Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds.... [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

Pages : 1 2 [3]

TiltonBB

04-15-2008, 02:35 PM

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?

If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake?

Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

Evenstar

04-15-2008, 03:40 PM

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.
RSA 270:1 dates back to 1941 and the law was made to help prevent (among other things) the very things that we are debating here, which is that high-speed powerboats are making the lake unsafe for others. I, and many others, contend that the current unlimited speed limit is a very unsafe policy, and this law explicitly states that NH lakes are to be “regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment.” An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer.

Paddlers were on this lakes long before any powerboat – so you can’t really argue that canoes and kayaks are not among the “variety of uses.” Kayaks are the fastest growing recreational boat, so it’s not like their popularity is decreasing. I’m also not saying that it is ok to use a boat beyond what it was designed for or for an operator to use a boat beyond their own ability. That is putting yourself in danger.

What I am saying that if a boat that is designed for large bodies of water cannot be safely used by an experienced paddler on NH lakes, due to the actions of other boaters – that we have a major problem that needs to be addressed by regulation (which is part of RSA 270:1 requires).

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.
Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?
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.
I don’t “get in the way” – according to navigational rules, I have the right of way. Having said that, I don’t cut powerboats off and I try my best to stay out of their path. I have had to slow down fairly often for powerboaters who have cut me off.

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Mashugana

04-15-2008, 03:44 PM

{snip} 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?

All of the above factors are controlled by law.

Show us where USCG defines excessive speed as over 45/25 mph or ANY solid numbers. Excessive speed could be 10 mph. Excessive speed is a relative and changing number which depends on many factors and circumstances.

BTW BI, you never gave an answer to the question that assumes all current boating laws are obeyed 100% what more would this 45/25 bill accomplish. Your style is to just dismiss the question saying that 100% compliance will never happen. We can all agree 100% will never happen. This simply takes away a variable for discussion.

Not only do you avoid and dismiss certain questions you raise doubts about the personality of the questioner (and I'm being very polite). Your posting style and debate tactics often appear hostile or designed to "press buttons". We can debate and discuss on this forum and still be friendly or do you want to change that too?

You claim that those who are against the 45/25 mph speed limit on Winnie are therefore advocating NO LIMITS. It's not true. The debate is about the proposed 45/25 mph speed limit or NO 45/25 mph speed limit. That is the question put to the NH House and Senate. BI Spin at work.

A side note. Just like there is a speed at which it becomes unreasonable so too is there a point when too many POSTS becomes unreasonable. Point in case: My (now locked) thread about riding on the Bow. There were 79 total posts in the thread. 18 were by Bear Islander. Not even ONE of his posts addressed the thread topic. Bear Islander responded to asides but failed to deal with the subject. He can claim that he was not the one to hijack the thread. Still, Almost 25% of the messages in that thread were by BI but none mentioned the topic, the safety or legality of riding on the bow of a boat. If I used BI tactics I'd say that BI must NOT be in favor about safety of riding on a bow. No PFDs and no seats designed for that activity but not on the agenda of Bear islander.

How many posts are too many? If you look at numbers, your USCG report shows that Excessive Speed (whatever the actual numbers are 10 mph or 100 mph) was listed as a factor in 18% of the total accidents. Your not-on-topic posts were almost 25% of the messages in the ride on bow thread. Just talking about the percentage for a moment and not the topic, which % is excessive, 25% or 18%?

A casualty of Speed Limits seems to be the thread I started about riding on the bow.

Teach me to come out of lurking and get involved.........

chmeeee

04-15-2008, 03:49 PM

The Coast Guard did not determine that speed was a factor in those accidents. They determined EXCESSIVE SPEED was a factor.

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.

Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

Evenstar

04-15-2008, 04:09 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.
First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?
Where do you think kayaks got their origins? Most recreational kayaks are not “sea-worthy” sea kayaks are. I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat – and I have experienced what you described many times. Is it safe, no – but I never felt that I was in any danger when that happened.

[quote]If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"
Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake? Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?
Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

Bear Islander

04-15-2008, 04:19 PM

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

"Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer.

Resident 2B

04-15-2008, 04:22 PM

I think many are missing an important point.

In all bodies of water where the CG has gathered the data BI keeps pointing to, there is no 150' rule. So, any comparison to what is being proposed in NH were we have an existing 150' rule is completely bogus.

Excessive speed in CG's assessment can be any speed deamed too fast for existing conditions. Without a 150' NWZ around every other vessel, boats in CG waters are often moving at 25 MPH or faster even when within 25' to 50' of each other. It is a much more dangerous situation than we have on the lake. If you do not believe me, go out of Boston Harbor some summer week day, not even on a weekend, and you will see many things, much faster and much closer that we ever see on the lake. This is within the outer harbor, from Deer Island inwards to Logan airport.

We have a rule on the lake, the 150' rule, that works when enforced. The CG has no rule like it. Therefore, the boating environments are totally different and the data is not applicaple to this discussion.

It is like comparing apples and watermelons!

R2B

chmeeee

04-15-2008, 04:26 PM

"Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer.

Good Lord, I should have known you would do that. My point is that any speed is safer than every speed higher than it. Why 45 and not 35 or 55? Its an arbitrary limit pulled out of somebody's butt with no research to back it up.

Bear Islander

04-15-2008, 04:46 PM

Good Lord, I should have known you would do that. My point is that any speed is safer than every speed higher than it. Why 45 and not 35 or 55? Its an arbitrary limit pulled out of somebody's butt with no research to back it up.

I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer.

Airwaves

04-15-2008, 06:56 PM

This is part of a posting I wrote on the "Proposed Law" thread (#241) that seems appropriate here.

So now we're looking at the possibility of a new law that will require new enforcement efforts from an agency that is facing funding cuts. Since New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has told his agency heads that because of an expected $50,000,000 budget shortfall to be prepared for cuts.

Even in the unlikely event that the state does step in and level fund the Marine Patrol the need for a new series of radar patrols is still a cutback since those patrols require radar certified Marine Patrol officers (training costs) to run radar duty instead of conducting safety patrols (patrol cutbacks). Accomplishing that, to cover a lake that is 72 square miles, is going to take more than one radar boat!

Such a move would be a reduction in safety to all boaters that I strongly oppose and actually will make the lake a LESS SAFE PLACE TO BE!

Ironic, a law requiring a speed limit could actually make the lake less safe!

Silver Duck

04-15-2008, 07:23 PM

Islander

Since you do seem to have some sources for insight that I lack, I'd be quite interested in discussing the subject with you once the season gets rolling (though the way ice-out is going, it may be a moot point by then!)

My opposition to the speed limit started back in the days of HB162 based upon my feeling that it was unjust to penalize all GFBL operators for the misbehavior of a few Captain Bonehead types.

The Bear Lover post that I quoted stating that the speed limit was intended to get GFBLs off the lake and naming my type of boat (cruisers) as the next target :eek: solidified my opposition to the speed limit; that opposition has been reinforced by the numerous posts along the same lines made by various forum members.

It would be nice to be able to believe that this legislation really is about safety rather than about an attempt by shorefront property owners to dictate who gets to use the lake. Who knows, maybe one of us actually does have a chance of convincing the other....

Silver Duck

Rattlesnake Guy

04-15-2008, 10:56 PM

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 07:12 AM

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

JDeere

04-16-2008, 07:36 AM

but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. .

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

codeman671

04-16-2008, 08:03 AM

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I don't think anyone is arguing that slower speeds give you more time to react. The historical data on accidents in NH indicate the trend to be lower speed accidents instead of high speed. Take a look at the deaths, hit kayaks, etc in NH. How many took place at speeds of 45mph+ compared to less than 45mph? It is not the reaction time that has caused the accidents that we have had, they mainly have been alcohol contributed.

Creating a law that is not needed according to factual data in NH, and striking on peoples fears instead of facts is not what laws should be based on.

Acres per Second

04-16-2008, 08:14 AM

"...How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed...?
Since the USCG makes no speed determinations from waters where they have no jurisdiction, the USCG relies on the reports of mostly part-time Winnipesaukee officers. However, nobody's seen any determination of the speed at which Winnipesaukee's Eagle Island crash occurred, as one example.

Who would find "THE FACT" of excessive speeds on Winnipesaukee where no speeds are ever determined? :confused:

"...how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine :o) ..."
Every weekend boater—willing or not—participates in some way in a Poker Run. One might empathize with this Winnipesaukee bass fisherman on one Poker Run weekend.

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

In 2007, it was nice to see that Donzi finally filed the required NHMP permit after years of "fun". :rolleye1:

"...1) Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question..."
The oldest brother's body was found; however, as in so many other cases, a determination of alcohol's metabolites was never announced.

"...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..."
Thanks, but what the request was, "What would those three brothers be telling us about a 'Need for Speed' on Winnipesaukee's protected inland waters?" (Where they could endanger more boaters, and boat even faster than they did).

"...Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power..."
Is the special training available to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (Yes). :)

Is the special training required to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (No). :(

Three brothers lost to the thrill of speed together is an especially tragic loss—I can't readily dismiss it.

"...You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that. What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe..."
What was the speed of the Rattlesnake Island crash? The fatality in Tuftonboro collision? The Parker Island crash? The Camp Island crash? The fatality off Parker Island of a seasoned boat mechanic? The upside-down crash into a cottage that took three lives? The most recent Long Lake collision? The kayak collision?

Answer: Nobody knows—not the NHMP and, most famously, not the Coast Guard itself.

"...Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way..."
Sorry, I've never heard of Wharton. (Sure sounds important, though).

"...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..."
Mine was a "real" prototype: think of a Jet-Ski only 18" high, but with a tunnel-hull underside. Here's what the tunnel-hull design looks like underneath.

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

However, a wake overwhelmed me on its first outing. (And how I discovered that a 6-gallon gas tank can be a floatation device!) As a 17-year-old—and not yet a high school graduate—I could only afford a 15-HP outboard. (And it was second-hand).

Since then, it's always been closed-course speeds for my thrills: the option of being extracted trying to "crawl away" from a collision has always been more appealing than trying to "keep from drowning".

"...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..."
I don't have the disposable income that would permit me a REAL toy that even some local governments can't afford. I also don't have the disposable income that would permit me to pay an annual five-figure insurance premium: I'm one of those "lesser" boaters, with one of those "lesser" credit ratings.

I should own a 20' Bayliner, I guess. :rolleye2:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/IMPORTANCEwhereLesserBoatsPoster357.jpg

chmeeee

04-16-2008, 08:15 AM

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

JDeere

04-16-2008, 08:22 AM

I don't think anyone is arguing that slower speeds give you more time to react. The historical data on accidents in NH indicate the trend to be lower speed accidents instead of high speed. Take a look at the deaths, hit kayaks, etc in NH. How many took place at speeds of 45mph+ compared to less than 45mph? It is not the reaction time that has caused the accidents that we have had, they mainly have been alcohol contributed.

Creating a law that is not needed according to factual data in NH, and striking on peoples fears instead of facts is not what laws should be based on.

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Second, if you look at the stats a few things become clear.

Operator inattention and careless, reckless are the 2 top reasons for an accident. Most accidents are from open motorboats, and collision with another vessels being a predominant accident. I wonder why sailboats are so far down the list................maybe because they are going so slow? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............................

Speed is number 3 on the list. No kidding. The first mistake is lack of care regardless of speed HOWEVER slower speeds gives everyone more time to handle those mistakes and we all make mistakes. Slower just gives us more time to deal with those errors.

Cal

04-16-2008, 08:30 AM

If you crash your boat while attempting to dock at 10 mph, then USCG will label speed as a factor. If you run aground at 30 mph in thick fog, then USCG will label speed as a factor.

BI knows this. He can't be THAT stupid. He just uses a partial truth from the Coast Guard to spin in his direction. And here's some laughing faces for you:laugh::laugh::laugh:

JDeere

04-16-2008, 08:32 AM

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.

KonaChick

04-16-2008, 08:49 AM

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

codeman671

04-16-2008, 09:32 AM

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Sure. To the exact MPH? NO, because it would be almost impossible unless someone was watching with a radar gun when it happened.

• In 2006 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed of over 30 mph . . . this is for the entire year and includes all 970 lakes/ponds and over 12,000 miles of rivers and streams.

• During the entire year of 2007 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 40 mph. There was 1 accident in 2007 that involved a speed of < 30 mph whereby an operator of a personal water craft (PWC) fell off and his craft struck another PWC.

• We hadn’t had a single boat collision fatality in New Hampshire for over 4 years. There was 1 fatality involving a personal watercraft (jet ski) at a speed less than 20 mph in 2007.

Somewhere on the forum there is an exact list of incidents from last year, I do not remember who posted it, but I am sure someone will chime in.

chipj29

04-16-2008, 09:40 AM

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.
Bingo!!! :cheers:

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 11:06 AM

I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

The is plenty of data, many accidents. However the opponents live in a river in Egypt and will explain away every accident.

Single boats accidents don't count

Accident before mandatory certification don't count

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't count

If alcohol has involved it doesn't count

Accident on another lake don't count

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't count

Accidents before (pick a date) don't count

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.

chipj29

04-16-2008, 11:12 AM

The only accidents that should count are the ones in which speed (over 45 mph) was a major contributing factor. Period.

With that said, how many have there been?

hazelnut

04-16-2008, 11:32 AM

The is plenty of data, many accidents.

Single boats accidents don't count Says who?

Accident before mandatory certification don't countAgain Says who?

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't countLike 47 MPH?

If alcohol has involved it doesn't countSo explain why it SHOULD count if Alcohol was present?

Accident on another lake don't countThe law on the table is specific to Winni

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't countThis is a funny one. Yeah ummmm do I even need to go there?

Accidents before (pick a date) don't countSaid Who?

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.Again if a kid is illegally driving a boat I'm SURE he'd obey the laws.:rolleye2:

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.Does that lake have a speed limit?

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.You just can't seem to work that one out in your head can you? Excessive speed could have been a 20MPH collision with a dock? Above wake in a no wake? It just kills you to even consider that doesn't it

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.You are right about one thing this post was comical. I know I laughed when I read it. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Comments are in red.

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 11:45 AM

Lakegeezer

04-16-2008, 11:53 AM

Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

Resident 2B

04-16-2008, 12:07 PM

The pro-speed limit "few" keeps spinning things and posting things that are just plain not happening here.

We have a great rule with respect to safety: the 150' rule.

Things happening outside of NH, all in places without the 150' rule, just plain do not count. It is an entirely different boating environment! The 150" rule works. Enforce what we have.

Our law makers had great in-sight when they created the 150' rule. It makes things safer than it is in all other areas without this wonderful rule.

I liked yesterday's ideas about restricted zones around camps. That helps more people enjoy the lake and adds value to safety of the children. I fully support this proposal.

Today, we are back to the same-old, same-old. I guess the pro-speed limit "few" have figured out that their effort to get certain boat types off the lake is not supported with this thinking.

The pro-speed limit "few" are only trying to impose their will on the rest of the NH boating public and they will continue to stoop to the lowest levels to spin their agenda. This agenda includes removal of all fast boats and all cruisers.

After the speed limit will come wake sizes and/or HP restrictions. Trust me!! This is only "step one" in a well planned agenda designed to get all the vessel types they do not like off the lake. They will stoop to whatever it takes to do this.

Boaters Beware!

R2B

Airwaves

04-16-2008, 01:11 PM

Why are opponents to this bill falling into the trap of trying to defend how safe Lake Winnipesaukee already is? Anyone who cares to read the NEW HAMPSHIRE boating stats from either the NH Marine Patrol or the US Coast Guard can see that is is a very safe lake.

As I pointed out in my post #510 (it tended to disappear between the lag time and APS' entertaining picture posts) I put forward this argument;

I submit that speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will have the exact opposite effect and make the lake less safe!

In my local paper last night an editorial suggests that New Hampshire's budget deficit could be $200,000,000! A much higher figure than the one that I had heard and used.

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 03:07 PM

JDeere

04-16-2008, 03:26 PM

That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The point is when you go slower there is more time to react AND the severity will be less. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

JDeere

04-16-2008, 03:32 PM

If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

chmeeee

04-16-2008, 03:57 PM

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.

http://geoff82.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/fatality-rate-per-100000000-miles.gif

I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 03:58 PM

JD eere

That IS a classic. If we could get all those slower boats to go faster, think how safe the lake would be then!

I could be all wrong about a horsepower limit, we need a horsepower MINIMUM. If we restrict the lake to over 300 HP we will never have an accident again.:laugh:

Then again...... slower is safer

KonaChick

04-16-2008, 04:04 PM

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The point is when you go slower there is more time to react AND the severity will be less. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

Ok fair enough, I can't argue that logic. Now remind me once again how many fatalities we've had on the lake due to excessive speed?

(btw love the jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...it reminds me of my kids when they are irritated with me!!) :laugh:

Seeker

04-16-2008, 04:23 PM

Resident 2B

04-16-2008, 04:25 PM

JDeere

04-16-2008, 05:03 PM

The 45 MPH speed limit is certainly not the panacea you think it is either.

If slower is really safer, why didn't you folks go for a 35 MPH speed limit, or a 30 MPH speed limit, or even a 25 MPH speed limit?

