describes as a "go-fast boat". What is the defination of this type of craft. I have an old 20 foot Penn Yan that is capable, under the right conditions, of exceeding the proposed speed limit. I notice that probably most boats on the lake, Whalers, Grady Whites, C-Dorys, Bass boats, Sea Doos and others regardless of length and outfitted with modern engines are probably capable of exceeding the proposed limit. Are all of these go fast boats?

Islander

04-13-2008, 01:23 PM

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown:rolleye2:

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit:laugh::laugh:

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush:EM:

There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false.

KonaChick

04-13-2008, 04:02 PM

From what I can gather, BI is for speed limits AND restricting a certain kind of boat on the lake (having to do with hp). I'm sure if I'm wrong in these assumptions I'll be corrected.

Bear Islander

04-13-2008, 04:49 PM

From what I can gather, BI is for speed limits AND restricting a certain kind of boat on the lake (having to do with hp). I'm sure if I'm wrong in these assumptions I'll be corrected.

You are correct. I support the speed limit legislation HB847 endorsed by WinnFABS. This is only a speed limit and does not target any kind of boat. A great number of boats can go more than 45 mph, not just GFBL's. And a huge number of boats can go over 25 mph, the nighttime limit.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

I though I was making this distinction clear, but it seems I was wrong.

JDeere

04-13-2008, 05:15 PM

I have to thank BI for keeping a level head and keeping to the facts without getting personal!!

Silver Duck

04-13-2008, 05:16 PM

Today, Islander posted:

"There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false."

But, back on 1/16/05, at 3:26 PM, Islander posted the following:

"This law does not require ANY enforcement!

When owners of boats that can go 90mph are looking for a lake to visit or dock their boat at they will NOT choose a lake with a 45mph speed limit. So no new fast boats will come to lake winni.

Some die hard owners of fast boats on the lake may stay. But year by year there will be fewer and fewer fast boats on the lake. All this without the Marine Patrol writing even one ticket.

There will be people that go 50 or 60 on the lake and get away with it. Just like people go 75 or 85 on RT93 and usually get away with it. But nobody goes 130 on RT 93 and nobody will be going 90 on the lake anymore.

If you read the article about the people that came up with this legislation you will find that they are already talking about horse power limits."

And on 1/18/05, at 4:44 PM, Islander posted the following:

"This is where these people are coming from! They want to blast by Eagle Island at 200 mph.

Notice that the generic name for these boats is "Offshore". Winni doesn't have anyplace that is offshore."

On a different note, on 1/14/05 at 3:27 PM Bear Lover posted the following:

"ITD

Your missing the point. A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake.

If you really think it can't happen read the list of NH lakes with speed and or horsepower limits. It's about 1 in 3."

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? :rolleye2: I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

JDeere

04-13-2008, 06:30 PM

Today, Islander posted:

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? :rolleye2:
Silver Duck

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

codeman671

04-13-2008, 06:56 PM

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny, being that the list of opponents published (and posted on this site) is larger than the list of proponents... DUH!!!!!!!!!!! And honestly, how do you know that the intent ISN'T to ban performance boats? Seems rather odd to me that this originated from Bear Island, the sample place that a certain individual lived that passed away at the hands of a DRUNK, NON SPEEDING (sorry, and estimated 3mph variance is not excessive) GFBL/driver?

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????? Even my eight year old uses more witty remarks than that...

Let the speed limit come. Next time someone dies at the hands of a boater doing less than the speed limit what will the argument be then?? Ban them all? For the record, more people have died in non-powered accidents in the last few years on the lake than at the hands of any boater. Multiple drownings and someone falling off the Mount. Let's ban swimming off boats to start. Wasn't it two in the same weekend???

You can't fix stupid...

Islander

04-13-2008, 07:50 PM

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? :rolleye2: I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

I was not involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation. I know Bear Lover wasn't either. There goes that argument.

I guess your theory is we are lying about the real reason for speed limits. Can you please explain why. Why do we lie, if it were true why would we not say so? We have no reason to lie.

Cal

04-13-2008, 08:31 PM

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks.

You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is
A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof.

And JDeere , being the owner of a "performance boat" I consider this and attack from BI.

"I" am targeting performance boats

Bear Islander

04-13-2008, 08:50 PM

You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is
A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof.

And JDeere , being the owner of a "performance boat" I consider this and attack from BI.

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

From Coast Guard statistics http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2006.pdf

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

Lakegeezer

04-13-2008, 09:39 PM

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.What good theory is that? Excessive speed means what? Surely not some number!