45 MPH is a speed that excludes the faster boats from the lake. Ops, I'm sorry, I answered my own question. :):laugh::coolsm:

R2B

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

JDeere

04-16-2008, 05:06 PM

The national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.

http://geoff82.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/fatality-rate-per-100000000-miles.gif

I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

Well maybe you got me. Not worth the time to go find something to argue the point. If your stats are correct I assume there is a correlation to airbags, seat belts etc...............

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 05:44 PM

The 150' rule is a lot better than the speed limit proposal. It just needs to be ENFORCED. If they (the NHMP) can't enforce that then how will they enforce the speed limits. Answer: They can't.

The 150' rule is hard for the MP to enforce. In almost all cases it's not possible to actually measure the distance, an estimate is required. And even harder if the MP is looking at a possible violation from a distance. And people will disagree about what is 150'

A speed limit is easier to enforce, point the radar gun and read the speed.

Evenstar

04-16-2008, 08:26 PM

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?
From my experience, more than an "occasional" boat travels over 45 mph on the lake, and some boats travel much faster than 45mph.

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)

Rattlesnake Guy

04-16-2008, 09:00 PM

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

Bear,
The problem is, it was my question. If you have your own I am sure you would be pleased to ask it.
I am very very sincere. If the argument for the speed limit is because some don't feel "safe" than it is a legitimate question. Your response is why I felt the need to be specific. If we need to give up a freedom for a smaller group, it is fair to weigh the benefits vs cost.

If a kyacker wanted to answer my question with "yes I would feel safe" it would say something. Your response also says a lot.

Often we have little choice but to settle for a little less freedom but we can try to understand the reason with more explanation than "because I said so".

Resident 2B

04-16-2008, 10:04 PM

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

Bear Islander

04-16-2008, 11:58 PM

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

Lakegeezer

04-17-2008, 05:48 AM

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-17-2008, 06:18 AM

Alleged facts repeated over and over again do NOT make them true or more true. A Bear Islander tactic: responded to me by asking me a question then a few messages later, to "save me the time", he answers the question himself, his way.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que - Post #414 (as quoted by BI):
... 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.

Bear Islander answering for me with what he wants us to believe.

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.

That is all Bear Islander can come up with in desperation (in my name). Here's more info than we need however it is proof of NH speed regulations. I can come up with these without BI's kind assistance. I apologize to forum readers for the length of this post and have made a few notes about skimming or jumping over certain boring parts.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2-a
270-D:2-a Boaters Guide. – The department of safety, division of safety services, shall publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270-D/270-D-2-a.htm

From the State mandated Safe Boating handbook guide:
Handbook - safe speed and distance: http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/meet.htm

Boating Basics: On the Water

Safe navigation on New Hampshire waterways is everyone's responsibility. All operators are equally responsible for taking action necessary to avoid collisions.

Encountering Other Vessels

Even though no vessel has the "right-of-way" over another vessel, there are some rules that every operator should follow when encountering other vessels. It is the responsibility of both operators to take the action needed to avoid a collision. The navigation rules page shows what to do when encountering another vessel.

To prevent collisions, every operator should follow the three basic rules of navigation.

* Practice good seamanship.
* Keep a sharp lookout.
* Maintain a safe speed and distance.

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

Some have claimed that the required handbook is not always correct. And maybe BI can claim that "safe speed" does not look like "reasonable speed". So I present more boating speed rules from the New Hampshire General Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Speed on Lake:
The page: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270-D/270-D-2.htm

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
I. Vessels shall be operated at headway speed only, while passing under all bridges.
II. (a) It shall be the duty of each vessel to keep to the right when vessels are approaching each other head on.
(b) When the courses of vessels are so far to the starboard of each other as not to be considered as approaching head on, they shall keep to the left.
III. When vessels are crossing courses or approaching each other in an oblique direction which may involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on its starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other, allowing the latter vessel to keep its course and speed.
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants. No person operating a vessel shall abruptly change its course without first determining that it can safely be done without crossing immediately ahead of another vessel.
V. If, when vessels are approaching each other, either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other from any cause, such vessel or vessels shall immediately slow to a speed barely sufficient for steerage until the vessels have safely passed each other. If it appears the danger of collision is imminent both vessels shall stop or reverse and not proceed until such danger has been averted.
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
(b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.
(c) The operator of a towing boat shall be responsible for compliance with this paragraph.
(d) The requirements of RSA 270-D:2, VI(a)(3) shall not apply to a vessel in the waters of the Androscoggin River from the Errol Dam to Umbagog Lake or in the waters of the Magalloway River within the state of New Hampshire.
VI-a. [Repealed.]
VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit.
VIII. When a vessel is required to keep out of the way of another, it shall, if necessary, slacken its speed, stop, or reverse, and avoid crossing ahead of any other vessel.
IX. Canoes, rowboats and sailboats shall be given the right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to allow deliberate impediment of motorboats by canoes, rowboats or sailboats.

Source. 1990, 171:1. 1994, 78:1. 1995, 191:2, eff. June 1, 1997; 191:3, eff. Dec. 31, 1998. 2002, 272:13, eff. May 18, 2002.

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

The next batch of speed rules for the lake get to be pretty boring to read. You may want to skim down past all the “no wake zone” speed restrictions to PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES for other NH boat speed rules

Saf-C 402.88 Lake Winnipesaukee.

(a) That part of Paugus Bay between the buoy located 250 feet from the west side of the bay to the western-most black top buoy shall be a "no wake" area.

(b) The Weirs Channel, so-called, between the light buoy in said channel near the Endicott Rock in Lake Winnipesaukee, and the southernmost light buoy in the channel in Lake Paugus shall be a "no wake" area.

(c) That part of Alton Bay in Lake Winnipesaukee lying south of the line running east and west through the bandstand shall be a "no wake" area. Commercial vessels operating in this area shall pass on the east side of the bandstand.

(d) Between the red top buoy located by light buoy #23 and Sandy Point in Alton Bay shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(e) That portion of Lake Winnipesaukee known as Sally's Gut from the easternmost to the westernmost buoys marking this passage shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(f) From the red and white buoy situated off the southeasterly portion of Locke's Island in Lake Winnipesaukee to a point 600 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(g) From the red and white buoy at the entrance of Smith's Cove at Glendale and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(h) The channel between Loon Island and the mainland in the town of Meredith from the red buoy situated off the southeast portion of Loon Island to a point 400 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(i) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Varney and Kenniston Islands from the black and white buoy marking the southeast entrance to the red buoy marking the northwest entrance of the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(j) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Pine Island and Meredith Neck between the black and white buoy and the red buoy marking the northerly and southerly entrances respectively shall be a "no wake" area.

(k) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Horse Island and Meredith Neck, between the red buoy on the southerly approach and the black and white buoy at the northeasterly approach to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(l) Between navigation light number 69 and Governor's Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(m) From the entrance to Minge Cove at West Alton to the flashing light buoy located within the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(n) From the flashing light buoy in Minge Cove and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(o) Between Chase Island and Farm Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(p) In the cove on the southwesterly side of Governor's Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(q) From the no wake sign located at the southern entrance to Fish Cove to the northernmost point of the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(r) From the northernmost black top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the southernmost point of the channel between Three Mile Island and the Hawk's Nest shall be a "no wake" area.

(s) From 150 feet beyond the northwest end of the Beaver Island Channel to 150 feet beyond the southeastern end of the Beaver Island Channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(t) From a point 150 feet from the west side of the Black Cat Island Bridge to a point 150 feet of the eastern side of the Black Cat Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(u) From a point 150 feet from the southwesternmost red top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the northernmost red top buoy between Mark Island and Mink Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(v) From the red top buoy at the entrance of Glidden Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(w) From light buoy #75 to the southernmost point of Small's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(x) From light buoy #79 to the southeasternmost point of Robert's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(y) From a point 150 feet southeast of the Basin Bridge to a point 150 feet northwest of the Basin Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(z) From a point 150 feet from the east entrance of Green's Basin to a point 150 feet beyond the western entrance of Green's Basin shall be a "no wake" area.

(aa) From the red top buoy located on the south side of Whaleback Island to a point 150 feet beyond the north entrance to the channel between Whaleback Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ab) From a point 150 feet from the southeastern entrance of the channel between Ganzey Island and the mainland to a point 150 feet beyond the northern entrance to the same channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(ac) From a point 150 feet east of the black top buoy located off the north side of 9 Acre Island to a point 150 feet beyond the southwestern entrance of the channel between 9 Acre Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ad) From the westernmost black top buoy located off the Long Island Public Beach to a point 150 feet beyond the eastern side of the Long Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(ae) From light buoy #65 to the red top buoy located on the northeast side of Devens Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(af) From the southwesternmost red top buoy to the northeasternmost red top buoy located southwest of Hermit Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ag) From the southernmost black top buoy to the northernmost black top buoy in Salmon Meadow Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ah) From the no wake sign which is located on the southeast entrance to Kelly Cove to the northwesternmost point of Kelly Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ai) From a point 150 feet northeast of the no wake sign located at the entrance to Gilford Marina and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(aj) From a point 150 feet north of the entrance of Lake Shore Park and southerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(ak) From a point 150 feet easterly of the channel markers marking the entrance to Duck Trap Cove and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(al) From a point 150 feet southwest of the channel between Farm Island and Tuftonboro to a point 150 feet northeast of the entrance to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(am) From the no wake sign located on the eastern side of Shep Brown's Boat Basin and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(an) The cove portion of Lake Winnipesaukee west of Black Island, between Geneva Point Center and Black Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ao) From a point 150 feet south of Ledge Island and proceeding northward into Fish Cove shall be a "no wake" area. This "no wake" area shall not include the interior of the unnamed cove to the east of Fish Cove.

(ap) The area 150 feet north of the Bear Island mail dock to 150 feet south of the mail dock in the channel between the Bear Island Post Office and Pine Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(aq) Hanson Cove in Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area, including that area between the mouth of the cove, 150 yards due west of the large rock, to the large rock's corresponding black top navigational marker near Toltec Point.

(ar) That portion of Langley Cove in Paugus Bay, beginning from the city of Laconia Tax Map 69, Block 248, Lot 6 and running westerly to the western most point of Christmas Island in Paugus Bay, shall be a "no wake" area.

(as) The unnamed cove easterly of Light 41 on Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro, shall be a "no wake" area.

(at) Raoul’s Cove in the town of Moultonborough, from a line drawn beginning on the northern side of Lot 35 and the southern boundary of adjacent lot 33, proceeding across the cove to a point on the northern most side of Lot 91 and the southern boundary of adjacent Lot 92 on Moultonborough tax map #32 shall be a "no wake" area.

(au) That part of Meredith bay in Lake Winnipesaukee running from an imaginary straight line as drawn from the Town of Meredith Tax Map U-2, Lot 7 southern boundary to Map U-15, Lot 48A southern boundary, to the northerly end of the bay on Route 25 shall be a "no wake" area.

(av) The channel named Eagle Island Narrows between Egle Island and Governors Island on Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 402.75), amd by #8614, eff 4-25-06

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

PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.01 Operating in Fog.

(a) When vessels are running in a fog, mist, falling snow or heavy rain storm, or when vessels cannot see each other, it shall be the duty of the pilot to cause a long blast, 4 to 6 seconds in duration, of the whistle or horn to be sounded at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes.

(b) A vessel hearing the fog signal of another vessel, apparently forward of the beam, the position of which is not ascertained, shall immediately slow to headway speed only, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over.

----------------
Saf-C 404.04 Meeting or Passing Log Rafts. All vessels when meeting or passing rafts or logs being towed shall, during such meeting or passing, reduce their speed to such an extent as to prevent their wake from causing logs to break away or washing out of the raft or boom.

-----------

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.

(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.

(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:

(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;

(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;

(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and

(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

(d) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) Water events as set forth in RSA 270-D:4 and Saf-C 413; and

(2) Law enforcement agencies and their representatives acting in their official capacity.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 404.11)

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

Saf-C 405.04 Regulatory Markers. Regulatory markers shall be geometric figures painted international orange and white. They shall indicate the existence of danger, speed zones, swim areas and other controls. Spelled-out words or recognized abbreviations may appear on these markers to convey their meaning to the operators of vessels.

------------------------------------
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXII/270-D/270-D-2-a.htm

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law. Over DONE - have a nice day now. :)

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 07:05 AM

Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post!

It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen.

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

You can highlight every time the words "No Wake" appears in the regulations but they are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW!

JDeere

04-17-2008, 07:28 AM

Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

Based on my personal experience on the lake I have not found there to be a difference between bonehead moves of boaters of fast or slow boats. I have seen a performance boat sink because it was taking high speed turns and he lost control. I have seen a performance boat create a wake then go over it to catch some air. I was in a cove and although the boat was 200 feet away I got out of there as fast as I could. because one mistake on his part and I became a statistic. I also had a very close call when an idiot did a 180 and turned directly toward my boat. I have always thanked God that he was only going 30 mph or so because any faster and I could not have gotten out of his way He missed my by 2 or 3 feet! (MP charged him with reckless endangerment)

I once was trolling near Welsh Island and it was just after sunrise. I saw a boat traveling at a high speed coming directly in my path. As he approached I was wondering if I should jump off the boat. He passed within 30 feet at 60 mph+++. As he passed me he gave a me a warm one fingered wave. I must have annoyed him somehow. Damn those fisherman. It is those types that have created a legitimate fear in boaters.

I firmly believe that anyone who has spent enough hours on the lake understands the problem and slower will HELP make things safer for EVERYONE to enjoy the lake.................oops I guess everyone who is happy traveling at 45 mph or less but that is almost all of us!

Islander

04-17-2008, 07:37 AM

The skipper may not understand what we are talking about when we say reasonable speed law.

A reasonable speed law is a speed limit without a specific number. Instead of saying 45 day 25 night the law says that a boats speed must be reasonable and prudent under prevailing conditions. Or other word to that effect.

Acres per Second

04-17-2008, 08:10 AM

"...Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend..."
A "similar graph" takes just 0.28 seconds: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/33_NH/2006/33_NH_2006.htm

Among the 50 states, NH is a tiny sampling and subject to extreme statistical peaks and valleys.

In NH, most alcohol-related roadway fatalities occur in counties contiguous with Massachusetts. The majority of fatalities occur "departing the roadway"—hardly an Interstate issue. :rolleye2:

Among boaters, where seatbelt compliance and airbags are irrelevent, this is a non-starter. :rolleye1:

Commodore

04-17-2008, 08:12 AM

I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee.

That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant.

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants.

VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.
---------------------------------
PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner.

Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you.

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 09:18 AM

Woodsy

04-17-2008, 10:09 AM

Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee...

Instead of everybody working together for real and meaningful changes that will appease everybody... (like the "Camp Zone" idea) and perhaps a few more No Wake Zones in selected areas, maybe even a nighttime speed limit.
WINNCRABS have chosen to pursue a 45/25 speed limit. Something I view as an unreasonable restriction on my liberty. A speed limit that will ultimately prove unenforceable for many reasons. Those of you who attended the meeting in Franklin and witnessed the NHMP testimony know the NHMP testified that while the radar units worked in a few certain situations, meeting the burden of proof in a court of law and the cost of operation was a concern. But I digress...

The reality of the speed limit is far more sinister!

BI, Islander, JDeere, Evenstar, FLL and the rest of WINNCRABS have an agenda, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it publicly. The sad part is, that while they wave the flag of safety, the agenda has absolutely nothing to do with safety... just ask Rep. Pilliod the original sponsor of HB-162! I have the message he left on MY answering machine where he SPECIFICALLY states "IT'S NOT ABOUT SAFETY!!"

The WINNCRABS agenda is to change the lake to THIER liking by ELIMINATING those who THEY consider undesireables... hi-performance boats first.... followed by the cruisers (told ya so) then the PWC's after that!

Unfortunately, WINNCRABS have no safety statistics or data to support thier need for a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, so they resort to using other states & lakes as examples.... all the while never having boated there! In fact none of the states & lakes they use as examples have a 150' Safe Passage Rule. It is this 150' rule that keeps NH unique among the the other 50 states. It also keeps our boat to boat collisions to a minimum.

WINNCRABS dismiss the speed study done by the NHMP as useless because it didnt fit in with thier agenda. No doubt if the study had shown a different result they would be raving about it! The study conclusively shows that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Lake Winnipesaukee has a long and storied love affair with hi-performance boats. To be sure there have been some accidents, and no doubt there have been a few Boneheads behind the wheel too. Overall the boating safety record on Lake Winnipesaukee is exemplary. The NHMP yearly safety report supports this.

NH should follow the existing law so often quoted by Evenstar and work towards making Lake Winnipesaukee INVITING to everyone, from the Hi-Performance boater to the canoeist/kayaker. Boat registrations will no doubt be down for the next few years with gas approaching $4/gal. This will also result in a smaller budget for NHMP. The first to feel the pinch of high fuel costs will be the daytripper family boater in the small runabout. They will be the first to severely limit thier trips or just not use it thier boat altogether. Next to feel the pinch are the average folks with camps and property around the lake... between the property taxes, fuel costs and the overall crappy state of the economy, thier boating will no doubt be severely limited. I know of several families that have thier boat for sale and have no plans to use it this summer. If HB-847 passes the next to go will be the hi-perfomance boats. As an example, there probably wont be a Donzi Poker Run if there is a 45MPH speed limit. While some of you think thats just dandy, thats 30 boats and about 100 people that won't travel to the lake and spend thier $$$ on food and lodging. (not to mention how much $$$ us local guys spend that weekend) If the local hi-performance guys don't feel welcome anymore, they will just trade in thier big $$$ hi-po boats on big $$$ cruisers. This trades one problem for another... more cruisers = more wakes! If the WINNCRABS agenda continues unabated, and they somehow manage to make the big cruiser folks and the PWC's feel unwelcome... Then then who is left to patronize the businesses around the lake that depend so much on the boating economy? What happens when Rusty Mclear can't blame the hi-performance boater for his lack of room bookings or boat rentals?

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

JDeere

04-17-2008, 10:25 AM

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

parrothead

04-17-2008, 10:53 AM

WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit.
Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones.

The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community.
Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse.

codeman671

04-17-2008, 11:02 AM

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam? I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 11:20 AM

hazelnut

04-17-2008, 12:02 PM

To answer a couple of your comments...

The Marine Patrol already has the Radar and Laser units from the speed study. No additional purchases are needed.

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.

The Woodsy post starts out with a "can't we all get along" attitude but then sinks into calling his opposition "WINNCRABS". I ask you to consider who is really serious about solving the lakes problems, and who is just pissed off that they can't go fast anymore.

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 12:24 PM

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

This law will address the fact that slower is safer. I am also in favor of increased education and enforcement. Must it be one or the other? Why not all three?

The only real problem with putting your efforts into increased education and enforcement is that they are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Wonderful ideas that will not be implemented do not do it for me. They cost money, and the money is NOT THERE. However if you wish to start a movement along those lines I am with you. We need to tilt at windmills now and then.

You are correct, I am settling for an imperfect solution. However imperfect is better than nothing.

Where is that one word answer you owe me?

SIKSUKR

04-17-2008, 12:38 PM

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.
.

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

hazelnut

04-17-2008, 12:44 PM

Woodsy says, that's who. Others helped.

Thanks for pointing out one I missed with respect to the Double Fatality.

Accidents on lakes without speed limits don't count.

That means no accident that has ever taken place on Winnipesaukee counts (good one!). You once asked me to give a yes or no answer with no explanations, qualifications etc. and I did. Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

Answer = NO!

Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat. ;)

Acres per Second

04-17-2008, 12:57 PM

Hazelnut...(Now that THAT's settled...)

What effect did this have on the study? :eek:

LACONIA –
"Marine Patrol officers armed with radar guns have begun clocking boat speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee...

"Officers won't pull over boats until Aug. 1 when a pilot boating speed enforcement program takes full effect. As of yesterday, officers will be testing the radar and collecting speed information in six spots...

"Former Safety Commissioner Richard Flynn offered the pilot speed limit as an alternative that might help lawmakers gauge whether they should pursue a limit.

"Safety Services Director Dave Barrett said his officers are ready to enforce a temporary speed limit on Winnipesaukee..."

From the state's largest newspaper:
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Marine+Patrol+clocks+Winnipe saukee+boaters&articleId=e0ff6db7-d5e0-451c-bdcf-a1eb92561e49

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 01:00 PM

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 01:04 PM

So we agree there is a problem of congestion, and dangerous behavior right?

Let's simplify the debate even further:

Bear Islander and all supporters of the HB in question please answer a simple yes or no to the following question. No adjective, description, comment, argument just a simple y/n or if you prefer yes/no.

The biggest problem on the lake today is that boats are speeding. Yes or No

My answer = NO!

....

...

...

hazelnut

04-17-2008, 01:41 PM

I answered you with a single word, as you requested. I would have liked to have added an explanation. I didn't!

.... Is that the rules? So sorry I forgot. ;)

NO!

GWC...

04-17-2008, 02:04 PM

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)
I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.
When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.
Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Resident 2B

04-17-2008, 05:05 PM

Answer = NO!

Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat. ;)

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

Acres per Second

04-17-2008, 06:05 PM

"...Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee..."

Type...type...type...type...type...fix...type...fi x...type...type...fix...!

"...It's really sad how speed has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee..."

There!—It's fixed!
:rolleye2:

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 08:20 PM

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

Resident 2B

04-17-2008, 08:58 PM

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

BI,

You are 100% incorrect with that assumption.

I like everyone! I even like those who do not agree with me.

What I dislike is the activities of people who spend money to force their desires on others who may or may not have as much money than they have. I really think buying or trying to buy a law that discriminates against a particular sub-class is un-American. I dislike PACs and I dislike the way many laws get enacted through the use of ad agencies and lobbyists.

So, it is possible for me to like someone, but to dislike what they are doing in certain circumstances.

Your friend for life, ;)

R2B

Bear Islander

04-17-2008, 09:10 PM

I agree completely.

Resident 2B

04-17-2008, 09:13 PM

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York? :confused:

I did not realize this.

R2B

Bear Islander

04-18-2008, 12:36 AM

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York? :confused:

I did not realize this.

R2B

Now you know!

Bear Islander

04-18-2008, 12:43 AM

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

No, the speed limit is not Woodsy's fault.

It's Woodsy's fault there was no compromise solution, like one with an exception for the broads.

Acres per Second

04-18-2008, 08:09 AM

Rose, I was initially stumped by your earlier question—and since nobody has answered it yet... ;)
"...Why don't you support a limit on the NUMBER of watercraft (of any type) allowed on the lake...?"
By its very nature, HB-847 will "skim" those serially impaired, those most seriously impaired, those with sociopathic behaviors—plus, the largest, the heaviest, the fastest, and the most dangerous boats we face today...will leave Lake Winnipesaukee's waters.

Those boaters become another lake's problem: I suggest Long Lake and Ossipee Lake take up the slack. :rolleye1:

"...An auxiliary officer is hardly a schmoe off the street. In fact I'm willing to bet they even have some police type powers..."
'Better check that again. :rolleye2:

"...I have never had a "close encounter" with a speeding boat..."
Your boat is probably equipped with an engine...:rolleye1:

"...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding...!"
And if he's weaving? He's over the limit—AND speeding.

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.
I personally don't see the lake as overcrowded; unfortunately, there are some boats that use up more of the lake than others.

We may see a resurgence of sail on the lake: Sailboat manufacturers are crying "poor" too.

"...Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake..??"
It prevents dozens of "mistakes".

Every day. :)

"...What I dislike is the activities of people who spend money to force their desires on others who may or may not have as much money than they have...
In many cases, it only takes a fraction of a million dollars to "force their desires" on us lesser boaters.

"...It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam...?" I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.
Many owners will die before selling out. :fire:

We desire the "by natural causes" route, however. :rolleye1:

"...The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847..."
A decline we can LIVE with. ;)

GWC...

04-18-2008, 12:04 PM

First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?
Where do you think kayaks got their origins? Most recreational kayaks are not “sea-worthy” sea kayaks are. I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat – and I have experienced what you described many times. Is it safe, no – but I never felt that I was in any danger when that happened.

Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.

Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)
I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.
When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going faster than it should have been at that distance from us. I didn't realize that Squam has a 40mph speed limit, and this particular boat was likely under that limit. My point was "enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here." That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us.
Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Evenstar

04-18-2008, 02:35 PM

Question: How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee? Reminder...
GWC, I really don’t get why you feel that it is perfectly right to quote me out of context numerous times, by dredging up posts that I made over 3 years ago!

I don’t even get why you even used most of those quotes, since you didn’t even bother to comment on most of them.

If this is just another one of your lame attempts to discredit me on a public forum (which is such a cowardly act) why don’t you be a man, borrow a kayak, and try to follow me out on the main lake some time. I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet.

Now it’s my turn to add the stuff you conveniently left out:

1.) With a kayak, being tipped over by a wake is not the same as being swamped by one. Swamping is when you take on water. On that particular occasion, we took on enough water that we had to paddle to a nearby island and bail out.

2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak.

In answer to your question: My friend and I have only paddled sea kayaks on Winni – so we’ve never really been swamped while kayaking there (some water from waves and wakes has entered our cockpits, but not enough to be what I would call “swamped.” We’ve never had to pump out our sea kayaks.)

Happy? And my statement that “I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat” is completely true.

3.) I have never suggested that I a speed limit will solve all the problems or that one will make any lake feel totally safe, from all power boaters, 100% of the time. When you’re in a kayak and a powerboat is heading directly at you – you always wonder if the operator sees you. Many don’t, until they get fairly close, but others are just intentionally trying to scare us, and often succeed in doing so.

Just because some boaters violate current laws does not mean that we don’t need a lake speed limit. I have also stated many times (although not in these exact words) that an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph.

Now why don’t you get a life, or at leastr take up a hobby or something.

Airwaves

04-19-2008, 10:06 PM

It's abundantly clear to everyone that we are at an impass. So as my final post I will try one last time to show the supporters of the solution in search of a problem, why their solution will create a potentially dangerous problem

As Bear Islander wrote in post#541
The 150' rule is hard for the MP to enforce. In almost all cases it's not possible to actually measure the distance, an estimate is required. And even harder if the MP is looking at a possible violation from a distance. And people will disagree about what is 150'

A speed limit is easier to enforce, point the radar gun and read the speed.
He is 100% correct. Now here is where his logic goes off track
The only real problem with putting your efforts into increased education and enforcement is that they are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Wonderful ideas that will not be implemented do not do it for me. They cost money, and the money is NOT THERE.
Okay, so he's agreed that the 150 foot rule is hard to enforce, and he's agreed that money is an issue.

So their solution?
DIVERT THE MARINE PATROL AWAY FROM SAFETY PATROLS!

What will be the impact of diverting manpower away from safety patrols and converting them to radar speed posts?

DIVERTING ALREADY THIN MANPOWER WILL MAKE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LESS SAFE!

If this bill becomes law I will remind all of the speed limit supporters when an incident happens because Lake Winnipesaukee's Marine Patrol was pointing radar guns trying to catch the .09% of boats exceeding 45 MPH.

Believe it!

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-20-2008, 08:54 AM

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer. You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.
I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer. Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-20-2008, 09:27 AM

I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet. Really? You must have been reading too fast :laugh: to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "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."

{snip} 2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak. {snip} an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph. {snip} Now why don’t you get a life, or at least take up a hobby or something.

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades. How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.

BTW, my boat can only go get to 40 mph DOWNHILL :rolleye1:.

Bear Islander

04-20-2008, 09:51 AM

You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.

I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.

Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

I was responding to a post that claimed we don't need a speed limit because we have a 150' rule. I pointed out that the 150' rule didn't prevent those accidents. I was not making any claims about speed limits, just pointing out that the 150' rule is not the panacea the poster represented it as.

I think you understand this very well. But your method is to attack, attack, attack.

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-20-2008, 12:37 PM

Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post!
It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen.

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

Non-responsive? You must not read some of your own posts. To the point: Operating at an unreasonable speed is unsafe. That makes it illegal by law. To promote the idea that unsafe speed is “reasonable” is irresponsible. So reasonable speed is addressed by the law.

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including: {snip} Unreasonable speed is unsafe. Unsafe (speed) is illegal or unlawful. It follows that unreasonable speed is illegal. To think otherwise is quite foolish.

A great example of Bear Islander misdirection is his response to The Commodore’s message #552. Follow this one regarding Saf-C 404.12.
I notice that the Commodore only posted the first part of Saf-C 404.12 He could not post the entire thing because the rest does not help his argument. He even adds his own comment in a way that makes it seem like it's part of the rule.
Sounds like a conniving omission the way Bear Islander explains it. His “trick” here is: he is right about the rest of 404.12 not a big help to the immediate discussion nor does it hurt the position - however. nothing in 404.12 helps BI’s cause either so he spins it, misdirects readers and distracts us from the facts!. Read 404.12 yourself in (lengthy) message #547 or The Commodore‘s edited version in msg #552 along with a few comments he made, in a completely different font, that BI tries to discredit. Does Bear Islander really think that the law would include this sentence? Quote from Msg 552: “Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.” Ya think intelligent people would believe that the name “Mr Islander” and the comments in a different font are tricks and pretend to be part of the law?

I am attacking what? Statements and alleged fact. As for putting things in the mouths of others - That's what you seem to do.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-20-2008, 12:54 PM

Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW! No, they are laws that require reasonable speeds.

You have been concerned about errors of omission but you conveniently omit that which does not help your position. For instance.
You dismiss the boating handbook but you do NOT mention the FULL TITLE and description of that required publication. It is the Handbook of New Hampshire - A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities. A few boating responsibilities may not be specifically written in the law but that does not detract from the fact that they are boating responsibilities as published and distributed by the State of NH. Irresponsible operation is illegal regardless of speed. To suggest that the NH Boating Handbook advises or authorizes anything irresponsible is ludicrous.

To prevent collisions, every operator should follow the three basic rules of navigation.

* Practice good seamanship.
* Keep a sharp lookout.
* Maintain a safe speed and distance.

Maintain a safe speed and distance. Does that mean a “Reasonable Speed” or an Unreasonable speed? Is this not a reasonable speed requirement? Yet there is the false claim that NH does not address reasonable speed.

The State of NH is mandated to publish this handbook: Section 270-D requires the division of safety services (the same dept as the Marine Patrol) to publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. In New Hampshire it is titled a the Handbook of New Hampshire - A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities. You may dismiss it because there may be a few instances where the Handbook describes boater responsibilities more strict than the written law. It is sponsored by Marine Patrol and distributed free to the boating public. Very few boaters will do further research into the chapters and sections of the laws and rules. A quote from the handbook: The handbook does not replace what is specifically legal for boating in New Hampshire, which is found in the New Hampshire Statutes and federal law. That is an important stipulation.

It should not take a rocket scientist or even a rocket rider to understand what this means. Within 150’ of most things it’s 6 m.p.h. or slower. What is this safe speed outside this 150’ radius you ask - it is one that is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions and not a one-size-fits-all magic number. If a vessel is not traveling at a safe speed and distance then it is obviously operating in an unsafe manner and is therefore illegal. If Bear Islander believes that those three basic rules of boater responsibilities are unreasonable then he has frozen a few too many brain cells.

Who has the better ability to decide what a reasonable speed is at any given time and lake condition? Would it be a politician sitting in a big room in Concord or a boat captain at the lake?

Evenstar

04-20-2008, 01:26 PM

Really? You must have been reading too fast :laugh: to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "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."
Ok so I have to make another post to defend myself yet again from another series of lame comments. You guys are getting really pathetic.

I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348 (so who isn't paying attention here): "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." He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does.

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.
A sea kayak is a recreational vessel. So aren't white water kayaks, touring kayaks and recreational kayaks. I didn't make up these categories - that's just the way that kayaks are classified - by their design. A sea kayak is a long touring kayak.

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades.
The number of boating years doesn't mean all that much. I've probably paddled more miles in NH lakes than most anyone on this forum. I've also run class II and III rapids, and am a collegiate sailor and a registered member of the Inter Collegiate Sailing Association. My sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. During the school year were out on the bay practicing 4 days a week, and compete all weekend. We also have team meetings each week - just to study the racing rules of sailing - plus morning workouts. So I probably have more actually real time in a non-motorized vessel and actual knowledge of non-motorized boats than most of you on this forum.

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.
Here we go again . . . This just shows how little most of you know about a sea kayak. And I never claimed to be a "professional." You don't wear a helmet on a sea kayak - helmets are for white water kayaking. If I added all the junk to my sea kayak - it would surely tip over in the first light breeze. Few of you could even sit in my kayak without tipping it over. Heck, most of you would never even fit in my kayak.

How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.
A speed limit is a pretty simple rule to follow - and the Marine Patrol would make sure that they followed it. What is not logical is allowing powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow moving boats.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

I was responding to a post that claimed we don't need a speed limit because we have a 150' rule. I pointed out that the 150' rule didn't prevent those accidents. I was not making any claims about speed limits, just pointing out that the 150' rule is not the panacea the poster represented it as.

I think you understand this very well. But your method is to attack, attack, attack.

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

Challenging, answering or correcting allegations in a post is not rewriting it!

Who is attacking and putting things into the mouths of others? You have "answered for me" in a post (419) and here you tell the "opposition" what you claim they understand. I won't go into your style of attack that uses carefully chosen wording so it looks like an attack.

As for what I think on the subject of additional speed limits, it's been written and dismissed by you many times already. In short: More education, more enforcement of the current rules.

Bear Islander

04-20-2008, 07:03 PM

TiltonBB

04-20-2008, 07:05 PM

Skipper of the Sea Que has successfully and with ample facts and direct statements put Bear Islander on the mat. Only a fool would stand up and respond, only to take another punch.

B.I., I'm begging you, just admit you are wrong (and misguided) and go hide under Evenstar's kayak.

The freedom we all enjoy on the lake will be forever jeopardized if we have to constantly worry if our speedometers are accurate, or who is watching us. That freedom is one of the many things that makes operating a boat so much more enjoyable than driving a car.

The speed limit remains a solution search of a problem and should be put to bed once and forever.

hazelnut

04-20-2008, 07:12 PM

Skipper,

I'm having trouble following your posts.
I support HB847 because I hope it will change the direction I see the lake going in. I don't believe it will "fix" the lake, just improve things a little bit.
I hope people on both sides of the issue show up at the hearing tomorrow and have their say where it really counts. I'd be there if I could.