I was guilty of excessive speed last time I dinged my prop on a rock. Had I been going 20 rather than 25 MPH, I might have stopped in time once I saw the rock. On our lake, we have a lot more accidents involving alcohol abuse than speeds over 45. Excessive speed is a relative issue, based on boat type, weather, sea and traffic. Encouraging the MP to stop people for traveling over 45 when conditions would allow it, threating them with fines and suspended licenses is what we're fighting.

Silver Duck

04-13-2008, 10:05 PM

Islander

What part of "A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it" is so unclear that I could possibly misunderstand it?

Whether or not you and/or Bear Lover were involved with creating the speed limit legislation, you are both, as I stated, "proponents" of that legislation. With proponents singing that tune, I must, in good conscience, oppose it!

In addition, I strongly feel that a "one size fits all" speed limit of 45 mph is far too fast in certain areas of the lake (e.g., the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island, the stretch between Eagle Island and the Weirs) at busy times! Since other proponents have opined that operating in a reckless manner is not a tool that the MP can use to curb excessive speed, my feeling is that the speed limit, as curently written, will only serve to legitimize going through those kinds of areas during crowded times at what to me seems an excessive rate of speed.

Silver Duck

Evenstar

04-13-2008, 10:58 PM

Islander
Whether or not you and/or Bear Lover were involved with creating the speed limit legislation, you are both, as I stated, "proponents" of that legislation. With proponents singing that tune, I must, in good conscience, oppose it!
I have also been accused on this forum of supporting the speed limit because my goat is to rid the lake of a certain type of boat - which is not at all true.

Is it possible that this may in fact be the goal of some speed limit supporter? Yes, of course that is possible. But I seriously doubt that many have this as a goal.

I don't support that goal, but that doesn't mean that I should give up my support of a bill that I believe in. I was at the State House long enough to see that many bills are supported (and opposed) for both good and bad reasons.

In addition, I strongly feel that a "one size fits all" speed limit of 45 mph is far too fast in certain areas of the lake (e.g., the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island, the stretch between Eagle Island and the Weirs) at busy times! Since other proponents have opined that operating in a reckless manner is not a tool that the MP can use to curb excessive speed, my feeling is that the speed limit, as currently written, will only serve to legitimize going through those kinds of areas during crowded times at what to me seems an excessive rate of speed.
Now that's just silly, and the writing in the bill is clear about what it permits. A speed limit is the maximum speed that a boat may travel- not the permissible speed for all conditions. Here's text from HB 847:

"(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:

(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and

(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time."

Seems pretty clear to me. A speed limit is an addition tool for safer boating - it does not replace all the other boating laws.

Islander

04-13-2008, 11:01 PM

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? :rolleye2: I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

Silver Duck

Please post a reason why we would lie about the origins of speed limits, or stop making the accusation!

JDeere

04-13-2008, 11:38 PM

You can't fix stupid...

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

Resident 2B

04-14-2008, 12:04 AM

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olypics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

Islander

04-14-2008, 01:04 AM

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olympics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

R2B

I am sorry but I think you are confused. I never suggested any "special treatment" You posted this in your bash against BI.

"I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom."

You see it was you that brought up the subject of service. Does only YOUR service apply?

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Why is it Un-American to want a horsepower limit anyway. If a citizen truly believes that is the answer what should they do? Hide their beliefs? Freedom is the right to voice what you believe in even if other people don't like it.

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/marinepatrol/restricted.html

Your posts are, in my opinion, a personal bash that are against the rules of this forum.

codeman671

04-14-2008, 06:56 AM

IIslander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

Please post it for us all to enjoy :D

codeman671

04-14-2008, 07:03 AM

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/marinepatrol/restricted.html

I have covered this one many times before, I'd be happy to direct you to the links if you'd like. The bulk of the bodies of water in NH are limited due to their sheer size! Try putting a 25 foot boat in Milton 3 Ponds for instance... 110 acres of water. Winnipesaukee is over 6 times the size of the second largest lake and considerably deeper. From there, there is only a few that are 3000+ acres and below that it drops even faster.

How many other lakes in NH could accomodate the Mount? The Sophie C? the Doris E? You don't anything like those on Squam...

codeman671

04-14-2008, 07:07 AM

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

Cal

04-14-2008, 07:07 AM

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

From Coast Guard statistics http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2006.pdf

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

BS. You know darn well the EXCESS SPEED can also be 10mph while docking or 25 mph in bad conditions but DON"T mention that. You keep digging yourself into a pit of deception with your statements. Keep up the good work:laugh::laugh:

Lakegeezer

04-14-2008, 07:15 AM

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.JD, I think you are missing the point of the argument. Are you calling going 60 MPH in a bass boat, on a calm uncrowded day absurd? This rule attempts to define what is proper for the whole lake, all the time and under all conditions. Yes, let the captain do what they want, within the limits conditions define. That is called freedom. Existing laws can deal with the captain bonehead who gets it wrong. How is that absurd?