Are you sure about that. I feel that Skippers posts are incredibly well written and well thought out. I think he does a fantastic job dispelling the myth that you keep perpetuating that the current laws don't address reasonable speed. If the current laws were followed we would have no issues. Making new laws that people will continue to ignore does nothing.

Bravo Skipper nice series of posts.

Bear Islander

04-20-2008, 07:23 PM

There is no reasonable speed law. You know it, I know it, Skipper knows it. If you go to the hearing, try and convince the Senators there is a reasonable speed law!

GWC...

04-20-2008, 07:33 PM

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.
"Slower is safer", you say...

Guess a speed limit of 40 mph is not slower than a speed limit of 45 mph?!?!

I'm just wondering why Lake Winnipesaukee is being singled out for a bill to impose a limit on speed. Why not a state speed limit for all lakes? After all, aren't high speeds likely to be even more dangerous on smaller lakes?

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

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

One can only imagine what life on Winnipesaukee will entail with a speed limit greater than the speed limit on Squam.

Perhaps the Senate needs to amend the Bill to allow a charge for paddlers to use Lake Winnipesaukee, since it would seem that there will be a lot more paddlers with a false sense of safety and a busy MP, as a result of swampings.

jrc

04-20-2008, 08:30 PM

Bear Islander

04-20-2008, 09:14 PM

Try to follow along. We already know that by rule any operation that is unsafe is illegal. So by using simple English the opposite of unsafe is safe, right? So only safe operation is legal right?

No comes the tricky part, is there a safe speed that is unreasonable? Nope, is there a un-safe speed that is reasonable? Nope, so in effect we have a reasonable speed law. You cannot legally travel at an unreasonable speed today.

Maybe you're right some politicians won't be able to follow.

We can of course do the same with the careless and negligent law.

To be honest, a reasonable and prudent law is really no change, it's redundant but I would not oppose it. It's the 45/25 portion of the law that is misguided and vindictive.

I understand the theory. We have a reckless driving law on our highways, why then do we need speed limits. In fact we can erase most of our highway laws and just keep reckless driving. Driving drunk is reckless, so we can eliminate the DUI statutes. NOT!

You can try and unscrew the inscrutable all day long but.... the is no reasonable and prudent boating speed law in NH.

Mashugana

04-20-2008, 09:31 PM

Islander

04-20-2008, 10:12 PM

Excellent work Skipper of the Sea Que. You didn't let Bear Islander's spins, spews and distractions get to you.

Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance.

I'll echo everything jrc, GWC, hazelnut and TiltonBB said in their recent posts.

Thank you Skipper.

You guys are priceless. Is this a comedy routine? Skipper posts several long rambling posts. Richard answered with a few sentences including wishing both sides luck at the hearing. And he is called to task for "spins, spews and distractions".

Acres per Second

04-21-2008, 04:06 AM

"...• There was 1 fatality involving a personal watercraft (jet ski) at a speed less than 20 mph in 2007..."
News to me, and I could have witnessed this fatality from my living room. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

"...Ok fair enough, I can't argue that logic. Now remind me once again how many fatalities we've had on the lake due to excessive speed...?
Please advise us why a performance boat flying into a Winnipesaukee cottage, killing three, doesn't count. :confused:

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

Maine has "Reasonable and Prudent" written into their boating laws.

Long Lake users may be wishing for a 45/25. (Especially the 25 part).

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?
All this time I thought he was against it.
Most of those opposed are their own worst enemy, even on shore. Who told us that, "Radar doesn't work on water"?

The first letter of commentary HERE (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Marine+Patrol+clocks+Winnipe saukee+boaters&articleId=e0ff6db7-d5e0-451c-bdcf-a1eb92561e49) is by "Moose" (not a member here).
Nobody has spammed boating and fishing sites like "Moose" but he states—h was for HB 847—before he was against it!

"...I used to be in favor of a speed limit until I found out how many "Lakes Region" businesses say that not letting boats go really fast would hurt their business..."
—"Moose"

Look for "Moose" to be trying to convince NH Senators of his genuiness.

"...I dislike PACs and I dislike the way many laws get enacted through the use of ad agencies and lobbyists..."
I notice most of the Marine Trade Associations begin their remarks with, "We have not taken a position on this". (Of course, that is supposed to give them credibility). :rolleye2:

So their solution?
DIVERT THE MARINE PATROL AWAY FROM SAFETY PATROLS!
What will be the impact of diverting manpower away from safety patrols and converting them to radar speed posts?
DIVERTING ALREADY THIN MANPOWER WILL MAKE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LESS SAFE!
Maybe in Massachusetts, they have "safety patrols". You don't want to be swamped, collided, or drowning in a New Hampshire lake. I'll go for days without seeing an MP on the lake—particularly on weekends. (Except when I call them—as I did when I saw two small boys in two small paddling boats roped together at dusk.)

"...Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance..."
New Jersey requires a flag for water skiers and kayakers, but has a thoroughly-enforced 30-MPH limit on its premiere lake!

Do they know Cal? :confused: :emb:

Dave R says that kayaks are not difficult to see—and I agree.

Who's correct? :confused:

Sandy Beach

04-21-2008, 06:33 AM

You guys are priceless. Is this a comedy routine? Skipper posts several long rambling posts. Richard answered with a few sentences including wishing both sides luck at the hearing. And he is called to task for "spins, spews and distractions".

I admire Skipper of the Sea Que and the others that were on the side against the 45/25 m.p.h. limits. They showed remarkable self control. The thread was started by Skip to point to a Speed Limit letter by a Marine Patrol official who was directly involved in the speed testing. Then followed a barrage of posts from pro 45/25 limit supporters championed by Bear Islander. They challenged the MP statements and a heated exchange of posts ensued.

You are spinning right now Islander. Your poor buddy (Richard) Bear Islander's last message and a small percentage of others were so sweet. That notwithstanding he had a heap of posts with gyroscopic spin. There was massive spewing, many distractions and misdirections. Bear Islander ignored numerous questions and statements. Many of his posts had an undertone of ill will and insulted some respondents IMO of course.

The funny part is you look at just one message. You think that erases all the others he has authored. He was not taken to task for his last post. Get real.

Reasonable speed limits are reasonable. 45 m.p.h. day and 25 m.p.h. at night in many cases is not reasonable.

My thanks to The Skipper of the Sea Que and the others that are against this bill.

By the way. Has anyone ever seen Islander and Bear Island in the same place at the same time?

Good job Skipper
Let the debate end.
Sandy

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-21-2008, 08:17 AM

598 messages ago Skip started this thread. He posted a link to a letter in the Union Leader by Lt. Dunleavy of NH Marine Patrol speed data untainted (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Tim+Dunleavy%3a+Marine+Patro l%27s+data+on+Winnipesaukee+boat+speeds+are+untain ted&articleId=1ad1fd66-3a01-4898-aacc-c20f46c7fa28) responding to allegations critical of Marine Patrol regarding HB 847 (the 45/25 proposed speed limit). Just look at what we did with that thread and information.

Many thanks for the show of support from those who found my posts beneficial. The feedback is/was appreciated.

I am not used to or comfortable with the style of debate exhibited in this thread. We do not have to agree on everything but we can discuss it calmly, rationally, in a friendly manner and with a little bit of fun thrown in. This thread was not enjoyable in my eyes.

As a long time Forum member I have looked forward to checking out this web site as often as I can. Not so since this speed limit harangue. I come here to read about and sometimes talk with old (as in long time) and new forum friends to share information, ideas, thoughts, experiences and enjoy all that this web site has to offer. Not to be insulted or called names and etc..

As for Bear Islander. He has demonstrated a few things to me (at least 2) to use his words, he claims to be an "obnoxious smart ass (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65491&highlight=obnoxious+smart+ass+not+that+important+s peed+limits#post65491)". Click that for his complete post.

In that same post Bear Islander's summation says it all: "If I ever get the chance to put in a plug to a large audience you can bet the farm it will not be about speed limits on Winnipesaukee. In the great scheme of things, it's just not that important." Amen

Let's hope that this is over and done with soon so we can concentrate on the fun and friendly aspects of the best site on the web, Winnipesaukee.com :)

Happy and SAFE boating to all. Bring on summer.

Bear Islander

04-21-2008, 05:25 PM

I am repeatedly accused of calling people names. Twice in recent posts. I would certainly be wrong if I did, but I don't think I have.

It's a perception thing, you don't like what I say, so I must be calling them names.

Islander

04-21-2008, 07:24 PM

By the way. Has anyone ever seen Islander and Bear Island in the same place at the same time?

I have! Why insinuate?

codeman671

04-21-2008, 08:31 PM

By the way. Has anyone ever seen Islander and Bear Island in the same place at the same time?

That would be easy, if in fact they really are the same person after all...:D

Cal

04-21-2008, 08:45 PM

New Jersey requires a flag for water skiers and kayakers, but has a thoroughly-enforced 30-MPH limit on its premiere lake!

Do they know Cal? :confused: :emb:

If you're talking about Lake Hopatcong , it's a hundred miles from me and the size of Alton Bay , if that. Not even worth the effort to get there for me so needless to say , I know nothing about it.
Of course , why don't you mention the HP limit on Alcyon Lake , right in my hometown of Pitman. Electric trolling motors only.... on the entire three acres of lake:rolleye2:

Bear Islander

04-21-2008, 10:58 PM

That would be easy, if in fact they really are the same person after all...:D

Another interesting conspiracy theory. Except that the Webmaster would know the truth, IP's are logged I believe.

codeman671

04-22-2008, 04:31 AM

Another interesting conspiracy theory. Except that the Webmaster would know the truth, IP's are logged I believe.

I know, just injecting a bit of humor...This theory went around before, although during the summer on the island it looked to be the same. I am sure this time of year it would be easy to tell.

codeman671

04-22-2008, 04:37 AM

News to me, and I could have witnessed this fatality from my living room. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

This was taken from the NH Bass Federation statement against the speed limit. I can send you the link to their facts sheet if you like, although I am sure you are too busy searching the net for additional pictures of GFBL's to add to the same 3-4 that you continue to post over and over. :laugh:

Please advise us why a performance boat flying into a Winnipesaukee cottage, killing three, doesn't count. :confused:

I am not familar with this one...Sounds like your typical crap to me. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation. :D

Acres per Second

04-22-2008, 04:53 AM

"...This thread was not enjoyable in my eyes...As a long time Forum member I have looked forward to checking out this web site as often as I can. Not so since this speed limit harangue..."
It's one thing to click on a debating forum clearly marked Speed Limits, and another to characterize one side of that debate as a "harangue". Many others await a favorable Senate decision for a boating rule for sanity. Those who do not post here, like my Wolfeboro-resident parents, are appreciative of all efforts for boating sanity.

"...You can't judge a whole group (or a "cult" as APS referred to us as... :rolleye2:) by one individual who made a poor choice one night...!"
...a poor choice? Like not coming to his victims' aid? Hiding his boat? Blaming the victims? Running away?

Unhappily, the Speed Cult has many cases of this "entitlement behavior". In recent years one fatality occurred at Chappaquidick—of all places. :rolleye1:

"...And the GPS - who cares where that is located, it offers NO information pertaining to safe operation, it just tells you how fast you're going. Again, if you had any real experience with performance boats, you'd know that...All those "distractions"...oil & water...temp and pressure...fuel level, speed, tach, boost, volts, etc..."
Modern high speed transport offers "heads-up" displays on their windshields so that one's eyes stay aimed ahead. Today, there are wireless displays available for your helmet:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/HeadsUpDisplayWirelessproduct14_1.jpg

I'm recalling my own instructor's advice on buying helmets, "If you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet." Say...I don't see any helmets in your photo showing 110-MPH.... :confused:

"...Maybe next you should post some pics of sailboat accidents that occurred somewhere around the globe..."
OK. Here's a US sailor struck by a speeding powerboat, making a new companionway:

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

"...So, you never addressed YOUR experience with performance boats!? Your "racer" that you built at Brewster...was it the little 10' footer I mentioned with the 15hp outboard on it...!?"
Your post appeared twice: it's answered here: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=67773&postcount=516

"...That is a boat that you see through the canopy - it was over 1 mile down, we slowed down long before getting to it..."
You're showing 110-MPH on GPS, and that boat appears to be ½-mile away, not 1 mile. You had less than 20 seconds to slow. What was going through the other boater's thoughts (and prayers)?

BTW: One of the early speed-record boats with a water brake (http://www.information-britain.co.uk/famdates.php?id=34)ended up killing the operator when he used it.

Acres per Second

04-22-2008, 06:34 AM

"...This was taken from the NH Bass Federation statement against the speed limit..."
Link, please.

"...I am not familar with this one...Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation. :D

It's hardly a revelation to the people of Gilford: speed limit opponents GWC and SIKSUKR posted it at this very site:

Posted By: GWC...
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 at 1:18 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Baja "gets air", hits car

"...Don't you "remember" the "professional" (doctor/lawyer type) that put their "go fast" into a cottage?

It ended up upside down in the cottage - apparently, the hull design, deep V, caused the boat to roll when it encountered the shore.

Sadly, death arrived at the scene, as well, if I remember correctly.

Followed by:
Posted By: Stinger
Date: Monday, August 25, 2003 at 4:54 p.m.

In Response To: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (GWC...)

It was a cigarette boat, traveling at high speed after dark. The boat hit a dock and flew into the air, flipped, and landed in a cottage, all three on board were killed..."

Followed by:
Posted By: SIKSUKR
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2003 at 7:44 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (Sweeper)

I believe the accident that you refer to was driven by the owner of Davidson construction of NH.It was a high speed night incident and alcohol was involved.He was killed in the accident. SS

Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-ttt...it doesn't count because the dock probably caused the launch into the cottage, and the cottage was probably too big a target and it was probably built too close to the water, and it was after dark, and the "driver" was probably drinking, and he was probably distracted and he probably was not observing the 150-foot rule and he probably didn't have his boater certificate, and nobody in the cottage was killed anyway...and it probably happened in an area known to be crowded...and it probably happened a long time ago...ad nauseum. :rolleye1:

"...I am sure you are too busy searching the net for additional pictures of GFBL's to add to the same 3-4 that you continue to post over and over..."
Like this one?

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/4xy7dz4.jpg

This is a brand-new panorama image of the same ½-mile shoreline showing various people on two different days—fortunately. (The middle photo is a small rowboat pacing a teen gal swimming a "long swim".)

(Actually, I was preparing tomorrow's post here, but since you were kind enough to provide still another opportunity...:D )

"...If you're talking about Lake Hopatcong...it's...the size of Alton Bay, if that..."
I can't speak to speeds on Alton Bay, but how did Lake Hopatcong happen to get such a serious speed limit of only 30-MPH? (And they ticket 35-MPH!) Does such an "exclusionary" law cause high-performance boaters to trailer to Lake Winnipesaukee?

"...In fact - your point in posting any of those pics...again, what's the point...!?"
Oh, I dunno. Trying to express the empathy that is missing for your less-important neighbors?

So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?
All this time I thought he was against it.
We've seen that most of The Opposition are their own worst enemy—even off the water! :look:

Who was opposed (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38570) to 25-MPH-Night (only) as early as in 2002?

Who was the first to educate us that, "Radar doesn't work on water (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1820)"?

Who was the second (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=49760&postcount=18)to educate us on Radar? Excerpted:
"...the obvious visual deterrant of the MP boats in the first place which would probably slow someone down anyhow..."
—codeman671
:emb: Seems to corroborate one of the eight major errors in The Survey, doesn't it...? :rolleye2:

"...Let's hope that this is over and done with soon..."
"This?"

Watch for more "incidents" irrespective of the outcome this week. :(

"...I agree - common sense can't be taught..."
A speed limit violation comes with a fine and consequently, an insurance surcharge. Violating a sign like this one comes with a ticket for those who lack the common sense to park other than in front of your driveway:

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

What is not logical is allowing powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow moving boats.
Even boating on The Broads, I've been seeing a lot more tiny inflatables (smaller than this off-season inflatable off my dock) with whole families in them!

Bear Islander

04-22-2008, 06:37 AM

I know, just injecting a bit of humor...This theory went around before, although during the summer on the island it looked to be the same. I am sure this time of year it would be easy to tell.

Humor to you I'm sure. Some readers may think its true.

hazelnut

04-22-2008, 08:44 AM

APS?

Your constant incoherent rants are doing nothing for your case. Your pictures show nothing and prove nothing. A picture of a do not block driveway sign:confused::confused::confused: Your claims of 3 people dying? Show me the evidence? Still waiting for proof of that one.:rolleye2:

So you want to have your cake AND eat it too. Whether or not people knew about the speed zones it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the majority of boaters DON'T regularly exceed 45mph. I am on the lake ALL SUMMER just about every day. I can tell you that this ridiculous thought that hundreds of boats are speeding around just isn't true!!! You can say it over and over it doesn't make it any more factual. How much are you even on the lake? So whatever you think about the data doesn't mean much to me. A smart person can look at the data and then compare that with what they actually witness on a daily basis and concur that speed is not the problem.

jrc

04-22-2008, 08:51 AM

Humor to you I'm sure. Some readers may think its true.

What does it matter? Like many I can access several IP addresses. If I wanted sock puppets I could have them. Although sympathetic to speed limits, Islander is not as invested in the minutia of the arguments on this board as BI. They have different tones as well it's really hard to hide tone. I don't think we have a lot of imposters on the board.

Who could fake APS?

Bear Islander

04-22-2008, 09:16 AM

On first reading I knew you must have in mind a different meaning for "sock puppet", so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

DoTheMath

04-22-2008, 10:13 AM

Acres Per Second - you're DONE! You have taken information from another post and put it up here in this one in hopes to gain some traction on your unfounded rants. Reason why you skipped out on that other thread!? Forget it, you have ZERO credibility with me and most others on this site that read your basic, factless, thinly veiled propaganda.

So, you have never heard of Wharton!? Glad you got the most out of that Brewster Education you speak so highly of... :rolleye2: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/

Your little 10' home-built boat that sunk when you were 17 is all you have for "performance boat" experience, well that plus what you read in the latest issue of whatever boating magazine you were able to pick up in your dentists office during your semi-annual visits. I know all about types, construction, hydro-dynamics etc... don't need pictures to show me. And if you don't have the disposable income to buy, own, etc... a real "toy" then what are you basing your viewpoints on!? I don't have the disposable income to buy a private jet, but I'm sure not going to bash them or the owners that do, just because they do.

Aside of that - don't EVER assume that you know me and that I have no "empathy" for anyone - I know the FACTS behind that accident that you posted the picture of and I know the people involved!! Maybe you can ask the kid in the sailboat that was sinking one day off Bear Island that I rescued, got his boat up on the beach and fixed for him what he thinks? Or maybe his folks - ask them... I bet they want to keel haul me for being so "unempathetic"!?

As for the poor choice - I was referring to drinking then getting behind the wheel of a boat.

Not that it matters but, been riding motorcycles since I was 9 years old, (I'm now 39) been on dirt, been on the street, been on the track, been over 140mph, I know all about speed, helmets and their usage - one saved my life one day - but thanks!

So, you're that good that you can tell me - without being there, in the boat - that the other boat "appears" to be a 1/2 mile away from us!?!? Hmmm - give me the mathematical formula you used for that please. :rolleye2:

And I asked you about organized poker runs - not what you are assimilating to be a busy weekend that somehow you feel is a poker run. BTW, that picture you posted of the two boats passing the bass boat, do you (really) know how fast they were going? Do you (really) know how far away from each other they were? Did you pull out your fancy abacus / slide rule or whatever you used for the guess on my Delta distance to figure it out!? They could be just violating the 150' safe passage law, couldn't they!? Something I have seen 100x in a week by jet skis, bowriders and the like... again, thin at best.

I can make a car accident look like it was the fault of the driver, the driver of the other car, the squirrel that ran into the road, the radio - take your pick! Again, boating accidents happen - car accidents happen - planes crash - trains derail... Look at the facts and tell me what you know from first-hand experience and JUST THE FACTS! Don't spin 'em, skew 'em and twist 'em all up to make it seem like you know what you are talking about, or what you refer to is reality.

Seriously - please go back and read what you have been posting... you are sounding more and more like you are making this stuff up. It's not even fun anymore to debate these issues with you. It's like sitting in a room and watching Warren Buffett (you know who he is right, it's not the singer that is famous for Margaritaville :emb:) and Jessica Simpson discuss the nuances of investment in domestic textile industries! You keep digging and digging and getting less dirt on your shovel!

Cal

04-22-2008, 05:20 PM

I can't speak to speeds on Alton Bay, but how did Lake Hopatcong happen to get such a serious speed limit of only 30-MPH? (And they ticket 35-MPH!) Does such an "exclusionary" law cause high-performance boaters to trailer to Lake Winnipesaukee?

I don't care if the speed limit on Hopatcong is 110 mph. It's not big enough to be worth a 100 mile drive to get there. It deserves a speed limit. It's not much bigger that a puddle.

Acres per Second

04-23-2008, 08:25 AM

Skipper,

You mentioned disliking the "speed limit harangue" (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=68144&postcount=598).

"Harangue" is defined as: "harangue (n): A long pompous speech..."

Does the following qualify as a "harangue"? :confused:

Acres Per Second - you're DONE! You have taken information from another post and put it up here in this one in hopes to gain some traction on your unfounded rants. Reason why you skipped out on that other thread!? Forget it, you have ZERO credibility with me and most others on this site that read your basic, factless, thinly veiled propaganda.

So, you have never heard of Wharton!? Glad you got the most out of that Brewster Education you speak so highly of... :rolleye2: http://www.wharton.upenn.edu/

Your little 10' home-built boat that sunk when you were 17 is all you have for "performance boat" experience, well that plus what you read in the latest issue of whatever boating magazine you were able to pick up in your dentists office during your semi-annual visits. I know all about types, construction, hydro-dynamics etc... don't need pictures to show me. And if you don't have the disposable income to buy, own, etc... a real "toy" then what are you basing your viewpoints on!? I don't have the disposable income to buy a private jet, but I'm sure not going to bash them or the owners that do, just because they do.

Aside of that - don't EVER assume that you know me and that I have no "empathy" for anyone - I know the FACTS behind that accident that you posted the picture of and I know the people involved!! Maybe you can ask the kid in the sailboat that was sinking one day off Bear Island that I rescued, got his boat up on the beach and fixed for him what he thinks? Or maybe his folks - ask them... I bet they want to keel haul me for being so "unempathetic"!?

As for the poor choice - I was referring to drinking then getting behind the wheel of a boat.

Not that it matters but, been riding motorcycles since I was 9 years old, (I'm now 39) been on dirt, been on the street, been on the track, been over 140mph, I know all about speed, helmets and their usage - one saved my life one day - but thanks!

So, you're that good that you can tell me - without being there, in the boat - that the other boat "appears" to be a 1/2 mile away from us!?!? Hmmm - give me the mathematical formula you used for that please. :rolleye2:

And I asked you about organized poker runs - not what you are assimilating to be a busy weekend that somehow you feel is a poker run. BTW, that picture you posted of the two boats passing the bass boat, do you (really) know how fast they were going? Do you (really) know how far away from each other they were? Did you pull out your fancy abacus / slide rule or whatever you used for the guess on my Delta distance to figure it out!? They could be just violating the 150' safe passage law, couldn't they!? Something I have seen 100x in a week by jet skis, bowriders and the like... again, thin at best.

I can make a car accident look like it was the fault of the driver, the driver of the other car, the squirrel that ran into the road, the radio - take your pick! Again, boating accidents happen - car accidents happen - planes crash - trains derail... Look at the facts and tell me what you know from first-hand experience and JUST THE FACTS! Don't spin 'em, skew 'em and twist 'em all up to make it seem like you know what you are talking about, or what you refer to is reality.

Seriously - please go back and read what you have been posting... you are sounding more and more like you are making this stuff up. It's not even fun anymore to debate these issues with you. It's like sitting in a room and watching Warren Buffett (you know who he is right, it's not the singer that is famous for Margaritaville :emb:) and Jessica Simpson discuss the nuances of investment in domestic textile industries! You keep digging and digging and getting less dirt on your shovel!

The reason for asking, is that we don't seem to be discussing the instability of high speed boating any more and there don't appear to be any worthwhile questions in all that above.

I'm reduced to placing more views of "tunnel-hull" undersides! :emb:

(At speeds well below DoTheMath's 110-MPH tunnel-hulled Skater, BTW). :rolleye1:

SIKSUKR

04-23-2008, 11:53 AM

Bu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-ttt...it doesn't count because the dock probably caused the launch into the cottage, and the cottage was probably too big a target and it was probably built too close to the water, and it was after dark, and the "driver" was probably drinking, and he was probably distracted and he probably was not observing the 150-foot rule and he probably didn't have his boater certificate, and nobody in the cottage was killed anyway...and it probably happened in an area known to be crowded...and it probably happened a long time ago...ad nauseum. :rolleye1:

Are you serious?A drunk guy drives his boat into a cottage at night and you use this example to show a need for a speed limit?If you believe a speed limit would have changed his behavior that night than there really is no reasoning with you.Wow,were really reaching now!

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 12:05 PM

Are you serious?A drunk guy drives his boat into a cottage at night and you use this example to show a need for a speed limit?If you believe a speed limit would have changed his behavior that night than there really is no reasoning with you.Wow,were really reaching now!

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 12:08 PM

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 12:23 PM

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

chmeeee

04-23-2008, 12:34 PM

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

Once again, the driver was drunk, and that is already illegal, and IMO the most egregious boating violation you can commit. If you're willing to get in your boat drunk and take a nighttime cruise, I'm sure that there are very few laws that you would even consider following. :rolleye2:

DoTheMath

04-23-2008, 12:43 PM

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I'll bite on this one... :D So, say there was a - what... 500hp limit!?!? Will that work in this case!? Yup! ok - so, how about a 20' boat with saaaaayyyyy a 250hp outboard motor that could travel at 75mph!?

Like this one: http://www.hydrostream.com/models_voyager.html

(Insert remaining data from situation here and you have your answer). ;)

NEEEEEXT! :)

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 12:50 PM

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. :

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 12:54 PM

I'll bite on this one... :D So, say there was a - what... 500hp limit!?!? Will that work in this case!? Yup! ok - so, how about a 20' boat with saaaaayyyyy a 250hp outboard motor that could travel at 75mph!?

Like this one: http://www.hydrostream.com/models_voyager.html

(Insert remaining data from situation here and you have your answer). ;)

NEEEEEXT! :)

Are you arguing for even lower HP limits? How do your numbers work for 10 HP. Many NH lakes have 10 HP limits. Personally I think that low is unnecessary.

DoTheMath

04-23-2008, 01:07 PM

Are you arguing for even lower HP limits? How do your numbers work for 10 HP. Many NH lakes have 10 HP limits. Personally I think that low is unnecessary.

NO - I am saying that your argument for a horsepower limit offers no potential avoidance for this accident. If he was driving a boat with 1,000 hp or 250hp., he was DRUNK and that was the cause of the accident - not the hp.

And if a particular boat is regulated off or leaves voluntarily - you think that will prevent and solve ANY accidents from happening!? Brotha' - I need some of whatever it is you are smoking - it must be THAT good! :D:rolleye2:

chipj29

04-23-2008, 02:45 PM

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 03:20 PM

But I thought the speed limit wasn't about regulating a certain type of boat off the lake?

Here we go again!!!

The speed limit is NOT about regulating a certain type of boat of the lake. I support a speed limit.

************************************************** ******

As a TOTALLY SEPARATE MATTER I personally believe in a horsepower limit. My idea is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008. This idea would keep high performance boats and cruisers from coming to the lake. And, over time, virtually eliminate them.

************************************************** *****

Now this is a third TOTALLY SEPARATE ARGUMENT

The recent exchange is about how do you prevent a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed from hitting a cottage and killing people. The answer is simple, don't allow him on the lake in the first place.

EricP

04-23-2008, 03:37 PM

But I thought the speed limit wasn't about regulating a certain type of boat off the lake?

It really is but some people just won't admit it no matter how obvious it is

EricP

04-23-2008, 03:48 PM

Here we go again!!!

The speed limit is NOT about regulating a certain type of boat of the lake. I support a speed limit.

************************************************** ******

As a TOTALLY SEPARATE MATTER I personally believe in a horsepower limit. My idea is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008. This idea would keep high performance boats and cruisers from coming to the lake. And, over time, virtually eliminate them.

************************************************** *****

Now this is a third TOTALLY SEPARATE ARGUMENT

The recent exchange is about how do you prevent a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed from hitting a cottage and killing people. The answer is simple, don't allow him on the lake in the first place.

What's to stop a drunk from driving a truck into a house? I guess we should also ban trucks from driving through town so this can't happen either. Man your logic is horrible.

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 03:53 PM

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I can't...... ha ha ha ha ha ha still laughing..... ha ha ha ha the silliness, the speculation....:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: too much to compute..... overload..... ha ha ha ha ha

I have another one for you. Maybe if God made the lake different and moved the island slightly to the left..... ha ha ha ha ha

Sorry.... I just can't stop laughing at that post. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Especially because drunks behind the wheel are SO law abiding.

OK ha ha ho ok please give me the made up limits that you have in mind and I will concoct a tale to fit within your numbers. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Still howling... one things for sure this thread has given us some good laughs.

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 04:14 PM

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Especially because drunks behind the wheel are SO law abiding.

Take a deep breath and think of something not funny. Like the upcoming vote in the Senate.

Then take just a minute to outline a scenario that fits the criteria. Remember they are a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed that ends up hitting a cottage and a triple decapitation, on a lake with a 300 horsepower limit. The horsepower limit is fictional, the rest is factual.

jrc

04-23-2008, 04:35 PM

Can someone post a link to any information on this three head decapitation? It's not that I don't beleive it but wow that's one heck of an accident.

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 04:41 PM

Take a deep breath and think of something not funny. Like the upcoming vote in the Senate.

Then take just a minute to outline a scenario that fits the criteria. Remember they are a drunk operating a Cigarette boat at high speed that ends up hitting a cottage and a triple decapitation, on a lake with a 300 horsepower limit. The horsepower limit is fictional, the rest is factual.

Hey thanks you already did it for me.... ha ha ha ha

Three drunks launch a cigarette boat on winni for the day and drive it up on land and die.

Oh wait too improbable for you? I mean three drunks wouldn't disobey a law ould they?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ok how bout this 3 guys in a 20 foot Skeeter with a 200hp go out fishing for the day. Unfortunately these guys like to drink while they fish. Well after 8-10 beers each they figure what the heck lets see what she'll do. It has gotten dark and they were a bit farther out than they originally planned. On the way back to the docks whamo they hit the shore launch it and at over 70MPH all were killed instantly.

I used a fishng boat for this example because we aren't targeting one type of boat are we BI. ;)

Still laughing at the original post...:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 05:33 PM

Three drunks launch a cigarette boat on winni for the day and drive it up on land and die.

Oh wait too improbable for you? I mean three drunks wouldn't disobey a law ould they?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

We are talking about a real accident with a Cigarette boat and three deaths.

So in your scenario the owner didn't know there was a horsepower limit? Or he knew and decided to launch the boat anyway? Nobody at the launch ramp told them about the limit? Nobody called the Marine Patrol when they saw the Cigarette boat on the lake? The Marine Partrol were not in Meredith Bay that day?

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 05:40 PM

We are talking about a real accident with a Cigarette boat and three deaths.

So in your scenario the owner didn't know there was a horsepower limit? Or he knew and decided to launch the boat anyway? Nobody at the launch ramp told them about the limit? Nobody called the Marine Patrol when they saw the Cigarette boat on the lake? The Marine Partrol were not in Meredith Bay that day?

So are you dismissing the second scenario? I mean we're not targeting a particular type of boat ARE we? :confused:

Wow the true colors are showing through......

Further clarification to avoid the inevitable. You maintain that the HP limit and Speed Limit would prevent an accident like this. Get a clue it doesn't have to be a "cigarette" boat. I gave you an example but I'm sure they'll be some spin......

...waiting to laugh......again.

Islander

04-23-2008, 05:44 PM

So are you dismissing the second scenario? I mean we're not targeting a particular type of boat ARE we? :confused:

Wow the true colors are showing through......

BI - Why do you bother with this guy. He is not taking any of this seriously.

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 06:05 PM

BI - Why do you bother with this guy. He is not taking any of this seriously.

Yeah I see Islander, when the wheels are falling off step one is to discredit me by saying, I don't take any of this seriously. WOW!

Whatever.:rolleye2:

So Bear Islander any spin on the latest? Did I answer your question?

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 06:33 PM

BI - Why do you bother with this guy. He is not taking any of this seriously.

For a while I figured he was confused. Didn't realize we were talking about a real accident. Maybe he is drunk.

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 07:01 PM

For a while I figured he was confused. Didn't realize we were talking about a real accident. Maybe he is drunk.

Yeah thats it keep digging.... It's all you've got now because your credibility is now the joke of the forum..... Sorry but it's true.

codeman671

04-23-2008, 07:05 PM

For a while I figured he was confused. Didn't realize we were talking about a real accident. Maybe he is drunk.

Please post a link to the details of this accident. I have never heard of it before, I'd like to see the story. I assume it had to be quite a while back, otherwise it would have been brought up more.

hazelnut

04-23-2008, 07:26 PM

Please post a link to the details of this accident. I have never heard of it before, I'd like to see the story. I assume it had to be quite a while back, otherwise it would have been brought up more.

Don't hold your breath..:rolleye2:

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 08:08 PM

Don't hold your breath..:rolleye2:

Way back in the 70's a Cigarette hit a dock in Gilford at high speed. Went airborne, rolled upside down and landed on a cottage. Three dead. Just one of those high speed fatal accidents you guys tell each other never happened. And it was not boat-to-boat so it doesn't count.

Now please call me a liar so you can eat your words later.

chmeeee

04-23-2008, 08:30 PM

codeman671

04-23-2008, 08:34 PM

Way back in the 70's a Cigarette hit a dock in Gilford at high speed. Went airborne, rolled upside down and landed on a cottage. Three dead. Just one of those high speed fatal accidents you guys tell each other never happened. And it was not boat-to-boat so it doesn't count.

Now please call me a liar so you can eat your words later.

Back in the 70's? I think an accident 30+ years ago is pushing it in this conversation. I am not calling you a liar, but I think this being brought into the burden of proof in todays arguments is a bit much.