Those who use the lake on the weekend, should not dictate rules that impact others when they are not around. That is absurd. Nobody is claiming its their right to do what ever they want, only their right to safely enjoy speed when the conditions are right.

JDeere

04-14-2008, 07:51 AM

LG,

I use to spend a lot of time fishing on the lake. I grew tired of getting buzzed by some of the speedier boats on the lake. I hvae had too many close calls or maybe to close for comfort situations with boats going IMHO too fast. Again IMHO if those boats were traveling SLOWER thier Captain would still be a bone head BUT at least I will have more time to react.

So, yes I think a bass boat going 60 MPH is too fast.

Acres per Second

04-14-2008, 07:57 AM

"...You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof...."
Though speed has claimed as many as 6 unrelated boaters at once—inside a cruiser, btw—I find the ocean-racer crash that claimed three brothers off your NJ coast especially disturbing.

1) Was it A L C O H O L that claimed those brothers? :rolleye1:

2) If they could, what would those brothers advise us today about keeping the thrills of excess speed "in the family"?

"...Clouds are nice...brothers together...harp tunes getting old...send three MP3s..."

??? :confused: ???

chipj29

04-14-2008, 07:58 AM

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But 22 people have NOT been killed on the lake. Not last year, and not any year before that. The last time someone was killed by a boat going faster than 60 was...when??
I know what you will say next...a speed limit will prevent 22 people from being killed by boats faster than 60. Of course it will. Riiiight.
Fear mongering at its finest. Let's solve a problem that does NOT exist.

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.
Ya, how dare us try to fight for what we believe in. We are horrible, horrible people.

Bear Islander

04-14-2008, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=55784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

codeman671

04-14-2008, 08:36 AM

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=55784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

Bear Islander

04-14-2008, 08:52 AM

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

You were wrong because you know my belief very well. Take a look at these past posts of yours. You are even telling other people about my proposal.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62728&highlight=2008#post62728

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=67118&highlight=2008#post67118

My quote that "I" am targeting high performance boats was to explain that the speed limit movement is not targeting them, just me.

I am only targeting ones manufactured after 2008. Sorry if that was not clear. I have not changed my views or tried to hide them.

codeman671

04-14-2008, 10:10 AM

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

DoTheMath

04-14-2008, 10:27 AM

When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now. :rolleye1:

Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way... So - let me ask, was your tunnel-hull racer bigger than 1/12th scale? I'm not talking models - I'm talking the real deal. And if it was a "tunnel-hull racer" as you refer to it, I'm also not referring to the ones with a 15hp. outboard on it that's 10' long. I'm talking a full sized, I'm-really-all-grown-up-now performance boat, Skater, Cigarette, Outerlimits... that kind of performance boat. Your past posts read a bit differently than if you had real experience with what I am referring to and what you are so freely bashing. Come on - let's get it out there and see what you've got to offer in the way of REAL experience that can support your stance.

Oh, and how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine :o)

Bear Islander

04-14-2008, 10:44 AM

hazelnut

04-14-2008, 11:08 AM

codeman671

04-14-2008, 11:12 AM

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

hazelnut

04-14-2008, 05:15 PM

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

KonaChick

04-14-2008, 05:59 PM

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

hazelnut

04-14-2008, 06:38 PM

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

Nope, look at it just like a cop might stake out a school zone.

As far as notifying boaters perhaps the marine patrol could give the camps rights to put out temporary No Wake buoys each day as needed?

Silver Duck

04-14-2008, 07:19 PM

I think that Camp Zones are a fine idea, whether or not the speed limit is enacted!

Could this be done by the MP administratively, or would legislation be needed to create a new category of zone?

Silver Duck

Silver Duck

04-14-2008, 07:57 PM

Evenstar

I, for one, have never numbered you among the "run 'em off the lake" set.

However, I think that you're a bit optimistic about Captain Bonehead's idea of "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions" being anything less than the posted maximum.

For instance, over the last six seasons, I've spent many nights sitting in the cockpit of my cruiser (inside the enclosure, of course) on pitch dark and rainy nights, with visibility maybe 100 ft, at best. (The only reason I'd have left my slip on some of those nights was if the dock was on fire!)