High speed? How fast? How fast were "cigarette boats" back in the 70's? Alcohol involved?

Why not make it illegal for a person operating a boat to have any drinks whatsoever? It seems like alcohol has played a factor in just about every boating accident mentioned. Does a sober person crash their boat into a dock and land on a cottage? Does a sober person run over another boat in Meredith at night while traveling at low speeds? Does a sober person run over another boat on Long Lake on a night with good visibility?

The common denominator is alcohol and the answer to all above is NO!!!

Islander

04-23-2008, 08:36 PM

Do you really think after 30 years that that has any kind of relevance to our discussion?
Yes!

We still have Cigarette boats, docks, cottages, alcohol. What has changed since then that would prevent it from happening this summer? Nothing!

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 09:06 PM

Back in the 70's? I think an accident 30+ years ago is pushing it in this conversation. I am not calling you a liar, but I think this being brought into the burden of proof in todays arguments is a bit much.

High speed? How fast? How fast were "cigarette boats" back in the 70's? Alcohol involved?

Why not make it illegal for a person operating a boat to have any drinks whatsoever? It seems like alcohol has played a factor in just about every boating accident mentioned. Does a sober person crash their boat into a dock and land on a cottage? Does a sober person run over another boat in Meredith at night while traveling at low speeds? Does a sober person run over another boat on Long Lake on a night with good visibility?

The common denominator is alcohol and the answer to all above is NO!!!

Hazelnut has pointed out in recent posts that drunks don't obey the laws. You want to pass a no alcohol on boats law, fine by me.

If there had been a horsepower limit on the lake in the 70's this accident could not have happened, or at least it would have been a smaller, slower boat hitting the cottage.

What happened to Hazelnut?

GWC...

04-23-2008, 09:12 PM

Yes!

We still have Cigarette boats, docks, cottages, alcohol. What has changed since then that would prevent it from happening this summer? Nothing!
You are correct.

The Speed Limit Bill will not change a thing, safety-wise...

Interesting Safety Alert (http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/SA_007.pdf) by the NTSB...

Does not fit your agenda; but interesting, never-the-less...

codeman671

04-23-2008, 09:21 PM

Hazelnut has pointed out in recent posts that drunks don't obey the laws. You want to pass a no alcohol on boats law, fine by me.

If there had been a horsepower limit on the lake in the 70's this accident could not have happened, or at least it would have been a smaller, slower boat hitting the cottage.

What happened to Hazelnut?

He is laughing so hard he started to hyper-ventilate.:D

He was right, drunks do not obey the law. If they are drunk and behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, and a speed limit will not protect anyone.

How about a homework assignment? A list of all powerboat accidents in the last 30 years (to make a certain few happy), no phantom stuff, actual verifiable accidents that resulted in a death or serious injury IN NH. I think it would be interesting to see the list, and the causes/contributing factors. Nothing in FL, Michigan, or anywhere else. No close calls, actual accidents. This debate and law is about NH boating and NH waterways. Maybe a followup of non-powered boating accidents, which most likely will be GREATER in number.

APS? BI? Islander? Anyone?

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 09:44 PM

He is laughing so hard he started to hyper-ventilate.:D

He was right, drunks do not obey the law. If they are drunk and behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, and a speed limit will not protect anyone.

How about a homework assignment? A list of all powerboat accidents in the last 30 years (to make a certain few happy), no phantom stuff, actual verifiable accidents that resulted in a death or serious injury IN NH. I think it would be interesting to see the list, and the causes/contributing factors. Nothing in FL, Michigan, or anywhere else. No close calls, actual accidents. This debate and law is about NH boating and NH waterways. Maybe a followup of non-powered boating accidents, which most likely will be GREATER in number.

APS? BI? Islander? Anyone?

Careful.... They will think you are starting to drink the coolaid.

This accident doesn't count.... alcohol. And I'm willing to bet they violated the 150' rule. Too long ago... Not boat-to-boat... Accidents on other lakes don't count... That lake is smaller... Coast Guard never said 45/25..., Winnipesaukee has a different shape... yada yada yada.

Like they say, not just a river in Egypt.

Then they post that there is absolutely no evidence to support a speed limit.

codeman671

04-23-2008, 09:58 PM

Careful.... They will think you are starting to drink the coolaid.

This accident doesn't count.... alcohol. And I'm willing to bet they violated the 150' rule. Too long ago... Not boat-to-boat... Accidents on other lakes don't count... That lake is smaller... Coast Guard never said 45/25..., Winnipesaukee has a different shape... yada yada yada.

Like they say, not just a river in Egypt.

Then they post that there is absolutely no evidence to support a speed limit.

Try it, the results may surprise you (and I'm not talking about the coolaid)...

I'll make it easy. I'll start.

Littlefield- low speed accident caused by a drunk driver not paying attention.

Jet ski accident from 2007- underage kid on a jetski who legally should not have even been operating it. No mention if speed was a factor. The machine involved was probably capable of no more than 50mph.

Eagle- underage drunk teen hits the rocks and ends up on the island.

Anyone care to add?

jrc

04-23-2008, 10:02 PM

EricP

04-23-2008, 10:39 PM

It absolutely amazes me that BI can keep this going. Wanting a law for every potential things that could possibly go wrong is absolutely ridiculous. I seriously think he needs to move to a mountain top somewhere far away from society because he doesn't appear to want to be a part of it unless it is only on his terms. We don't need people like that in our society. I read these posts and shake my head the whole time. Kinda makes the forums that much less enjoyable. Very childish.

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 10:47 PM

BI how can you possibly have any idea how many horsepower that boat had 30 years ago? You can't even they me what year it occurred but you know it had more than 300 hp. You don't even know what kind of boat it was.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you basing a lot of facts on stories passed down from friends.

I also thought people wanted to make the lake safer, like it was twenty to thirty years ago. Sounds pretty dangerous with people getting decapitated all the time. Since no one has been decapitated lately (30 years) maybe we have made the lake safer now.

I told you it was a Cigarette. How low could the horsepower have been.

This accident was part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 hearing. It happened in the spring of 1975. It was a Cigarette. I don't know the speed but obviously it was moving pretty good. The owner was the uncle of a forum member. It was talked about years ago. Try a search.

Again this accident could have happened last summer or next summer. Nothing has changed. The operator may not have had a safe boating certificate back then, but would that have changed anything? He probably knew that BWI and hitting a cottage while inverted were bad ideas.

APS has been posting about this accident for two days. This is what codeman said about the accident yesterday.

I am not familar with this one...Sounds like your typical crap to me. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

Skip

04-24-2008, 05:02 AM

Since the conversation here has turned much to the topic of impaired operation I thought that this article (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/GJNEWS_01/418058976) is extremely relevant.

Some honestly believe that the simple implementation of a rule or regulation will be followed with blind obedience by the great majority of those affected by such change.

What this study shows, as many of us in law enforcement have dealt with on a daily basis for decades, is the simple fact that drunk driving kills and maims thousands each year and all the laws in society have not been enough of an effective deterrent to stem the flow of blood.

Anyway, the story about this particular study is very sobering, to say the least.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 06:30 AM

chipj29

04-24-2008, 06:47 AM

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 07:10 AM

OK so a person in a certain style boat "could" go fast, and "could" crash the boat into a cottage. So that is the rationale (at least part of it) for a speed limit.

OK so in my car, I "could" go fast, and "could" crash my car into a house. But since there is a speed limit, there is no chance of that?

My point is this: Lots of things "could" happen, with or without a speed limit. Accidents happen at ALL speeds, and they involve ALL types of boats. You simply cannot prevent them all. Since there have been zero reported accidents in the last few years where speed over 45/25 have been cited as the MAIN cause of the accident, then the speed limit law will not make the lake safer.

Your question points out that a horsepower limit is a better solution. Thanks!

And thanks again, speed has to be the MAIN cause of the accident, I forgot that one. The best way is a horsepower, or length, or weight limit. A speed limit is less effective but will work.

The "rationale" along these lines for a speed limit it simple. Most owners of 1,700 HP boats will not choose a lake with a 45 mph speed limit to boat on. It is reported that the number of high horsepower boats on Lake George dropped dramatically after they enacted a speed limit.

I'm hoping the Capt. Boneheads will be the first to go, they NEED speed.

There is no simple way to stop drunks. There ARE simple ways to move him to another lake. Several high performance boaters have claimed they will leave if HB847 passes. I thank them for their honesty.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the number of high horsepower boats on the lake will not be effected by HB847?

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 07:37 AM

BI,

Why should I bother posting you are your own worst enemy. The more you post the deeper it gets in here. Hysterical.... By the way my favorite quote so far...

"I don't know the speed but obviously it was moving pretty good."

Hysterical. Lets pass a law based on this accident coupled with your statement. :laugh:

chipj29

04-24-2008, 07:44 AM

Your question points out that a horsepower limit is a better solution. Thanks!
My Nissan has roughly 175 HP, yet it can go 125 on the highway if I want. What would a horsepower limit accomplish?
And thanks again, speed has to be the MAIN cause of the accident, I forgot that one. The best way is a horsepower, or length, or weight limit. A speed limit is less effective but will work.
Work to do what?
The "rationale" along these lines for a speed limit it simple. Most owners of 1,700 HP boats will not choose a lake with a 45 mph speed limit to boat on. It is reported that the number of high horsepower boats on Lake George dropped dramatically after they enacted a speed limit.

I'm hoping the Capt. Boneheads will be the first to go, they NEED speed.
So it really IS about a certain type of boat...
There is no simple way to stop drunks. There ARE simple ways to move him to another lake. Several high performance boaters have claimed they will leave if HB847 passes. I thank them for their honesty.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the number of high horsepower boats on the lake will not be effected by HB847?
In addition to the bolded points, I will just say that the Capt Boneheads come in all shapes and sizes, from a sea kayak to a bow rider to a GFBL.

codeman671

04-24-2008, 07:53 AM

I told you it was a Cigarette. How low could the horsepower have been.

This accident was part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 hearing. It happened in the spring of 1975. It was a Cigarette. I don't know the speed but obviously it was moving pretty good. The owner was the uncle of a forum member. It was talked about years ago. Try a search.

APS has been posting about this accident for two days. This is what codeman said about the accident yesterday.

I am not familar with this one...Sounds like your typical crap to me. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

My question still stands. I have yet to see any proof which I simply asked for. I searched by your criteria and nothing came up. Why don't you just post a link and get it over with?

Was it a Cigarette or a Baja? You say Cigarette yet you have us searching for Baja. Did Baja even make a true performance boat in the 70's??? According to my searches Baja made their first boat in 1976 and the longest boat they made was a 19' with 170hp. Cigarette did make a limited production of boats prior to 1975. Almost all were 28' and shorter, and even the 35-36' model was probably no more than a 60mph boat with the power they were equipped with standard.

Mark

04-24-2008, 08:11 AM

Your question points out that a horsepower limit is a better solution. Thanks!

And thanks again, speed has to be the MAIN cause of the accident, I forgot that one. The best way is a horsepower, or length, or weight limit. A speed limit is less effective but will work.

The "rationale" along these lines for a speed limit it simple. Most owners of 1,700 HP boats will not choose a lake with a 45 mph speed limit to boat on. It is reported that the number of high horsepower boats on Lake George dropped dramatically after they enacted a speed limit.

I'm hoping the Capt. Boneheads will be the first to go, they NEED speed.

There is no simple way to stop drunks. There ARE simple ways to move him to another lake. Several high performance boaters have claimed they will leave if HB847 passes. I thank them for their honesty.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the number of high horsepower boats on the lake will not be effected by HB847?

Why does speed have to be the MAIN cause of the accident?

Capt Bonehead has a need for speed? What kind of smoke was in the air that you pulled that factoid from? The vast majority of Capt Boneheads are not going as fast as 45 m.p.h. or faster.

Bear Islander I have heard your solution argument before. Don't deal directly with the problem just ship them elsewhere. What do you do with drunk boaters just move them to a different place so they are someone elses problem. How did that solution work for the Catholic Church problem people. It hurt rather than helped people in the long run. Face the problem head on.

You believe that speed limits will make the lake some level of better for We the People. For us. It is easy to do. What about the public on the lakes where you are sending the law breaking drunk boaters? Do you not care about all US citizens equally?

The speed limit will effect law abiding people. The ones that will pull over for the cops. It will not do much for the renegades.

Taking the easy way out doen not always work. I was so for the speed limits until I really read over the messages on the forum and became convinced that more boat speed limit legislation is not the best solution for the public.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 08:14 AM

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 08:20 AM

In addition to the bolded points, I will just say that the Capt Boneheads come in all shapes and sizes, from a sea kayak to a bow rider to a GFBL.

The answers to your bolded comments are right in the text.

You are quite right about Boneheads coming in all sizes. The question is what kind of boat do you want to land on your home, a Cigarette or a sea kayak? If a sea kayak hits a dock at full speed it might scuff its bows. If a Cigarette hits a dock at full speed..... people die.

codeman671

04-24-2008, 08:29 AM

If a Cigarette hits a dock at full speed..... people die.

If someone hits a dock at full speed in a 19' bowrider with less than 300hp people can die as well. If someone hit a dock at 40mph on a jet ski people can die as well.

Do you agree?

Island Lover

04-24-2008, 08:30 AM

Yeah thats it keep digging.... It's all you've got now because your credibility is now the joke of the forum..... Sorry but it's true.
Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

DoTheMath

04-24-2008, 08:34 AM

As Skip points out, it's hard to stop a drunk. However a horsepower limit will "limit" the damage he can do.

The Cigarette accident in Gilford was talked about on the forum, including a post from the operators nephew. Do a search for 8/21/2003 to 8/28/2003. Look for "Baja gets air" and "Boat enters cottage - upside down.."

There is also a post there where I recommend a horsepower limit. It seems I didn't come up with this as part of a WinnFABS plot.BZZZZT! Wrong answer - as I showed you before, a 20' boat with a 250 hp outboard that can do 80+ mph blows away your theory on the hp limit being a way to "slow down" the lake and limit any speed related accidents by limiting the hp!

And how about we look at ALL the accidents in the last 30 years that invloved drinking and boating - and how many of those were in performance boats where speed was a direct factor, and how many in non-performance boats - you know, anything but those big-bad "Cigarette" boats.

Again - people kill people - guns don't kill people!!! It's not the boat - it is the OPERATOR! A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

Your not going to prevent car accidents by outlawing sports cars - just like you're not going to prevent accidents like you mentioned (back in 1975 :rolleye2:) by getting "Cigarette" boats off the lake! Call a spade a spade - will ya, it's not the speed that bothers you - it's the boats! Don't hate the playa - hate the game!! :cool:

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 08:35 AM

If someone hits a dock at full speed in a 19' bowrider with less than 300hp people can die as well. If someone hit a dock at 40mph on a jet ski people can die as well.

Do you agree?

Absolutely. And as the weight and speed of the boat increases so does the degree of damage and the death toll.

Do you agree?

codeman671

04-24-2008, 08:40 AM

Absolutely. And as the weight and speed of the boat increases so does the degree of damage and the death toll.

Do you agree?

Degree of damage to the boat and dock yes, death toll depends on other factors.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 08:40 AM

My question still stands. I have yet to see any proof which I simply asked for. I searched by your criteria and nothing came up. Why don't you just post a link and get it over with?

Was it a Cigarette or a Baja? You say Cigarette yet you have us searching for Baja. Did Baja even make a true performance boat in the 70's??? According to my searches Baja made their first boat in 1976 and the longest boat they made was a 19' with 170hp. Cigarette did make a limited production of boats prior to 1975. Almost all were 28' and shorter, and even the 35-36' model was probably no more than a 60mph boat with the power they were equipped with standard.

So the damage to the boat increases with speed but the damage to the people inside remains the same. I don't think so!

The links don't work as well in the old forum.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/archive1.cgi?noframes;index

However I don't think that link takes you to where I came from. Give it a try.

(edit)

Sorry, it doesn't work. but if you fill in the dates on the seach page and select "All messages in the date range" it will take you there.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 08:54 AM

Try this

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=62784

The Baja was another accident that lead to the Cigarette accident.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 08:55 AM

Absolutely. And as the weight and speed of the boat increases so does the degree of damage and the death toll.

Do you agree?

NO!

*****************

codeman671

04-24-2008, 09:08 AM

So the damage to the boat increases with speed but the damage to the people inside remains the same. I don't think so!

Maybe or maybe not. At a higher speed the boat may plow through the dock and end up on land, not killing anyone. There is no right or wrong answer, too many other factors come into play. A larger boat may not sustain critical damage and may remain largely intact, where as a small boat may be more likely to become a pile of rubble.

Found it, thanks.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 09:11 AM

Again - people kill people - guns don't kill people!!! It's not the boat - it is the OPERATOR! A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

If you really believe that I suggest you enroll in a basic physics course, because you do not know how to Do The Math.

A kayak with a drunk operator, a 22' bowrider with a drunk operator, a 1,700 horsepower Nor-Tech with a drunk operator. They are all just as dangerous?

I really hope some Senators are reading this.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 09:13 AM

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

Islander,

I am sorry if you think it is personal to state facts.

This person (I won't name names) uses an accident from 30 years ago without any details to back his claim that winni needs a Horsepower and Speed limit?? I mean come on are you kidding me. Actually the more I find out about this accident the more ridiculous it is that he used it as "fact" supporting his argument. How can ones credibility even be considered when they push garbage like that. It happened 30 YEARS AGO! If anything I can use it in my argument stating how SAFE the lake is. Here I'll do it... pretend you've never heard about the accident....... Guys, winni doesn't need speed limits or horsepower limits. Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

Sounds silly doesn't it? Any more silly than using it to prove we DO need limits. So this persons credibility shatters more and more as they kick and scream about this accident. Sorry Islander facts is facts.

codeman671

04-24-2008, 09:13 AM

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 09:20 AM

Here chew on this one everyone ;)

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/10/01/readers-in-newspaper-poll-say-no-to-winnipesaukee-speed-limits/

Island Lover

04-24-2008, 09:24 AM

Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

He did not bring up this accident, it was talked about in this thread for a day before he talked about it. I believe he is doing an excellent job of supporting his opinion against the majority in the forum. His posts are far less personal, and frankly silly, as yours. I am only asking that we raise the bar a little. I am not Islander.

The cigarete hit a dock, the teenager hit a piling, same difference to me.

codeman671

04-24-2008, 09:29 AM

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

Am I missing something? I recall an accident of a teenager on a PWC dying, but not ending up on land...??? Someone who had NO RIGHT being on that machine. Hardly any damage to the machine, I remember talk of a piling strike but definitely not ending up on land. Hardly any damage to the machine either...

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 09:31 AM

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Woodsy

04-24-2008, 09:33 AM

BI..

If the best you can do to bolster your position is bring up an accident that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee over 33 years ago... You are really, really reaching! In fact, that argument could be spun to show how safe the lake really is!

I ALMOST agree with you on one point... as weight and speed increase, the POTENTIAL for damage also increases. That is just simple physics. However, the POTENTIAL for an accident or death does not necessarily increase! In fact, if you looked at the annual NHMP or even the annual USCG Safety Reports, the opposite is true!! The slowest of watercraft, canoes & kayaks are far, far more deadly...

Lake Winnipesaukee is home to about maybe 5-6 boats that can top 100, and over the summer maybe 5-6 others may frequent the lake. While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake! They will trade them in for big cruisers... then what? Oh wait! You think that can be solved by a HP limit!

Do you honestly think the NH Legislature is going to enact any sort of HP Limit or Size Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? Do you have any idea what that will do to the economy of the lake? The marinas? The businesses? The people that rely on those businesses for thier livelyhood? Good luck trying to get that passed on the state largest lake! The economy is tough enough as it is...

You have stated that the speed limit is about safety, yet you have no data to support your position. The WINNCRABS crowd dismisses the MP study as flawed, when in fact as far as UNFUNDED studies go, they did a pretty damm good job. WINNCRABS just didn't like the results! Ultimately, your goal is to rid YOUR lake of people you consider undesireable... What you don't like is thier ostentatious lifestyle, compared to what you consider your relatively low key lifestyle. However others might find your $200,000 6 minute spaceflight a bit ostentatious.

I suggest you move to Squam Lake, where they long ago enacted all types of snobbish rules to keep THIER lake to themselves! A speed limit that has NEVER been enforced, no boats with porta potties or cuddy cabins etc, etc. (I guess they want you to relieve yourself in the lake?) In fact until just a few years ago, there was NO PUBLIC ACCESS on Squam. The Squam Lake Assoc would purchase the properties the State proposed for use as a boat launch. It wasn't until the state threatened to take a VERY EXPENSIVE piece of property by emminent domain, that a compromise was reached for a small public launch!

Woodsy

codeman671

04-24-2008, 09:37 AM

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Then practice what you preach...

Move on.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 09:41 AM

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

Sorry if you feel that way... I'll try not to laugh anymore. But come on when you posted about that accident 30 years ago were you serious? And if you were didn't some small part of you twinge and say "this is a stretch?"

chipj29

04-24-2008, 10:01 AM

The answers to your bolded comments are right in the text.

You are quite right about Boneheads coming in all sizes. The question is what kind of boat do you want to land on your home, a Cigarette or a sea kayak? If a sea kayak hits a dock at full speed it might scuff its bows. If a Cigarette hits a dock at full speed..... people die.

A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

If you really believe that I suggest you enroll in a basic physics course, because you do not know how to Do The Math.

A kayak with a drunk operator, a 22' bowrider with a drunk operator, a 1,700 horsepower Nor-Tech with a drunk operator. They are all just as dangerous?

I really hope some Senators are reading this.

One night, I am out in 22' bowrider, with a 150 hp outboard, travelling along at a "safe" 25 mph in nice clear calm conditions. I have not had a single drink. I am maintaining proper watch. All of a sudden directly in my path is a canoe, with 2 naked people in it. Now tell me, who is more dangerous? Me or the canoer?

Methinks the canoers put ME in danger!

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 10:01 AM

Silver Duck

04-24-2008, 10:10 AM

winnilaker

04-24-2008, 10:14 AM

Humor to you I'm sure. Some readers may think its true.

Here's some humor. I have decided to give up on the fighting the speed limit and join Evenstar. I think all motorized boats should prohibited. Using the logic from BI, that 35 is safer than 45, etc. zero HAS to be the safest speed.

So I wrote a letter to my rep and asked him to submit a bill next year to prohibit motorized boats in Winni. Statistics CLEARLY show there are more accidents in slower/smallers boats than larger ones, so let's just get rid of all of them. Island folks, sorry, better start getting in shape to paddle your way to them. Evenstar can probably put you on a good training program.

I'm going to use the same lobbying plan that Winnfabs uses and APS. I'll paint the gory picture of how unsafe motorized boats are and show gory pictures of the massacres. Tell how people fell off bowriders and get killed by props while enjoying the lake.

Then, I'll personally pay ARG (American Research Group) to conduct a survey, here are my questions?

Would Winnipesaukee be safer if motorized boats were not allowed?

Would you feel safe in a kayak if no motorized boats were around?

Etc.
Etc.

Then I'll pull in the Sail boats clubs to join my fight and have them recount ALL their horror stories of close calls with those pesky motorized boats.

Seriously, what rep wouldn't want to side with me? The stories, the stats, the survey, the associations are all on my side. It's a no brainer.

Now from my waterfront home, I can sit on my beach and have a conversation with my neighbor across the bay. What a perfect world. I'm sold.

DoTheMath

04-24-2008, 10:16 AM

A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

If you really believe that I suggest you enroll in a basic physics course, because you do not know how to Do The Math.

A kayak with a drunk operator, a 22' bowrider with a drunk operator, a 1,700 horsepower Nor-Tech with a drunk operator. They are all just as dangerous?

I really hope some Senators are reading this.

I hope they are too! And yes, I stand by that statement and my math is just fine - as is my physics comprehension! I am not looking to split hairs and discuss semantics here, I am simply stating that a drunk behind the wheel (or paddle) of ANY BOAT is dangerous and has the POTENTIAL to kill. I'm not looking to discuss the whole E=MC2 or how weight has an effect on impact with varying speeds, or why you think a Nor-Tech (amazingly well built and performing boat, BTW) with 1,700hp is "extra dangerous" or whatever...

Just admit it - you hate the player, not the game!! You hate the "big-bad" performance boats - for whatever twisted reason you have come up with in your head - and want to run them out of town... :rolleye2:

Do you know Acres Per Second by chance? :D

SIKSUKR

04-24-2008, 10:16 AM

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

Nice try.HE OWNED A HOUSE ON THE LAKE.Please tell me what part of him being drunk and having a speed limit would have changed that situation.I can't even believe what I'm reading here.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 10:22 AM

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

I'm sorry you fell that way. I am not talking about you or any of the other responsible boaters on Winni. Unfortunately there is no way practical way to control the irresponsible boater except things like speed limits or horsepower limits.

Plus I do believe that in the long run we must lower the environmental impact of boating on the lake. I fell the only practical way to do that is a horsepower limit. I think these limits will come one day, probably not soon, but they will come. I hope there is a way to lessen the impact they will have on the responsible boaters that are already here.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 10:25 AM

Nice try.HE OWNED A HOUSE ON THE LAKE.Please tell me what part of him being drunk and having a speed limit would have changed that situation.I can't even believe what I'm reading here.

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

chmeeee

04-24-2008, 10:29 AM

*shouting*
Horsepower Limit!

The only one talking about a horsepower limit here is you. We are talking about a speed limit.

How is a speed limit going to drive these people away, when most of them live on or near the lake?

Does a speed limit stop people from owning and driving a fast car? The base Corvette has a top speed of 186 miles per hour. Thats a fairly popular car in New Hampshire, where the highest speed limit is 65 mph, or 34% of the Corvette's max speed.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 10:30 AM

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

I find this post offensive and rude in nature. ;)

I am officially registering my complaint now. :laugh:

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 10:36 AM

Sorry if you feel that way... I'll try not to laugh anymore. But come on when you posted about that accident 30 years ago were you serious? And if you were didn't some small part of you twinge and say "this is a stretch?"

SIKSUKR posted about that accident in post #615 (before I posted about it). He wanted to know how a speed limit could have changed the outcome of that accident. So you see, I did not bring it up. SIKSUKR knew he was talking about a REAL accident. He was one of the people that provided information on the operator to the forum back in August 2003.

I responded in post #616 that if a horsepower limit were in place it would have prevented the accident.

In post #617 you went all haywire.

I tried to explain to you in subsequent posts that we were talking about a REAL accident that happen on Winni, but you were to buzzy hitting the :laugh: key to pay attention.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 10:38 AM

SIKSUKR posted about that accident in post #615 (before I posted about it). He wanted to know how a speed limit could have changed the outcome of that accident. So you see, I did not bring it up. SIKSUKR knew he was talking about a REAL accident. He was one of the people that provided information on the operator to the forum back in August 2003.

I responded in post #616 that if a horsepower limit were in place it would have prevented the accident.

In post #617 you went all haywire.

I tried to explain to you in subsequent posts that we were talking about a REAL accident that happen on Winni, but you were to buzzy hitting the :laugh: key.

Ok then do me a favor because you still haven't done this. GIVE US A NUMBER!!! What horsepower? 500? 400? 250? 10? Just name a number.

Woodsy

04-24-2008, 10:43 AM

Unfortunately there is no way practical way to control the irresponsible boater except things like speed limits or horsepower limits.

BI....

Thats not true... there is a VERY practical way to control the irresponsible boater. The same way they control the irresponsible car driver... Increased Police presence! Ask any LEO... lots of thier patrols involve "showing the flag" so to speak! Its truly amazing how people tend to obey the rules when there is a LEO around.

Speed limits, HP limits, Size limits mean nothing if the agency tasked with enforcing the rules is underfunded and/or understaffed! In order to get increased MP patrols, we need BETTER FUNDING FOR THE NHMP! NHMP is funded soley by boaters for boaters... I for one would support a modest increase in my registration fee if it went to directly funding the NHMP.

Woodsy

codeman671

04-24-2008, 10:48 AM

Ok then do me a favor because you still haven't done this. GIVE US A NUMBER!!! What horsepower? 500? 400? 250? 10? Just name a number.

If you are asking what his proposed HP limit is, it has been posted many times. Over 300hp on boat model year 2008 and newer are to be banned.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 10:51 AM

BI....

Thats not true... there is a VERY practical way to control the irresponsible boater. The same way they control the irresponsible car driver... Increased Police presence! Ask any LEO... lots of thier patrols involve "showing the flag" so to speak! Its truly amazing how people tend to obey the rules when there is a LEO around.

Speed limits, HP limits, Size limits mean nothing if the agency tasked with enforcing the rules is underfunded and/or understaffed! In order to get increased MP patrols, we need BETTER FUNDING FOR THE NHMP! NHMP is funded soley by boaters for boaters... I for one would support a modest increase in my registration fee if it went to directly funding the NHMP.

Woodsy

I agree!

I support increased funding for the Marine Patrol. However I do not believe it will happen. Skip posted about this a while back, and in his opinion (worth a lot more than mine) it wasn't going to happen.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 10:56 AM

If you are asking what his proposed HP limit is, it has been posted many times. Over 300hp on boat model year 2008 and newer are to be banned.

So is he trying to sell us on the idea that a 250hp boat is incapable of causing bodily injury or death?

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 11:00 AM

So is he trying to sell us on the idea that a 250hp boat is incapable of causing bodily injury or death?

Your missing the point, I own a 280 HP boat.:laugh:

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 11:02 AM

AHA! My boats 300hp though.... its a runabout that only does 49. Am I banned? :laugh:

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 11:04 AM

AHA! My boats 300hp though.... its a runabout that only does 49. Am I banned? :laugh:

Your OK, it's the boats OVER 300 HP that are evil.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 11:07 AM

Your OK, it's the boats OVER 300 HP that are evil.

Phew!!! As for winnilaker.... I aint paddlin to the island!!! :laugh:

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 01:09 PM

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 01:59 PM

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 02:19 PM

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

chmeeee

04-24-2008, 02:24 PM

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

I believe he already answered the question, but I'll answer it as well:

No.

To say otherwise is to imply that a 200 to 300 hp boat could not possibly strike land and kill its occupants, when of course it could. What do you think would happen to me if my 260 hp boat struck a rocky shore at its maximum speed of approximately 52 mph? If you ask me, I would say the most likely scenario would be death. Survival would be pure luck.

Why are there no bass boats in this scenario? Does your horsepower limit also contain a ban on bass boats?

chipj29

04-24-2008, 02:56 PM

The point that BI is trying to make is that if there had been a horsepower limit in place, that particular boat would not have been on the lake, therefore the accident would have been prevented. In his eyes anyway.

In my eyes, the accident still would have happened, just on a different boat. Many many boats, with a lot less than 300 HP have the power and speed to get in that same accident.

Woodsy

04-24-2008, 03:18 PM

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 04:11 PM

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 04:40 PM

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 04:45 PM

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

I have explained this several times, so I think you know the answer and are only doing this for effect. Here it is one more time, try and get it straight.

I have NEVER claimed I am not targeting high power boats. My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 05:25 PM

chmeeee

04-24-2008, 05:36 PM

Here you say that its only for new boats:

My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 05:45 PM

What science are you basing this on.:confused::confused::confused::confused: You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

Seeker

04-24-2008, 05:56 PM

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

SD, I agree with you 100%. BI has his own agenda and frankly I believe he is so nearsighted he just cannot allow himself to see the reason of any other point of view. I have owned many vessels over the past 55 years and never so much as dinged a prop. Yes, some of them went well over 60 knots, some had 600hp and only went 28 kts, some were commercial but most were pleasure. One of the best laws I have seen in the boating community is the 150' zone as required in most NH inland waters. Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit.
Maybe I'll look at this thread in a couple weeks to see if anything has changed but I won't bet on it.
:(

Skip

04-24-2008, 06:07 PM

Man, this thread is really starting to get a little nasty.

You know, I have had the pleasure to share healthy give & take with most of you here for years, and found you all to (under some of the occasional gruffness :)) really be a great bunch of folks.

I have even had the pleasure of meeting some of you personally at a couple of forum fests, and know that in person you guys are really quite pleasant to be around (right Rich?)....:)

A simple request from me...as the one who started the thread. Could we all (myself included) find our way back to the orignal intent of the thread, try to keep the personalities in check and maybe gracefully bow out if we don't have anyting new or substantial to offer?

We all frequent Don's great site out of our love for the same Lake and its surrounding beauty, many of us just enjoy the freedom to worship it in our own unique way.

And lest we forget; in the end, no matter what the outcome, we all have to share the same beautiful gift Mother Nature has gracefully bestowed upon us! :)

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 06:36 PM

Here you say that its only for new boats:

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

I'm not contradicting myself. But I can understand that you are confused.

I would like to see a horsepower limit. To be fair I think it should be grandfathered so it doesn't force existing boats off the lake. I have said 2008 but it may be more like 2020 by the time it happens.

In another discussion I was suggesting hypothetically that a horsepower limit would have prevented an accident that happened in 1975.

My comment about selling a boat was to demonstrate that a horsepower limit does not change the value of a boat. And just because I think grandfathering is a good idea doesn't mean that's what the law will say when passed. The legislature rarely checks with me before they pass a law. If they did HB847 would be a horsepower limit.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 07:22 PM

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

jrc

04-24-2008, 07:33 PM

....Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet...

Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

Islander

04-24-2008, 08:28 PM

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 08:29 PM

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

Islander

04-24-2008, 08:37 PM

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

He is not "yelling" with capitals. He is not using long strings of !!!!!!!!!, he doesn't post things like "OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it."

I am amazed at his patience!

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 08:52 PM

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.

Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

Airwaves

04-24-2008, 10:30 PM

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#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.

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!!!!!!!
Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, perfomance boats and and summer camps.

“And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com
Posted By: Waterbaby
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 10:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (SIKSUKR)

You are right, and it was my uncle and his sister and brother-in-law who were killed. At the time it was the only Cigarette on the lake, and it was late March or early April of 1975.

The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

Islander

04-24-2008, 11:24 PM

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, performance boats and and summer camps.

By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com

The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

Acres per Second

04-25-2008, 07:33 AM

"...Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island...it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale...!
They didn't "just hit the island": They hit shallows before running out of inertia. If they hadn't hit shallows (and a bunch of trees), the cottage that they landed at would have been their terminal destination. (Add the hazard of downed electrical wires for them—and rescuers).