Yet, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen boats leave the public docks and come up on plane before they even reach the no wake markers. Definitely not reasonable and prudent behavior by my standards.

The 60 year old cynic in me keeps telling me that "reasonable and prudent" seems to be in short supply with some folks. I don't much like it, but I suspect that Captain B is going to adopt 45 mph as reasonable and prudent by definition (until he hits something or somebody, and the MP can hang a violation of subparagraph A on him.)

But, I do hope that you're right, and I'm being too pessimistic. Time will tell.

Silver Duck

Silver Duck

04-14-2008, 08:15 PM

jrc

04-14-2008, 08:38 PM

... How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

Absurd? Are you sure you are in the right country?

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
...
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
...
synonyms see freedom
...

Now of course "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" acording to Holmes. But you want us to stop even when there are no noses.

Airwaves

04-14-2008, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Codeman671
If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem?

A very good idea but as you point out it probably wouldn't be offered as a compromise on the speed limit issue, although it might sway some in the NH Senate if it were offered to them.

I would think that if a violation of the 150' law is a problem around these camps they could probably petition the Dept of Safety to get the no wake/no boat zone increased administratively just as waterfront property owners can petition for no rafting zones.

The slippery slope here is if a couple of camps can do it more will follow, then various 'associations' etc etc.

Cal

04-14-2008, 09:08 PM

Though speed has claimed as many as 6 unrelated boaters at once—inside a cruiser, btw—I find the ocean-racer crash that claimed three brothers off your NJ coast especially disturbing.

1) Was it A L C O H O L that claimed those brothers? :rolleye1:

2) If they could, what would those brothers advise us today about keeping the thrills of excess speed "in the family"?

??? :confused: ???

1. Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question.

2.Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense. Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power.

Their autobody shop is still 2 miles from my house but under a different name.
Didn't know them personally but have heard a lot of local scuttlebutt that never gets to the newspapers.

TiltonBB

04-14-2008, 09:20 PM

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.
B. A boat bigger than mine went by my house, made some noise, and left a wake.
C. I tried to row my 12 foot aluninum row boat (with 3 kids and the dog aboard) accross Meredith Bay on July 4th and some boats went by and scared me.

What will the end game be?

Safer lake? No, there is no factual evidence that it will make the lake even a little safer.
Quieter? No, this has nothing to do with the existing noise laws.
No more 150 foot violations? No, those will still happen.
Smarter Captains? Nope, doesn't address that.
More Marine Patrol Officers? Nope, not mentioned.
Smaller Wakes? No, slower boats leave larger wakes.

Wow! A lot of noise and effort to take away your rights and acomplish nothing.

When the horsepower and speed laws are eventually established what happens if: I get a 40 foot Marine Trader displacement hull with a single 120 HP diesel engine and cruise the lake at 6 knots. Will the speed fairies cry about the wake? Will they try to establish a size limit? If I paint the boat pink will they want covenants in place to establish appearance standards?

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it!

What happened to live free or die?

Evenstar

04-14-2008, 10:44 PM

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.
First of all there is a problem - apparently you’re not reading what I have posted. Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles.

My contention is that allowing power boat to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds is just not a safe practice – and many others agree with me, including the US Coast Guard. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” (http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm)

I can only comment on “A”, since the other two don’t apply to me. I own a 16 foot sea kayak, which is designed to be used on large bodies of water – and I am an experienced kayaker. So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater.

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it! What happened to live free or die?
If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws.

NH RSA 270:1, Section 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. ...

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

Islander

04-14-2008, 11:19 PM

Islander

Since, as you say (and I'll accept your word on it) neither you nor Bear Lover were "involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation", why should I accept your theory on the reasons behind the legislation over my own (which is shared by a number of other forum members)?

I'm not calling you a liar, I merely feel that my view of the reasons behind the speed limit is correct and your isn't. I rather doubt that either of us has any possibility of convincing the other.

By the way, excellent pun!

Silver Duck

Although I was not involved with creating the legislation, I know some people that were. And I have been involved with support meetings. I have read the communications. There is no secret agenda. How could such a wide based loosely organized group hide its true purpose? Would that many people keep the real purpose secret? We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't make sense.

And if GFBL's were the target why not just say so. You can make a good argument (as some have) that the lake is to small and fragile for these boats.

Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is more likely to be true.

TiltonBB

04-15-2008, 08:56 AM

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.

Could you support a minimum daytime speed of, say, 44 MPH? That way no boat will ever overtake another slower boat and with everyone going the same speed it will eliminate the unsafe passing of other boats.

I've been boating and swimming on the lake for many, many years. I used to love looking at the mountians and trees. Is there any way to include in the speed legislation that people shouldn't develop their mountainside land. The view is changing and I don't enjoy the lake as much because I have to see those big houses that rich people own.

JDeere

04-15-2008, 09:45 AM

Absurd? Are you sure you are in the right country?

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
...
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
...
synonyms see freedom
...

Now of course "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" acording to Holmes. But you want us to stop even when there are no noses.

I think your freedom ends at the bow of my boat. I too have the right to liberty. The difference between you and me is that see your version of liberty (to go as fast you want) infringing on my liberty to enjoy the lake with out people traveling at high speeds.

I boat and have boated in many places. Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.

JDeere

04-15-2008, 09:51 AM

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

It think she nailed it in this reply although I would say "we know" it is an unsafe policy.

Slower is safer.

Lakegeezer

04-15-2008, 10:31 AM

Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.Re-read ad the posts about speed limits and the logic should become apparent to you. Speeds above 45 scares people into fighting for limits, but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. So, its a battle between those that are afraid of something they can't control or understand and freedom fighters. Here, the fight is to retain the existing right to persue happiness by going fast under appropriate conditions. Speed limit proponents are entitled to push for laws that restrict others, so they can feel safer. It should make sense to you that others will not accept what they feel are ineffective restrictions of freedom without a fight.

The right to not be scared is indeed one that has emerged into our culture over the past 8 years, but not everyone buys into the new agenda of fear based politics. If that doesn't make sense, go read the documents that founded this country - and see if you find anything about freedom from fear in there.

SIKSUKR

04-15-2008, 11:00 AM

Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles. .

Ok I'll bite,How about the ultra light planes and similar craft which fly right over the lake or with hang gliders?Hey you asked.

So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater. .
Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!
If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws..
What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.

Evenstar

04-15-2008, 11:45 AM

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?
This is what NH LAW states” “. . . 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, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights.

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.
Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.

I paddle a sea kayak, which is made to handle large waves. I happen to enjoy waves – and I often surf on large wakes.

Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!
I have kayaked and sailed on the ocean – I cross shipping lanes all the time. Commercial vessels are not going all that fast, so it is no problem to stay out of their way.

What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?
Excuse me? What have I ever made up? Look back at my previous post – I referenced and quoted that NH law.

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.
How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater?
Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.

Bear Islander

04-15-2008, 12:22 PM

BS. You know darn well the EXCESS SPEED can also be 10mph while docking or 25 mph in bad conditions but DON"T mention that. You keep digging yourself into a pit of deception with your statements. Keep up the good work:laugh::laugh:

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

Lakegeezer

04-15-2008, 01:08 PM

This is what NH LAW states” “. . . 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, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights..Variety of uses doesn't mean all. Some kayaks won't want to be out with boats going between 20 and 45. Those above 45 are just more of the same. I think the lake meets the requirements of variety of uses.

Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.Define speeding? I sure see a lot of complaints that about speeding, yet not at speeds above 45. A speed limit of 45 won't solve the problem. Few of the "to fast for conditions" accidents are above 45. I suggest that those going above 45 are better drivers, and there are fewer of them. You're point of speeding is well taken, but the speed limit won't address it.

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.Common thinking is that boats going above 45 make less wake, so the issue of legislating wake and speed limits are totally different issues - as you seem to acknowledge.

How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater? Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.Its not. Boats that want to speed need to stay clear of you and when you get in the way, the boats have to deal with it. Now if you'd only stop trying to restrict them when you aren't around.

chipj29

04-15-2008, 01:12 PM

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

In the context of the statistics that you posted, what is the definition of excessive speed?
A. More than 45 mph at day?
B. More than 25 mph at night?
C. Travelling too fast for the conditions?
D. Travelling faster than someone else thinks he should have?
E. Exceeding an existing speed limit?

How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed?

jrc

04-15-2008, 01:16 PM

Evenstar
How can you find the ability to ban certain boats and certain operations in the phrase "the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses" ?

Unless a boat or operation can be shown to be unsafe, it would seem that this phrase would require that it be encouraged. So show me direct un-biased evidence that traveling over 45 MPH is always or at least usually unsafe on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can't because there isn't any. All we have is fear, derived from estimates of speeds in anecdotal close calls.

Bear Islander

Show me in the Coast Guard safe speed rule where sets a numerical speed limit? From a USCG point of view excess speed means breaking this rule, it has nothing to do with speed limits. You know this, stop pretending.

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water