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=795&stc=1&d=1150071277

The Mount advised (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3399&highlight=crash) NHMP that the boat was "traveling at a high rate of speed", and never reappeared on the other side of Eagle Island.

"...For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH...they were amazingly HEAVY boats..."
Suitable for ocean waters? An ocean-racer? Heavy and slow? And now they are fast? :eek:

"...Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit..."
Anyone know how many years we've been complaining about the ineffectiveness of "Unsafe Passage", and how many years complaining of the ineffectiveness in the enforcement of "Unsafe Passage"?

We tried "The New Hampshire Way", but I think it's proven: "Unsafe Passage" was a well-intentioned flop from the 50s. Ridding the lake of unproven high-speed "drivers" with a proven track record remains the task for the terminal safety of us "lesser boaters".

"...BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident...So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing..."
Here's the link (http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=62818): (Interesting reading, but don't expect The Opposition to elaborate favorably.) :rolleye1:

"...The ONLY Cigarette on the lake...!"
Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.

Had those same headlines made their appearance last year, even Woodsy would have tossed in his hand.

(Well, maybe not Woodsy—make that Winnilaker). :emb:

"...Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago..."
Huh??? :confused: Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.

"...Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....
FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

"...IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)...(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)..."
FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

(But I repeat myself). :rolleye2:

Woodsy

04-25-2008, 09:02 AM

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

BI...

It wasn't the boat that killed him... He killed himself and the others...

He violated the law not because he could, but because he was DRUNK and didn't care... didn't think it could happen to him... etc, etc... and it cost him and 2 others thier lives! I refer to this as AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)

WE CAN FIX DRUNK BOATING/DRIVING! There has been a HUGE cultural shift in attitude towards DWI/BWI! Aggressive enforcement coupled with harsh BWI/DWI penalties is the key! Thats what the LEO community and the government have been telling us! In 1975 when this accident occurred, you could still legally drink & drive in NH! You really can't apply todays moral attitude to an accident that occurred 33 years ago.

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

As far as HP limits go... how do you propose to enforce them? Is the NHMP going to dyno test every alleged violator? Yet another unfunded mandate the NHMP would be charged with enforcing?

Woodsy

PS: Still waiting for the High Speed SOBER accident data!

Bear Islander

04-25-2008, 09:16 AM

BI...

It wasn't the boat that killed him... He killed himself and the others...

He violated the law not because he could, but because he was DRUNK and didn't care... didn't think it could happen to him... etc, etc... and it cost him and 2 others thier lives! I refer to this as AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)

WE CAN FIX DRUNK BOATING/DRIVING! There has been a HUGE cultural shift in attitude towards DWI/BWI! Aggressive enforcement coupled with harsh BWI/DWI penalties is the key! Thats what the LEO community and the government have been telling us! In 1975 when this accident occurred, you could still legally drink & drive in NH! You really can't apply todays moral attitude to an accident that occurred 33 years ago.

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

As far as HP limits go... how do you propose to enforce them? Is the NHMP going to dyno test every alleged violator? Yet another unfunded mandate the NHMP would be charged with enforcing?

Woodsy

PS: Still waiting for the High Speed SOBER accident data!

You make some good points about alcohol abuse. However it is still a big problem in our society.

A horsepower limit is easy to enforce. The HP is listed on your registration.

Yes, I know, in many cases when you register a boat they just write down what you tell them. However then you would be breaking another law with a false registration. I'm sure some boats could sneak it under the wire, but try telling the MP your Nor-Tech is 299 HP.

There are many other lakes that have horsepower limits and enforce them without to much trouble.

Woodsy

04-25-2008, 09:22 AM

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

Islander...

ANY boat at ANY speed near children should be a serious concern to all! But to my knowledge no child attending a summer camp here on Lake Winnipesaukee has been struck by a speeding powerboat! EVER! While it is definitely natural to worry about children, especially when they are on the water, there are certainly other ways that fear of being struck by a boat can be mitigated... Without taking away another person's liberty!

Someone proposed a "Camp Zone" as a buffer around the Summer Camps? You already have a 150' NWZ buffer, why not double it or triple it around camps to 300' - 500'? Drop a few bright orange info buoys and be done with it? Why would this not work?

The way you post, you would think it was a routine thing to see a boat going 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee... this is blatantly not the case! There are MAYBE 5-6 boats on the lake that can top 100 MPH! That Nortech everyone keeps using as an example was guest on the lake...

Woodsy

hazelnut

04-25-2008, 12:37 PM

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Horsepower Limit!

Dear Islander,

Please tell me who posted this and please tell me if I see it correctly. Is it in all bold with exclamation points? Please once again I request that you remove your rose colored glasses. I admire that you are sticking up for your friend but please butt out as it I never addressed you in the first place. Your comments are unwanted and biased. This is the last time I will address the issue, please refrain from getting involved. Bear Islander is a big boy and he can handle himself....

SIKSUKR

04-25-2008, 01:54 PM

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/archive1.cgi?noframes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

To be fair BI,this incident was from recall and I can't substantiate fact.What my aging brain remembers(and I could be wrong but this is how I remember)was that the driver was the owner of Davidson Construction which I believe at the time was located in Manchester.I recall that a "cigarette boat",not necesarily the brand but the type,crashed into a home on the lake at night and the driver was DWI and killed.I don't know of other fatalities whether they were on land or in the boat.That's pretty much all I recall.

Cal

04-25-2008, 08:59 PM

BI...

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

Another freedom already lost:(

gtxrider

04-26-2008, 01:24 PM

I don't care if the speed limit on Hopatcong is 110 mph. It's not big enough to be worth a 100 mile drive to get there. It deserves a speed limit. It's not much bigger that a puddle.

Having been on Lake Hopatcong on a weekend, trying to exceed 30 MPH would be like trying to speed on the Cross Bronx Expressway at rush hour! Not likely to happen!!

You cannot compare Jersey swamps, oops I mean lakes to Lake Winnipesaukee!

Its not speed that kills it is the sudden stop! You can have all the laws you want but that does not prevent people from breaking them. The 150' law is a prime example!!!

Airwaves

04-26-2008, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Islander
I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.
So if someone writes something 65 days ago, then REPEATEDLY tries to deny that they wrote it or attempts to deny he was trying to link high performance boats and the fear of a summer camp director that kids will be run down by boats doing 130 MPH then that’s okay because, what? He forgot what he wrote 2 months ago? Forgot to go back and look?

He denied writing it; he denied trying to link the two issues. Period.
Originally posted by APS
Originally Posted by Airwaves "...The ONLY Cigarette on the lake...!"Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.
So are you saying the accident 33 years ago was the first fatal boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee? Seriously, are you?
Originally posted by APS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago..."Huh??? Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.
30 years ago drinking and driving was not a crime. Drinking and driving was something that was dismissed as bad judgment and anyone caught doing it was sent on their way. Today those standards, practices and laws have thankfully changed and you are responsible for your actions.
Originally posted by APS
FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Duh! Wait, there is already a law against Boating While Intoxicated!

Originally posted by Bear Islander
There are many other lakes that have horsepower limits and enforce them without to much trouble.
That’s true, and I can tell you personally, that as someone looking to expand waterfront holdings on lakes in NH that I have rejected three very nice properties that fit my criteria because they are what my family calls on “no fun lakes” , those that ban petroleum based motors, and even one where you were only allowed to use a PWC or waterski counter clockwise during certain hours of the day! RIGHT! I’m going to buy into something like that! Granted, the lakes or ponds were small but those restrictions, I believed were excessive and I didn’t buy. Looking to make Lake Winnipesaukee something like that and I'll leave here as well and I don't own a high performance boat!

Again, I call on the speed limit crowd to tell me, if safety is the actual concern why not adopt Rule 6?

ADOPT RULE 6 AND BOTH SIDES GET WHAT THEY SAY THEY WANT!

TiltonBB

04-27-2008, 09:07 AM

jrc

04-27-2008, 09:40 AM

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home...

I fall into this category and it is clear that BI is after people like me. I say BI personally because he has said it clearly on the forum. I strongly believe the many people in WinnFABS also have his goal, but they have not said it publicly. It is also my guess that BI will have reasons that every bad effect you list will either actually be good or acceptable losses.

What he and probably the WinnFABS people really want is either a time machine to an imagined idyllic past or complete control of who and what uses the their lake.

EricP

04-27-2008, 10:35 AM

BI,
Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

Based on my observations and limited understanding of BI, I think he doesn't care a bit about a drop in property value. This is my own opinion, but his agenda leads me to this conclusion.

Bear Islander

04-27-2008, 10:59 AM

BI,

Many people have who cannot afford, or do not want to own lake front homes have purchased large cabin cruisers and use them like a summer home. By necessity more than three hundred horsepower are required to move these boats, yet most top out at 25-30 MPH. Many of those same people have purchased (or rent slips) to accommodate those boats.

1. What will happen to the value of those slips when no large boats are here to need them anymore?

2. How will the towns make up for the lost tax revenue? Example: Mountain View Yacht Club in Gilford has 284 slips, most approved for larger boats that require over 300 horsepower. It's safe to say that at least 200 of the boats in just that one marina have over 300 horsepower. Reduce the demand for those large boat slips and you have reduced the market value (Think tax value)

3. Should the government enact a law that will seriously impact the local marina businesses that sell those boats? (I know what you are thinking, instead of selling a $350,000 boat they could sell $250 plastic kayaks)

4. How will the state make up for the lost corporate tax revenue when the major marinas on the lake do substantially less business?

5. With less demand comes lower prices. Most people do not want to be at the lake to paddle their kayak or sit on the shore and eat granola. Fewer people will choose to purchase first or second homes on the lake, choosing to go elsewhere where the regulations don't exist. Are you prepared to see your home value decrease? (At the same time the towns will increase the tax rate to make up for lost revenue)

The cost of lakefront homes is not that much more than large cabin cruisers. In some cases less. Before lakefront prices went nuts a few years ago, several homes in my area sold for under $100k. I just checked the current valuations on Bear Island and found 39 homes under $300k. How much is a new big Carver? And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

1. They will convert to slips for smaller boats.

2. The town may have more take revenues as people that have left the lake or stayed away do to the unfair use by the rich few ends.

3. Governments enact laws that effect businesses every day. Governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws that will improve safety and reduce pollution, even if there may be economic impact. Over the years how many times have the auto makers told us increased safety and pollutions standards would put them out of business, or increase the price of cars to where nobody can afford them? The answer is EVERY time.

4. The marinas may do MORE business. Perhaps you have forgotten that several of the marinas in the area support speed limits.

5. Demand will, if anything, increase.

codeman671

04-27-2008, 03:59 PM

I just checked the current valuations on Bear Island and found 39 homes under $300k. How much is a new big Carver? And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

Valuations are not what the real estate is truly worth on the market these days. What's your slice of Bear Island appraised for? What do you think it would bring on the market? I know for a fact that there is a $250K+ delta between my appraisal and what it can/would go for on the market. Most waterfront properties are in the same category. The new big Carver that you wish to ban is not even close to real estate value...

Bear Islander

04-28-2008, 12:36 AM

Valuations are not what the real estate is truly worth on the market these days. What's your slice of Bear Island appraised for? What do you think it would bring on the market? I know for a fact that there is a $250K+ delta between my appraisal and what it can/would go for on the market. Most waterfront properties are in the same category. The new big Carver that you wish to ban is not even close to real estate value...

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

hazelnut

04-28-2008, 07:00 AM

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

True all around Bear Islander. Your house has some big positives, great location!

It is also very true that a Yacht like a Carver is not a good investment that is for sure.

However, with all that said who are we to dictate how people spend their leisure time on the lake? Many of those Yacht owners who own slips in the Marinas would never trade their lifestyle for yours and mine (island life). They don't look at it as a bottom line issue. They enjoy having their boat at the mainland. Remember an island home is not for everyone.

Bear Islander

04-28-2008, 07:27 AM

True all around Bear Islander. Your house has some big positives, great location!

It is also very true that a Yacht like a Carver is not a good investment that is for sure.

However, with all that said who are we to dictate how people spend their leisure time on the lake? Many of those Yacht owners who own slips in the Marinas would never trade their lifestyle for yours and mine (island life). They don't look at it as a bottom line issue. They enjoy having their boat at the mainland. Remember an island home is not for everyone.

It is not for you or I to tell people how to spend their leisure time (unless they want to go into space). However we have every right to voice our opinions when that lifestyle causes pollution or safety problems on a crowded lake.

I am free to advocate for a horsepower limit if I wish. The responsibility of enacting a horsepower limit falls on the legislature.

codeman671

04-28-2008, 07:56 AM

You can check Bear Island evaluations at the link below. My place has a tax value of 341,100. Two months ago an appraiser went to our place by skimobile to value it for refinance. They valued it at 347,000. Our place is, in my opinion, a little better than average for the island.

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MeredithNH/DEFAULT.asp

It's easier to price used boats so I checked usedboats.com and found they list 12 Carvers that are 2007 or 2008 model years. They ranged from 299,000 to 1,474,610 with an average price of $655,000. New Carvers obviously sell for more.

http://www.usedboats.com/used-carver-boats.htm

So you see Carvers cost a lot more than waterfront property. And obviously a boat will not hold its value like real estate will. Making the waterfront home even cheaper in the long run.

Figuring 2007-2008 used, yes the value is higher but out of all the pages of used Carvers only a handul were over the assessed value of your property. Regardless, my point was that assessed value and market value when it comes to waterfront/island property are no where near comparable by a large gap. I can provide a few examples from Mark is you like. This has been covered previously in FLL's post about property taxes.

If you were to list your property today do you feel $347k is a fair asking price, a price that you would cash out at? I doubt it highly, being that the true market for the land alone is not far from that.

Bear Islander

04-28-2008, 09:14 AM

Figuring 2007-2008 used, yes the value is higher but out of all the pages of used Carvers only a handul were over the assessed value of your property. Regardless, my point was that assessed value and market value when it comes to waterfront/island property are no where near comparable by a large gap. I can provide a few examples from Mark is you like. This has been covered previously in FLL's post about property taxes.

If you were to list your property today do you feel $347k is a fair asking price, a price that you would cash out at? I doubt it highly, being that the true market for the land alone is not far from that.

We were talking about A NEW big Carver. That is what I originally posted.

The market value a year or two ago was higher. At that time there was a gap between the tax value and market value. However with the drop in the market I think they are about the same, as my experience proves.

Last summer we purchased the empty lot next to ours for exactly 200k. Its tax value is 185,600. Again very little difference, and probably even closer by now.

I think property values are lower than you think. Certainly they are on an island. And as you can see the price of Cabin Cruisers is quite high.

Sorry if this puts holes in the "rich landowners wanting to get rid of the poor folks in cabin cruisers" theory.

GWC...

04-28-2008, 12:23 PM

Gilligan

04-29-2008, 05:59 AM

And think of how much you can save on slip rental and fuel!

1. They will convert to slips for smaller boats.

2. The town may have more take revenues as people that have left the lake or stayed away do to the unfair use by the rich few ends.

3. Governments enact laws that effect businesses every day. Governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to enact laws that will improve safety and reduce pollution, even if there may be economic impact. Over the years how many times have the auto makers told us increased safety and pollutions standards would put them out of business, or increase the price of cars to where nobody can afford them? The answer is EVERY time.

4. The marinas may do MORE business. Perhaps you have forgotten that several of the marinas in the area support speed limits.

5. Demand will, if anything, increase.

There are too many posts from Bear Islander to read thetm over again to find quotes. I recall that he wants to impose new speed limits and horsepower limits to reduce congestion and pretend that his way is the best and safest way.

Here you say that marinas may do more business and demand for slips will increase. This you say will lead to less congestion and a safer lake for campers, families and kayaks. How does that work?

Converting condo type boat slips to accomodate smaller boats should be real easy. New documents. Plenty paperwork. Legal issues. New permits if they grant them. New construction if allowed. No more "few rich" to pay for all that work if it is allowed. You have thought this through thoroughly.

Those who are left after being Bear Ilandered will have to pay more so the towns can receive the same income they would if those rich few were still paying their fair share. On top of that who will pay for all the slips to be redone?

All of this you say will reduce congestion, result in smaller wakes, make the lake safer for campers and kayakers and families. Demand for slips and marina services will increase.

The studies the government has made do not support your arguments. Their responsibility should be to enforce the laws we already have.

Your plans do not make sense.

Gilligan

04-29-2008, 06:13 AM

Another interesting conspiracy theory. Except that the Webmaster would know the truth, IP's are logged I believe.

Surely someone with modest means or even vast personal wealth could afford 2 IPs. Even use a proxy. :rolleye1:

What is it that you say Webmaster knows as truth?

Bear Islander must have been a used car salesman at some time. Say whatever it takes to make a sale.

Acres per Second

04-29-2008, 08:24 AM

"...The studies the government has made do not support your arguments..."
"We're from the Government, and we're here to help you" never rang truer than when "the Government" conducted their self-admitted flawed speed survey after illogically announcing that there would be a "Temporary Speed Limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee. :laugh:

"...Your plans do not make sense..."
Actually, I find BI's arguments to be fully based on inarguable logic—and Logic is a subject in which I have some training. :coolsm: