Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Skip]

I have had the pleasure of meeting both Lt. Dunleavy & Director Barrett over the years. I have found them both to be highly dedicated men with the utmost in integrity.

That said, I have also observed how they have tried to stay above the fray while working in positions that get much public scutiny. So it was of greast interest when I saw that Lt. Dunleavy felt compelled to reply in an editorial in our statewide newspaper today over accusations made against his Department recently in reference to HB 847.

Thank you Tim for standing up and giving another side to this story.

For those of you interested in Lt. Dunleavy's comments, you can check this LINK (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) out that redirects you to today's on-line edition article at the Union Leader.

[Acres per Second]

"...Thank you Tim for standing up and giving another side to this story..."

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:

"..David Barrett, the director of the Marine Patrol, has said radar guns can detect speeding boats only from certain angles. And only about 15 percent of boats on the lakes drive faster than 50 or 55 mph, (http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/26/speed-limit-for-all-lakes-proposed/) he said..."

:confused:

[Islander]

Thanks Skip

I have also met Lt. Dunleavy and found him to be extremely knowledgeable and dedicated.

However I have read his response three times and I can't find a denial. Did he leave it out by mistake? Because they way he wrote it makes one think he is unable to make a denial.

If they didn't fudge the data, why doesn't he just say so?

What he does is is..

"This bureau and its officers have earned the respect and support they receive from the boating public. They believe in their mission and are some of the most dedicated people I know. They don't deserve to have their credibility tarnished by the insinuations that Fatello made in his opening questions and comments."

Saying that they don't deserve to have their credibility tarnished, is not the same as saying it hasn't been tarnished.

As a law enforcement officer he should know how to frame a clear and unambiguous statement of innocents.

He ends by saying...

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

Once again there is no denial in that statement. Did he leave it out by mistake. Or is the statement carefully crafted to sound like a denial, but not BE a denial.

Quite frankly I think this statement raises questions and suspicions while answering none.

[ITD]

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:


"..David Barrett, the director of the Marine Patrol, has said radar guns can detect speeding boats only from certain angles. And only about 15 percent of boats on the lakes drive faster than 50 or 55 mph, (http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/26/speed-limit-for-all-lakes-proposed/) he said..."


:confused:

A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out???????? another little fact left out to support your statements............




Once again there is no denial in that statement. Did he leave it out by mistake. Or is the statement carefully crafted to sound like a denial, but not BE a denial.

Quite frankly I think this statement raises questions and suspicions while answering none.



Ok, who exactly is paranoid???????? Looks like a clear case of paranoia in Islander's quote above....

[Islander]

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

[codeman671]

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

[Bear Islander]

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

Yes, it needs to be spelled out clearer than that.

I believe Lt. Dunleavy intended to deny the charges made in the article, but he never did. He really needs to clarify the situation and make a clear statement.

There is no denial in what you have quoted, and no denial in his statement.

[SIKSUKR]

This is just incredible.

[Skip]

Thank you Bear Islander, Islander and Aps. I have been looking during this debate for good examples of logical fallacy ("do you still beat your wife"), something that has run rampant through this debate. Your responses to Lt. Dunleavy's comments serve as an excellent example.

For those of you that would like to learn more, please visit this Wikipedia LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions) for an excellent explanation.

And if anyone would like to ask Tim about his comments, instead of attempting to assign unknown motives to what appears to me to be a pretty clear statement, simply tear yourselves away from the keyboard and give him a call at 603-293-2037 or e-mail him at TDUNLEAVY@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US (TDUNLEAV@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US)

I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to address and respond to your concerns directly.

Yeah, I know. Its much more fun for some to assign sinister motives to his comments anonymously, but can we all be adults here for once an avail us of the opportunity to contact the source directly and attempt to get our answers before speculating any further?

One can only hope....:)

[ITD]

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!


The scary part is how effective this tripe is with the NH house. Everything has to be spelled out in clear detail to argue against the speed limit, yet you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie). You readily disrespect the MP as liars and data fudgers, dragging their reputations through the mud so you can get your way, like a two year old.

I'll tell you something, had the MP data shown a problem with speeding, I would have accepted it and not trashed the messenger as you have. You should be ashamed.

[kjbathe]

I think some folks are working overtime to try and parse the Lieutenants words or suggest that the lack of a preferred word or denial means the opposite must be true.

I read his article and when taken as a whole -- not selectively quoted or parsed -- his point should be abundantly clear: The data and the stats are what they are, and both sides can interpret them in ways that favor their own preferences. We shouldn't start questioning the character of people just because we don't like the stats they've collected.

And for purposes of full disclosure, I don't care if we have a speed limit or not. I think the proposed speed limits are certainly fair enough and consistent with what most people would find reasonable in terms of how fast they should be operating on the big lake. But I also think it's a small portion of the overall boating public that is operating beyond what is reasonable. When you combine that small portion with the likelihood that enforcement will be in place to record or ticket the offenders, I don't think we ultimately affect any real change in behavior. After all, we're still the same people that blow by the 55 MPH speed limit sign doing 75 until we see the cruiser up ahead. It will be no different on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

I made it clear that I believe it was his intent to deny the charges.

Skip you said "appears to me to be a pretty clear statement". And I agree it certainly has that appearance, and I think that was his intent. However the appearance of a denial is not a denial.

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

[codeman671]

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

Funny you should mention that, I was thinking of Fat Jack fondly last night as I was going through some old posts. Makes perfect sense!

A Whitepages search turned up a J A Fatello in Laconia, although it looks to be a Jo Ann Fatello, a 65 year old woman.

[Acres per Second]

"...A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out????????..."
:confused: I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.

He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using
2) marked patrol boats with
3) unpaid volunteers holding
4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to
6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when
7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.

Moreover, what Director Barrett said in 2005 was parroting one conspicuous hero of "facts":

"...police radar...is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water..."
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16192&postcount=1

[Dick]

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

[Bear Islander]

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

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.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.

[Dick]

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.

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.

[Dick]

"Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data . . ."

Did you read the Fatello article? He and many others who support inflicting this new law on us believe the data was biased/cooked. The data does not support their position and so there must be something wrong with the data and the MP personnel who conducted the surveys.

[Bear Islander]

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.


I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?

[ITD]

I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?


What would that tell????? If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........

[GWC...]

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.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.
That will be one long email...

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.
It would seem a lot easier to dial 603-293-2037...

P.S.- Another NH advantage - not necessary to dial the area code if in the state...

[Bear Islander]

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

[Evenstar]

...you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie).
ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?

If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........
I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.

[ITD]

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

Once again, I quote myself: "If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter."

So if I understand your position, these scary, loud, ultrafast boats, that are unable to avoid "close calls" with a prolific kayaker, are so abundant that island folk see them all the time, are so prevalent that women and children are afraid to venture out on the lake, these speeding boats suddenly become so competent that they are able to evade both marked and unmarked speed traps or even just marked boats? I don't think so............

[Alton Bay]

So, are you people contacting their senators? Don't assume that everyone else is calling. If you question the NH house decision, you've got to get your letters out.

[fatlazyless]

Maybe 400 yards to the east of Penny Island, and buoy 3 is where the Marine Patrol were set up to monitor speed. From that spot they could aim their radar at a boat as it passed through the buoy 3 gut narrows from either west or east. The MP boat that is the white older model fiberglass, recreational style hull w/ a radar arch, about 24' long, powered by an inboard engine with the large M-A-R-I-N-E P-A-T-R-O-L, easy-to-read letters on both sides of the hull was the boat which I saw on many different days during the speed stake-out, last summer.

Placing my right hand on top of my msn-tv box, that I purchased at a garage sale for $15.00, and pledging unbiased honesty, I do hereby DECLARE!!! :)

Hey Dick, I even saw you go through about five times, in your white w/ red accents, 27' twin hull-Skater Cat, powered by twin Mercury 300hp high performance two-strokes which go BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, just like an angry hornet when it flys past.......what-a-hot-boat! Understand it has seen 107mph, verified by gps. Is that correct?

Look'n thru my Walmart binoculars, I could see '107mph Dick" wearing a phantom black, Mercury Outboards, designer shirt, trimmed with the same rainbow colors as the twin Merc 300 rac'n two-strokes. Hey, 107mph Dick, that is one very sharp, 'set the water on fire,' look'n shirt! Sure wish walmart sold that shirt.

[Dick]

Hey Dick, I even saw you go through about five times, in your white w/ red accents, 27' twin hull-Skater Cat, powered by twin Mercury 300hp high performance two-strokes which go BBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, just like an angry hornet when it flys past.......what-a-hot-boat! Understand it has seen 107mph, verified by gps. Is that correct?

I'm not that guy. While I'm not into the big high performance boats, I do love to to see them . . . most are beautiful and impressive. I do not have envy toward those who have been successful in life and can afford them.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did." Quote from BearIslander.

Are you saying that the speed limit study was made to delay HB 847?

[Bear Islander]

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/CITIZEN_01/103170225/-1/CITIZEN

[Lakegeezer]

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

[Bear Islander]

What ever works. There is overwhelming evidence that the bill should not pass as is - yet the proponents go on and seem to know how to get what they want in the face of a strong outcry that it is wrong. Something has to kill this bill. I applaud those that know the system well enough to fight to keep boater's rights alive.

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.

[Lakegeezer]

It is refreshing to hear an opponent admit the truth about the study. Thank You.I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;62834]Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

[Bear Islander]

I have no idea what the truth is about what is going on in Concord. I belong to no organization fighting the bill. I'm just one person fighting what seems to be a well funded group that thinks nothing of forcing their will on others with weak justification.

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.

[Dick]

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.

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

[chipj29]

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.

When was the last time a small boat from a childrens camp got run down by a high performance boat?

[Bear Islander]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;62834]Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

I was hoping you would say this. The Speed limit study was a direct result of your friends at Winnfabs!!!! When they lost last year they went back to the drawing board, and used an RSA, I am not 100% but I think 270:12? They then got their 25 signatures and placed a petition before the Dept of Safety to out a restriction on Lake Winnipesaukee. At that time the Commissioner was going to act, but alas Winnfabs got HB 847 introduced. Once that happened, the Commissioner decided that he would not step on the toes of the legislators, and let them decide. When the committee was struggling with whether or not the speed limit had merit, the commissioner offered this study to help determine whether there was a problem. Once the study started and Winnfabs found out it wasn't going their way, they went back to the reps in their pockets and had JLCRT kill the funding of this study. Luckily the MP went on and finished the study. So was the the study politically motivated YES, BY WINNFABS!!!! You won't admit it, but I will shout it to the mountains, the pro-speed limit side, will stoop to any level, lie, cheat, steal to try and get this passed!

I don't have "friends" at WinnFABS, I only know one person connected with them. I am in no way responsible for what they do or say, and visa versa.

Most speed or horsepower limits on lakes in New Hampshire have been enacted by administrative rule. The Dept. of Safety is petitioned by a group of citizens, after a public hearing process the Commissioner has the power to enact a rule. In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

A group of citizens, I assume WinnFABS supporters, petitioned for a speed limit on Winnipesaukee. That the Commissioner used this petition as a excuse to perform a speed study that would delay HB847 was a cruel joke. It may have been brilliant political strategy, but to say that WinnFABS asked for or wanted the study is a lie.

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.

Both sides have used political maneuvers to achieve their goals. That is, unfortunately, the way it works.

[kjbathe]

...no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

[Bear Islander]

Shameless! When the FACTS do not support your position, you play the emotional cards of the American family and the children in camp. Translation: we need to inflict this boat speed restriction on our lake in order to save the children. How could anyone oppose a new law that would save children?

Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately. In addition, no boater in their right mind would motor through these shallow areas at any speed.

It seems the pro SL crowd will go to any shameless length to get their way . . . forget the facts . . . let's play on people's emotions.

I was responding as a former camp director, that is my frame of reference. I also have my only child in a Summer Camp on Winnipesaukee, that is also my frame of reference.

You are entitled to your opinion that every camp director on Winnipesaukee should be fired. However I don't think that is reasonable, nor is it going to happen.

If you believe that it is unsafe for children to canoe on the "big lake" then I do not understand how in good conscience you can oppose speed limits.

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!

[ITD]

:confused: I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.



A comment BEFORE the study, when nobody, including you had any idea how many speeding boats were on the lake.......


He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using


Didn't go your way, would have been the gold standard of studies had it proven your point. Sore loser, there is no problem, you need to twist, fabricate and use data from far away to prove point....


2) marked patrol boats with


Hmmmm, another poster on this site disagrees with this assertion, says unmarked boats were indeed used, this theory may just get blown out of the water, pun intended, just like "all the test zones were announced before the test".


3) unpaid volunteers holding


Here we go again, so now you are saying all the readings were taken by "unpaid volunteers" ? Doesn't sound right APS, just like most of the SL things you post, kills your creditability.


4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to



Once again, not the whole story. The radar units, used in their intended environment are very accurate. Innaccuracies arise when used on boats. Incident angle issues, which cause the reading to be lower than the actual speed can be an issue. The MP stated they used only readings taken head on. They took this step because otherwise you and your side would be jumping all over the results for cosine error, can't do that now, so now you insinuate the opposite, that high speed results were omitted, give me break. If I take the results and shift them for a 30 degree cosine error, the number of boats over 45 mph go from less than 1 percent to less than 3 percent. Face it, there is no speed problem on the lake, the speed limit is a waste of time , money and resources.


6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when


I just covered that, you are wrong, or worse.......


7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.


You know better by now, this is pretty much a bald faced mischaracterization of the truth, when you print this at this time............

[hazelnut]

Seriously way too many individuals on this forum must be X-Files fans or major conspiracy theorists. Many of you have lost any and all credibility on this forum over the last 24 hours.

Tim Dunleavy does an EXCELLENT job DENYING allegations of fudging the data.

Let's begin with the HEADLINE!!!!!!!
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Here it is again:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Let's try ...... BLUE:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Ok not clear enough how about....... ORANGE oooooooooohhhhhh:

Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted
oooohhhh prettyyyyyy.

Now I am no Rocket Scientist but if the headline states, one more time:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted
I can only deduce, scientifically mind you, that the "DATA" produced by "MARINE PARTROL" is "UNTAINTED." Wait I know, I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW:

Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted

Wow green is pretty too.

[jrc]

....

I do hope some Senators and the Governor take notice that Winni is not safe for children in a canoe!

Sometimes it is:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/525/medium/kayakVarneys.jpg

Sometimes it isn't:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/513/medium/176A2_Oct_05_094_2.jpg

Politics 101: when you loosing based on logic, bring out the children.

How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH?


If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie.

[KonaChick]

Isn't this the issue -- the folks that are not in their right mind? If folks were out there, being reasonable, not violating the 150 foot rule, etc... this whole discussion would be moot.

That is the issue and no law can make folks be in their right mind. I suppose the only way to ever avoid boating accidents on the lake would be to ban boating alltogether.

[Bear Islander]

How come you're friendly camp director isn't worried about the 99%+ of the boaters traveling less than 45 MPH?


If you have no friends at WinnFABS and just know one person there, how can be so sure about their motivations and actions. Does this one person speak for the entire group? You obviously think that you know enough about their actions to call someone else's viewpoint a lie.

Camp directors, like mothers, worry about EVERYTHING!

I do not represent WinnFABS motives or actions, only my own. What I know about them is what I have read on their webpage or in articles.

Hazelnut - The headline of a newspaper article is written by an editor, not the reporter. Quite often, as in this case, the headline does not accurately depict what is in the article. Lt. Dunleavy, in the article, never makes the claim that the data is untainted. You will please note that the headline contains no quotation marks.

If the Lieutenant responds to my emails I will let you know. He can clear this up, your posting in various sizes and colors can not.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander I addressed that..... Ha ha ha ha WOW!

"...I know, the conspiracy theorists will say... Well, we don't know if that is a direct quote or if the Union Leader paraphrased. Well, well, well, you FOUND IT, the loophole. Yes the editor read the letter and paraphrased the theme/message/intent. The editor deduced, scientifically mind you, that the letter makes the case/claim/argument that... ONE LAST TIME EVERYBODY TOGETHER NOW:
Tim Dunleavy: Marine Patrol's data on Winnipesaukee boat speeds are untainted"


WOW! This goes deeper than I thought.:laugh:

[SIKSUKR]

Unbelievable.This is getting absurd.I think it's pretty clear which side makes sense and talks fact which throws mud at the wall and sees how much will stick.If you say it enough people start to believe it.That's what's happening with this bill.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

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.
Just curious........when was the last time anyone saw a performance boat doing 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee?? I've heard about the Skater cat-hull that does 107 mph on GPS (never seen it though) but, to be honest, I've never actually witnessed (personally) any boat on Lake Winni that even looked like it was doing 100 mph.

And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events. :look:

[Dick]

Bear Islander . . .

You are leaning against a weak reed

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain) :)

[Bear Islander]

Just curious........when was the last time anyone saw a performance boat doing 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee?? I've heard about the Skater cat-hull that does 107 mph on GPS (never seen it though) but, to be honest, I've never actually witnessed (personally) any boat on Lake Winni that even looked like it was doing 100 mph.

And just for clarification, that's excluding sanctioned boat racing events. :look:

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

[Bear Islander]

RE: Lt. Dunleavy's letter; it addressed the besmirching of the integrity of the MP, not the data. He was speaking as a public official, but not speaking for Dave Barrett. His letter basically said that MP is an honest, trustworthy bunch, and therefore the implication is that honest people don't "fudge" data. If the posters heard that MP is honest, but still haven't heard a denial, then they are grasping at straws.


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please! (Mark Twain) :)

If you go back and read you will find I don't think the MP officers fudged the data. The fudging was in the way it was designed. And yes they are an honest and trustworthy bunch that do not deserve to be held up to public ridicule. However when you publish a statement in the newspaper that effects a very divisive legislative battle, you need to be prepared for some heat.

[rickstr66]

This would be like your complaining to the town that your streetlight is burned out, and they respond by taking down the pole.No. This would be like you complaining your street light is out and they come out and check it to make sure it needs fixing, then fixing it if there is a problem.

[Dick]

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

"Claimed" . . . is this another fact-based piece of data ? or is it an exagerated piece of _______ ?

[trfour]

Couldn't find that boat that did 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee. :confused:

http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/sideline/8707/

[BroadHopper]

Why do people who support the speed limits do nothing but blast the Opposers??? I see no actual evidence from the supporters to substantiate their claims. The opposers do a good job of backing their claims.
I can see where Gov Lynch is coming from. Can the supporters give someone concrete facts rather than a bunch of fallacies?

[ITD]

ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?


I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.


Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write.

As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University.

Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe. Especially for the limited number of times you have been on the lake. If they're true, you must be like the guy who keeps getting hit by lightning, maybe he should stay in during thunderstorms.

Each "close encounter" would be a perfect storm of mistakes and bad luck, from being near a boat going above 45mph (highly unlikely based on the data) to the 150 ft distance violations (happens to me only 1 or 2 times per summer, and I am on the lake much more than you), it just doesn't make sense.

I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed.........

[WeirsBeachBoater]

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?:laugh:

[Bear Islander]

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?:laugh:

At the time I was the director of a United Fund children's camp on that lake. Water skiers from another camp, on another lake, were disrupting our camps activities. I was advocating for the 6 to 11 year old, inner city children that were my responsibility. Judd Gregg did the legal work.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory.

[Bear Islander]

This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112221

[Bear Islander]

Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded. This increases the validity of the study data in my eyes.

I do wish a breakdown were available as that would be informative.

[codeman671]

This is the boat. 130 mph, twin 850HP engines. Isn't that more than the Mount?

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112221

I love the quote found on that link:

"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..."

If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you.

It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker? :D

[Sunset Bob]

"In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day."

So you have a long history with nanny laws. or your NIMBY attitude.

Good to know, any chance Virgin Galactic can just drop you off out there?:laugh:


Are you talking about Sunset Lake in Alton? If you are I am not aware of any such ban.

[Bear Islander]

I love the quote found on that link:

"I'll bet "Acres of Idiots, Bear Lover, and a whole bunch of the "Team Weinie" bunch are just loving that bad boy..."

If you really want to get nitpicky since I know you do, the link never states that the boat in question has hit 130mph on Winnipesaukee, just that it is capable of it. There is mention of the 100mph range being achieved. Much bigger difference than the 3mph that irked you.

It is owned by Gary Robertson, the owner of Robertson Powersports. Any reports of this boat having a close call with a kayaker? :D

If you want to get even more nit picky you will find that I never claimed this boat or any other ever went 130 mph on Winni. In one post I wrote that going 130 mph is legal. In another post I indicated it was "claimed" this boat went 130 mph.

My camp was in Greenfield, NH.

[codeman671]

In 1973 I petitioned the Dept. for a ban on water-skiing on Sunset Lake. It was granted and is in effect to this day.

Are you sure about that???


Sunset Lake (aka Gould Pond) - Greenfield
SAF-C 402.78 - (a) No person shall operate a motorboat on Sunset Lake in Greenfield at a speed exceeding 10 MPH. However, this restriction shall not apply between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs first, on Monday through Saturday, both inclusive, and further provided during the restricted hours, motorboats shall not be operated at a speed exceeding 30 MPH.
(b) All waterskiing on Sunset Lake shall be in a counter-clockwise direction during the unlimited hours.

Sunset Lake - Hampstead
RSA 270:74-a - Skicraft banned 12/31/89.
SAF-C 402.79 All persons operating motorboats on that portion of Sunset Lake in the town of Hampstead, in excess of headway speed shall travel in a counterclockwise direction around Sunset Lake, while keeping a minimum distance of 150 feet from other boats, swimmers, rafts, docks and shore. This provision shall exclude powerboats being used for emergency situations where a direct line of travel is required and appropriate.

[Bear Islander]

Thanks codeman that is the one. It brings back memories. It was originally a ban on water skiing except during those hours. The Greenfield Town Beach had a big sign to that effect at the boat launch. It must have been changed to a 10 mph limit at a later time to make it more uniform with other rules. It amounts to the same thing, not easy to ski at 10 mph.

Water-skiing was allowed between 4:30 and 7:00 because our free swim ended at 4:30 and the children went to the playground. Supper was over around 6:30 or 6:45 so our evening waterfront activities started around 7:00PM. Sunday was rest day with no swimming classes for the speedboats to disturb. We still had free swim but to be fair there was one full day for the other lake residents to use their boats. Besides Camp Winimac, the evil rich kid camp, didn't water ski on Sundays.

The counter-clockwise thing was to prevent a dropped ski from entering our swim area. Due to the shape of the lake, boats traveling in that direction would never be headed directly toward our waterfront.

You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you?

[KonaChick]

At the time I was the director of a United Fund children's camp on that lake. Water skiers from another camp, on another lake, were disrupting our camps activities. I was advocating for the 6 to 11 year old, inner city children that were my responsibility. Judd Gregg did the legal work.

Sorry if that doesn't fit your NIMBY theory.

Did the camp you worked at own the lake???

[Evenstar]

Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write.
You twist everything that I post!

As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University.

You know nothing about logic. "It is the mistake of confusing logical implication and conversational implicature by thinking that "some are" statements logically imply "some are not" statements, when the former statements only conversationally implicate the latter. source: Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation", reprinted in <CITE>Studies in the Way of Words</CITE> (Harvard, 1989).

Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair.

Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe.
I don't care if you believe me or not. You are judging my experience solely on what you have experienced and are attacking my credability just because I have experienced things that you haven't. I never lie. Can you honestly say that?

I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed.........
I've already explained to you in a previous post that I am an excellent judge of distance and speed - have you like no memory?

You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic.

[Bear Islander]

The State of New Hampshire owns the lake. And every one of our 300 to 400 underprivileged campers was a year-round resident of New Hampshire. The camp owned about 50% of the lakefront but only used a small portion.

There was a public hearing where all views were expressed and a compromise was reached by way of allowing people to water ski when our waterfront was not in use. The Commissioner of Safety presided over the hearing and made his decision. To bad both sides were not able to work out a similar compromise on Winni.

[codeman671]

You didn't think I was making this stuff up.... did you?

Some things yes, this no... :D

I wasn't sure if it was in NH or if there was a Sunset Lake in Mass you were talking about so I pulled it up.

Thanks for the clarification.

[overlook]

Yes, the speed limit study was invented to delay, and eventually kill, HB847. I think that is obvious. Almost one year ago the Transportation Committee was about to vote to send HB847 to the house. At the hearing the Commissioner literally called in on the telephone and proposed they retain the bill so the MP could conduct a study. If that does not meet the definition of "politically motivated" then I don't know what does.

From WMUR
Rep. James Pilliod, sponsor of the statewide speed limit bill, decried the proposal to sidetrack it for more study and called the pilot program a joke. Calling for more study is an old legislative trick for killing bills, he said, and, in this case, represents "a careful design, right from the first, of the sellers of large boats."

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/CITIZEN_01/103170225/-1/CITIZEN

That study was a result from the meeting in Meridith. Your organization requested that meeting, Pillod's motives are clear. When it was realized that the results were not in favor of HB-847, thats when that closed meeting occurred.

[Bear Islander]

I don't have an organization. Other than that I'm not sure what you are talking about. However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question.

[Skip]

...However this who did what to whom years ago stuff has nothing to do with the "do we need speed limits" question...

Hmmm, did I just read that correctly? :D

[Bear Islander]

Depends on how you read it.

Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument.

Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post.

The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does.

Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane.

[ITD]

Depends on how you read it.

Part of this argument has degenerated into what people on each side did over a year ago. A he said, she said argument.

Another part of this argument seems to be a "let's catch BI in a lie" thing. Questioning everything I post.

The important question is "Does the lake need a speed limit or not". I say it does.

Pillod's or Barrett's motives in 2005 or 2007 are not germane.

Nice job Bear, redirect. But it's not that easy. The people on your side have been caught being less than truthful. You have skewered the messenger, implying that the data is useless. In a perfect world, everyone would tell the whole unmitigated truth and a reasonable understanding could be reached. Unfortunately some on your side have exaggerated and made up stories to bolster their argument.

So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no.

[Bear Islander]

Nice job Bear, redirect. But it's not that easy. The people on your side have been caught being less than truthful. You have skewered the messenger, implying that the data is useless. In a perfect world, everyone would tell the whole unmitigated truth and a reasonable understanding could be reached. Unfortunately some on your side have exaggerated and made up stories to bolster their argument.

So, to answer your question, does the lake need a speed limit? Based on the statistics and test data the answer is no.

I am not responsible for "others on my side". I may not post the "whole unmitigated truth" but my veracity is unassailable.

[Acres per Second]

"...Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded..."
Would that be their new, unmarked Jet-Ski radar platforms? :confused: :rolleye2:

While the addition of radar locations is a good thing, it's also "Science Conducted-on-the-Fly". :(

"...this is pretty much a bald faced mischaracterization of the truth, when you print this at this time............"
Then I find myself in very good company (http://www.nysun.com/article/62426). :)

With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey").

1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge?
2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?)
3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were (http://ossipeelake.org/news/2007/07/30/watching-but-not-enforcing/)).
4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded).
5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!)
6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?)
7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood.

I linked the Director's quotes (and another Supporter's exact quote). (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1) Now I'll quote one of your Fellow Opponents:
Rep. David Russell said the limit was too arbitrary. “As far as I’m concerned, numbers don’t make it (http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/26/speed-limit-for-all-lakes-proposed/)...,”


Links:
Concord Monitor links:
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/26/speed-limit-for-all-lakes-proposed/
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2007/07/30/watching-but-not-enforcing/

Other link:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion.

Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed.

Here is my statement:
Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion.

Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case.

One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought.

[fatlazyless]

Here's an analogy to the safety problem created by high speed boating. Like when you are driv'n down route 93 at 65mph and a car passes you that's going 95mph. You don't see it coming up behind you, you don't know about it, it comes and goes so fast you just think to yourself "what a damned jerk that is, hope there's a trooper stake-out, up ahead to stop that nut."

Danger and fear is increased by a lot when you got much faster boats sharing the waters.

I could be out there in my 14' aluminum , silver colored, fishing row-boat that basically blends into the water, and I'm thinking this could be a dangerous spot because I know the 8000lb-32'-1200hp 'Snake Dancer' could be right down on my little fishing spot going 75mph, any second, so no I better find a more protected fishing spot. At that speed, and with the sun, waves, and big long fiberglass hull, just how good can the 'Snake Dancer' look'n ahead, driver's lookout be?:)

Winnipesaukee has all types of, motor-sail-paddle-row-swim all sharing the same water. High speed lowers the safety and increases the fear. Is fear a factor? It is to me.

In the last ten years, there's lots more kayaks out on Winnipesaukee. Compared to a canoe, kayaks are designed low in the water for increased stability. Easy to paddle, cartop, transport, launch, fun to use, and relatively cheap, & evironmentally friendly, kayaks have lots of users and they is out there, all over the place, on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Do you know what the "Snake Dancer' boats like to call kayaks....they call them .........Speed Bumps......!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

1. Snake Dance hasn't been on this lake for years!

2. It was 42' not 32'

3. It had no where near that HP.

4. It was all show and no go as they say!

So the only way you should have "feared" that boat was if you were afraid of loud colors and or Snakes!

[fatlazyless]

You must be think'n of a different 'Snake Dancer' because there's been one the last few summer's that is a large, white gfbl w/ a big long snake on its' hull, & it says 'Snake Dancer' in big letters on both sides of the hull next to a great big long wiggly snake. :cool: And, that Snake likes to go bomb'n thru the buoy 3 gut.

[hazelnut]

FLL,

Your post is entertaining. However, fear as a factor to create a law just does not hold water. You are using conjecture in your argument.

con·jec·ture /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/
–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

You are speculating that Snake Dancer will run you over. Snake dancer has not run you over. It has not been proven that Snake dancer WILL run you over. If Snake Dancer DOES run you over you yourself said that your "silver colored, fishing row-boat... basically blends into the water" At 45mph I might run you over in my bowrider.

You are AFRAID that he will run you over so we should make a law that he can't drive over 45? That is an extremely arbitrary argument. I have a fear of flying. I am afraid to fly. Planes actually HAVE crashed and KILLED people. Should we outlaw flight?

[Dick]

Bear Islander,

You obviously have a strong belief in the need for a speed limit. So let's strip away all the peripheral debate and twisting of words and succinctly state our case as to why we need this law. Lets try to avoid embellishment and conjecture. I will do the same in a very simple statement that I believe to be based on fact not emotion.

Please keep in mind that I own a 25 foot bowrider capable of only 49 MPH. I have very young children all under the age of 5. I love to kayak and swim. I live on an island just like you. I also think the lake is way too crowded. I also think that it can be dangerous to boat on the lake. I wanted to say all of this to give you some background information on who I am. I will never own a "GFBL" boat as it has been termed.

Here is my statement:
Based on facts and statistics, speed has never been an issue with regard to accidents or deaths on the lake. In fact with the completion of the recent study done on the lake it has been proven that most boaters do not even exceed 45mph on a regular basis. The real issue is uneducated boaters and more importantly rude boaters. Those individuals who put themselves their passengers and other boaters swimmers and kayakers in harms way due to their ignorance and flat out "I don't care attitude." What we need is increased funding for the Marine Patrol to have the tools to patrol the waters and enforce the laws that are already in place. Instead of wasting money on a law that solves nothing, lets put all this effort, energy and funding towards enforcing what is already a solid system of boating on the lake. If every boat on the lake followed every law currently on the books we would not be having this discussion.

Not quite succinct but I believe it makes a strong case.

One more thing. Please do not quote me or dispute me in your statement. I want to hear a fact based original thought.

Hazelnut . . . well written and quickly to the point . . . based upon FACT. Let's hope our Senators have the wisdom and courage to discuss and vote based upon objective information and not emotional stories.

[LDR4]

I have been on this lake for over 40 years, I have never had a boat that would exceed 45 mph, and I have never had a "close encounter" with a speeding boat. I can not help but feel that the supporters of this bill have more than "boater's safety" on their agenda.

My question is this....Has anyone really thought out how this speed limit will be upheld in our courts?? If I was ticketed for a speeding violation on the lake, I would immediately appeal it to get a court hearing. I would then argue the point that how can I be expected to know how fast I was going when my boat does not, nor is required to have a speedometer.
I would be very surprised if that defense did not hold up in court.

This is going to be such a waste of time and money for our limited Marine Patrol and court personnel to deal with.

If the legislature really wants to make the lake safer, why not devote thier energies to stricter education and licensing requirements?? Has anyone ever seen some of the "daily Renters" that are operating rental boats on this lake after simply paying the rental charge and signing a form that says they know what they are doing??? To me that is a much more dangerous situation than the monority of boats that are on the lake exceeding 45 MPH

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Has anyone ever seen some of the "daily Renters" that are operating rental boats on this lake after simply paying the rental charge and signing a form that says they know what they are doing??? To me that is a much more dangerous situation than the monority of boats that are on the lake exceeding 45 MPH
I have and I will give them as wide a berth as possible since you never know what they're going to do or what they're capable of. Here's my favorite example; who remembers the docks at Burger King in Paugus Bay? They're floaters, not fixed, so they're low on the water. I was there one day a few years ago and watched somone, either a day renter or newbie, I don't know, almost drive RIGHT OVER THE DOCK into the slip on the other side!! Yes, I exaggerate some; he actually drove the bow up onto the dock a foot or two before he cut power and the boat slipped back off the way it was driven on!! THAT'S the type of uneducated boater that's making the lake unsafe!!

How about the no wake area between Eagle and Governor Islands? How many boats have you seen going through there like the no-wake zone doesn't even exist? From my personal experience, maybe half will slow down but they're certainly not doing "no wake" speed. Do they care? Apparently not. This is just another example of an existing law that needs stronger enforcement and every time I see something like this, I think "I'm getting blamed (and others like me) for an unsafe lake just because I (we) own a performance boat."

I can't speak for anyone else, but the LAST thing I want to do is injure someone on the lake; I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did. I'm not rich and I have too much invested in my boat to risk damaging it so I'm going to do everything I can to stay out of harm's way AND keep safely away from other boaters, kayakers, canoeists, divers, swimmers, etc. so as to minimize the risk of injury to anyone else on the lake.

And yes, I do enjoy going fast but only when the conditions permit it.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

You must be think'n of a different 'Snake Dancer' because there's been one the last few summer's that is a large, white gfbl w/ a big long snake on its' hull, & it says 'Snake Dancer' in big letters on both sides of the hull next to a great big long wiggly snake. :cool: And, that Snake likes to go bomb'n thru the buoy 3 gut.

Yes the Snake Dance I was referring to was yellow and Blue. I have not seen your white boat by that name...

[Bear Islander]

Hazelnut

Lake Winnipesaukee is congested. It is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource. Camp directors have been keeping children off the lake at times because they feel it is unsafe. Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

Some operators of larger boats have the opinion that unpowered craft need to stay away from certain parts of the lake. This attitude is dangerous and unsupportable by law, fairness or common sense. It is however indicative of the problems on the lake.

Other states and other lakes have enacted speed limits. As this trend continues Winnipesaukee will become more attractive to high speed boating. Without a speed limit more and more high performance boats will be attracted to Winnipesaukee's "No Limits" attitude.

The lake is the drinking water supply for thousands of people. Although the lake meets the definition of pristine at this time, the water quality in our bays is dropping. The trend toward larger and faster boating is adding to this problem through pollution and erosion.

Tourism is vital to the economy of the lakes region. Many local hotels, restaurateurs and even marina operators complain that some people are staying away do to a general perception that the lake is unsafe, or less enjoyable. Failure of HB847 to be enacted can only add this this perception. And with tourism, perception is more powerful than reality.

A speed limit will be for the most part self enforcing as, over time, the worst "would be offenders" will boat elsewhere. Other lakes, within New Hampshire and without, have enacted speed limits with few enforcement problems. Squam and Lake George being prime examples. The Squam speed limit is working without special funding or enforcement.

My first choice for a solution to these problems would be a liberal horsepower limit. My second choice is a speed limit. Increased funding for education and enforcement are wonderful ideas. However funding is unsure and frankly unlikely. Limits will do the job quicker and more effectively, and will cost almost nothing.

The inconvenience this legislation will cause among the responsible performance boaters on the lake is unfortunate and regrettable but necessary.

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

That was well said.

While I disagree with having a speed limit I do believe that something needs to be done to ensure the safety of everyone on the lake. I do believe that the lake has become overcrowded and at times dangerous.

My belief will and always will be that greater enforcement of the existing laws will cure all that ails the lake. We need to fund more officers to patrol more areas of the lake. I am not bothered by a Cigarette boat doing 85MPH across the broads. Those guys usually know when it is prudent to drive those speeds. The majority of the offenders "Captain Boneheads" drive bowriders, and runabouts. Trust me, I spent the entire summer on the lake and boated just about every day. The 150 foot rule is usually broken at 25-35MPH in congested areas. My biggest problem had to do with Bass boats last year. I had run ins with at least 10 last year. Sorry to stereotype but the first few times seemed coincidental after that it became a trend.

What seems backwards to me is that the biggest lake is being debated for a speed limit when smaller lakes will have none? Unfortunately this bill has so many supporters because they see it as a way to get rid of certain types of boats because they don't like them. It has no merit as a safety issue. It is truly a case of discrimination against one particular class. For example what if the lake had half as many boats on it regardless of type. What if the remaining boats were captained by courteous and careful individuals. Couldn't we all agree that would probably solve all these issues we discuss. You see it isn't the type of boat that is making it unsafe, it is the amount of boats and those who are behind the wheel. A speed limit is a back door loophole cop-out approach to solve a problem we ALL AGREE exists, unsafe conditions, not speed. Why can't the legislature actually do their job and come up with an equitable solution the does not discriminate against either side? I'd love to see safer conditions on the lake but I do not think that this is the answer.

[JayDV]

Thank you Bear Islander and Hazelnut. I enjoyed both of your presentations very much. BI made suggestions to control the lake vessels' speeds, HN suggests better boater education and patrol enforcement. Both "corners" recognize the other's argument but obviously are committed to their cause.

Something we used to do in school at this point was to change sides and argue your opponent's position. Obviously the practice is to argue to win (not the try to see who hits the softest .. oops you win :laugh: )

[Woodsy]

Hazelnut

Lake Winnipesaukee is congested. It is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource. Camp directors have been keeping children off the lake at times because they feel it is unsafe. Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

Some operators of larger boats have the opinion that unpowered craft need to stay away from certain parts of the lake. This attitude is dangerous and unsupportable by law, fairness or common sense. It is however indicative of the problems on the lake.

Other states and other lakes have enacted speed limits. As this trend continues Winnipesaukee will become more attractive to high speed boating. Without a speed limit more and more high performance boats will be attracted to Winnipesaukee's "No Limits" attitude.

The lake is the drinking water supply for thousands of people. Although the lake meets the definition of pristine at this time, the water quality in our bays is dropping. The trend toward larger and faster boating is adding to this problem through pollution and erosion.

Tourism is vital to the economy of the lakes region. Many local hotels, restaurateurs and even marina operators complain that some people are staying away do to a general perception that the lake is unsafe, or less enjoyable. Failure of HB847 to be enacted can only add this this perception. And with tourism, perception is more powerful than reality.

A speed limit will be for the most part self enforcing as, over time, the worst "would be offenders" will boat elsewhere. Other lakes, within New Hampshire and without, have enacted speed limits with few enforcement problems. Squam and Lake George being prime examples. The Squam speed limit is working without special funding or enforcement.

My first choice for a solution to these problems would be a liberal horsepower limit. My second choice is a speed limit. Increased funding for education and enforcement are wonderful ideas. However funding is unsure and frankly unlikely. Limits will do the job quicker and more effectively, and will cost almost nothing.

The inconvenience this legislation will cause among the responsible performance boaters on the lake is unfortunate and regrettable but necessary.

Bear Islander...

Your a bit off base here with some of your assumptions.

1. While I agree that there can be a congestion issue on Lake Winnipesaukee, the congestion ONLY occurs in certain areas (Weirs, Alton Bay and between Bear Is and Meredith Neck) on nice summer weekends. The rest of the lake sees very little congestion even on the nicest of summer weekends. During the week the lake has very little boat traffic... even fewer during the off season!


2. There is a certain "Fear Factor" at work here. This is soley because you & WinnFabs type hype it up. There is no data to even remotely suggest that boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is at all unsafe. One (1) fatal accident in 5 years is a pretty exemplary safety record. The fact that there was alcohol involved in the accident on Lake Winnipesaukee (and the one in Long Lake in ME .11BAC) speaks volumes as to what the real issue should be. A drunk isn't going to care about a speed limit, any more than he cared about jumping behind the wheel drunk and driving away! Do really think it would make any of the victims families feel better if the offender was also slapped with a $50 speeding citation?

3. Prudence dictates that Camp Directors should monitor how the children in thier care use the lake. I would not rely on a speed limit to protect the kids in my care. I don't think taking the kids kayaking or swimming from island to island on a busy summer saturday/sunday is such a great idea. MTWTF swimming/kayaking trip might be a better plan. Perhaps even hire a MP detail to watch over the kids if a Sat/Sun excursion is necessary. Maybe even allow extended swim areas for summer camps? A speed limit will do nothing to protect summer campers. On another note, when was the last time a camper was hurt by a boat... speeding or otherwise? Please list the details where/when etc.... Inquiring minds want to know!

4. Large fast boats do not use up a disproportionately large amount of the lake. Quite frankly, there just aren't enough of them out there. The MP data showed just 3 boats out of 3800+ going faster than 60 MPH, 62 MPH to be exact. There were 7 speed zones, only 2 of them public knowledge.

5. Lake Winnipesaukee will not become more congested as time goes on. Quite frankly the lake is pretty much built out as far as boats go. There is precious little waterfront that hasn't already been built on, the state is reviewing the waterfront lease arrangement along the state owned RR ROW, the cities and towns are not letting the marinas expand thier rack storage, and the public launch facilities are small with very little parking. Where are these additional boats going to come from?

6. Lake Winnipesaukee will not become a more attractive destination for Hi-Performance boats just because other places have enacted speed limits. See my reasoning above... there are only a few places on the lake where you can put in and take out a large Hi-performance boat all of them private, and unless you are staying with a friend or at one of the hotels (NASWA, Christmas Is, Margate, Church Landing etc) there isn't anyplace to dock it! Of course, if you are staying at one of the hotels, then you are helping to support tourism. So there goes the Hi-Pperformance boats are bad for tourism theory! When was the last time you saw 10 people in kayaks paddle up to restaurant, go in, have a $500-600 meal then paddle away?

7. Pollution is an issue to be sure. But most Hi-Performance boats emit a fraction of the pollution emitted by a 20HP 2 stroke outboard. Your rocket ride will emit more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of the boats on Winni combined!


Woodsy

[codeman671]

Lake Winnipesaukee is congested. It is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource. Camp directors have been keeping children off the lake at times because they feel it is unsafe. Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.


Bear Islander.

Being that my place looks across at Camp Lawrence and I see plenty of traffic in the area all day long I do not see speeding being the issue in my particular area. The open bay between Mark and Bear is clearly one of the more popular watersports spots on the lake, the Camp boat is out there every morning when the camp is in session taking kids waterskiing.

The main safety issue I see is people coming through the area that do not know what 150' looks like, or criss-crossing each other while towing skiers. I am surprised that the camp does not have more of a designated "stay-out" zone around it, as I have seen boats coming out of homes on Bear to the left of the camp cut very close to the beach.

I was sitting on my jet ski (stopped) with a few friends last season about 100' from shore and a clown cut in between myself and shore, he was towing a skier and yelled at me for being in his line! Being that he stayed approximately the same distance from shore upon leaving his place he was within 75' of the camp beach and further down the shore passed within 25' of me at best. For the record it was a yellow Sugar Sand Tango jet boat.

My point is that there are safety issues on the lake, but the speed limit won't fix it. How often have you seen 38' Fountains doing 80mph 100' from shore? Personally I wish they would invoke the NWZ that had been discussed as you round the corner of Mark. The markers are close together and with the field of rocks on the Bear side there is not enough space in my opinion for boats to pass safely at speed. We do see boats tear around the corner from time to time, I am more upset with how close people cut the corner. I have had people come inside or actually hit my moorings which are no more than 90' from shore.

For the record, I agree that speed is fun, when done safely and in the proper area. I am a speed junkie myself, although I do not own a boat faster than 55ish. In between the islands is no place for it, but in the broads have at it! I do agree with 25mph at night. I will admit that I have gone much faster in the Broads at night coming back from Alton, but would have no issue with a 25mph limit.

There are other solutions for safety on the lake. I would love to see no accidents, close calls, etc.. If the GFBL's are scaring people away, let them! It keeps crowding down... :D

[Bear Islander]

Hazelnut

There are just two important points we can not agree on. Nobody is going to all this time, expense and trouble to pass a speed limit because they don't like a certain kind of boat. I can't make you guys believe that, but it's true. Why can't you just assume that most of the proponents want a speed limit for the same reasons I do?

I disagree that enforcing the existing laws and educating boaters will achieve a better lake. The worst offenders are unteachable. And huge increases in education and enforcement just are not going to happen. I prefer to go with a solution that actually will work, instead of one that is a nice idea but virtually impossible to achieve.

Woodsy

You arguments are so one sided and unrealistic, I hardly know how to respond.

As one example you idea that children's camps should hire Marine Patrol details to protect their children from power boats is completely INSANE!!! I would email it to every Senator as an example of where the opposition thinking is going, but truthfully it's so bizarre I think they would take it for a joke.

You ask when was the last time a camper was harmed by a speeding boat. They are harmed every time they can't go out in a boat because the people responsible for their safety will not take the risk. Perhaps when people are enjoying their 1,500 horsepower ride down the lake they should think about how many small children they are keeping on shore.

[hazelnut]

I'm sorry but you can not make me believe it because you say it in your own argument:

Quote: "(The Lake).. is a limited public resource and large, fast boats use up a disproportionately large amount of that resource....Many operators of small boats and unpowered craft feel intimidated, and unsafe.

This is a direct quote from your own statement as to why you support the bill. This is your statement. Am I missing something. I'm not trying t to be rude here but this crux of your argument. Fast boats use up too much of the resource, therefore we must rid the lake of them. You yourself pitted the small boats vs the big boats in your own argument.

Please explain how you can then go on to say, "Nobody is going to all this time, expense and trouble to pass a speed limit because they don't like a certain kind of boat." Just 5 posts later?

Other direct quotes:
"As this trend continues Winnipesaukee will become more attractive to high speed boating. Without a speed limit more and more high performance boats will be attracted to Winnipesaukee..."
and:
"The trend toward larger and faster boating is adding to this problem through pollution and erosion."

Again your argument is against certain types of boats that you do not want on the water. Big fast boats are now to blame for erosion and pollution. Not the 45 foot Carver that makes 4 foot waves?

I'm not saying you don't LIKE a certain kind of boat I am saying you are discriminating against a certain type of boat. Your argument blames the boat not the driver. That is a flawed argument in my eyes.

[ITD]

You twist everything that I post!

You know nothing about logic. "It is the mistake of confusing logical implication and conversational implicature by thinking that "some are" statements logically imply "some are not" statements, when the former statements only conversationally implicate the latter. source: Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation", reprinted in <CITE>Studies in the Way of Words</CITE> (Harvard, 1989).

Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You are judging my experience solely on what you have experienced and are attacking my credability just because I have experienced things that you haven't. I never lie. Can you honestly say that?

I've already explained to you in a previous post that I am an excellent judge of distance and speed - have you like no memory?

You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic.Evenstar, you tell us about your expertise, you make it sound like you have years of experience on the lake when in fact you have hours of experience on the lake, now you tell us you are an excellent judge of distance and speed.

I am indeed growing tired of our exchanges. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for you, for if you feel quoting your own words and showing problems with the words is a personal attack, you have lead a very charmed and sheltered life.......

[winnilaker]

There is only one word to describe what you read. "Sensationalism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism

It's works in papers.
Worked in the House.
Time will tell if it works in the Senate.

Feel free to quote from the above link, it accurately describes what we're experiencing.

[Bear Islander]

I can love a wildflower, but when one grows in my lawn I will kill it. That doesn't mean I hate it, it's just in the wrong place.

Many high performance boats are beautiful, I even like the sound (except late at night) but if they disrupt children's camps, pollute my drinking water or endanger tourism, then they need to go.

I have explained to you the damage I believe the increasing numbers of larger faster boats are doing to the lake I love. I'm sorry, but it's time to go.

It's not about hatred or dislike, it's about them being in the wrong place.

I will reference two old movies "Old Yeller" and "The Yearling".

[Evenstar]

Evenstar, you tell us about your expertise, you make it sound like you have years of experience on the lake when in fact you have hours of experience on the lake, now you tell us you are an excellent judge of distance and speed.

I am indeed growing tired of our exchanges. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for you, for if you feel quoting your own words and showing problems with the words is a personal attack, you have lead a very charmed and sheltered life.......
All you want to do is tear my posts apart in an attempt to misquote me. Misquoting is changing the meaning of what I wrote or taking it out of context.

Why can't you just accept that other people have had different experiences than you? To you, someone must be lying, unless they see things exactly as you. Guess what? We're all different (thank God), and everyone is entitled to thier own opinion.

My ability to judge distance and speed has been tested - so this is not just a claim. I've explained all this before: I suffered a severe head injury to the left side of my brain when I was little, because of this the right side of my brain became overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in spatial awareness. So I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea what 45 mph looks like. And I know what 150 feet looks like. If a speeding boat is less than 9 of my kayak lengths from me - they are too close. And I have had highspeed boats on Winni come within less than 5 kayak lengths, before they appeared to notice me.

There has been nothing "charmed" about my life. I have had a very difficult life. Although I will admit that I was very sheltered for many years.

[hazelnut]

My opinion, I too love the look and the sound of a performance boat, in the proper setting. When they held the races on the broads I was there front and center, loving every minute of it.
However, It does not thrill me to have them zipping by my house with loud exhaust preventing normal conversation. I have noticed that through increased law enforcement the real loud boats are becoming fewer and fewer. That is a good example of better enforcement of current laws in effect.

With that said this Speed Limit bill is disguising itself as a "Safety Measure" that will help make the lake safer. Safer than what? No accidents attributed to speed ever? The real agenda is ridding the lake of what some percieve as undesirable.

You make no excuses for that with your comment. I appreciate your honesty on that. However, it all seems a bit biased. The whole "Let's get rid of these loud fast boats even though they haven't done anything wrong, we just think they are too loud and there are too many of them."

You are an Islander, so am I. What if the mainlanders got enough people together to lead a charge to rid the lake of excess boat traffic by limiting Islanders access? They could claim we traverse back and forth too much using too more than our fair share of the resource. After all I don't think it would be hard to convince some minds that Islanders boat more than most of the boating public, agree? So what if by some convoluted, crazy manor some mainlander was able to get the ear of some State Rep to write up a bill. Now equating this to the Speed Limit bill it would have to be an arbitrary bill that doesn't address the actual problem so instead of coming right out and saying we want to get rid of Islanders it would be something to the effect of, a HUGE TAX on Island homeowners that own boats or something to that effect. Like a toll or a usage fee. It would only apply to Island homeowners and the proponents would argue that we use the lake more we "take up more space" going back and forth. We should pay more of the taxes to use that resource. After all we Islanders add to that congestion more than most don't we? I have put you on the other side of the argument now Bear Islander. I don't agree with what I have just posted, I could argue that I use the lake less than most mainlanders but I could NEVER convince them of that because they would throw it in my face that I must use it more because I have to get back and forth.

Remember people are being directly and arbitrarily affected by this Bill. Just because you and the Bill supporters "feel" that these boats don't belong here.

[ITD]

Then I find myself in very good company (http://www.nysun.com/article/62426). :)


If you are referring to Hillary in that article, then you and I will see eye to eye on very little I'm afraid.:)


With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey").


Hmmm, and who is to blame if your access has been limited?????:eek:


1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge?


This is your opinion APS, stated as fact. I actually thought the study was a good idea when I heard about it because I knew the reports of fast boats, mayhem and the wild west were wrong, or sensationalism. A study/survery like this apparently frightened the people who knew they were exagerating to get their way, hence the frenzied effort to discredit it and even prevent it from being published.


2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?)


Actually a quote and link would be nice. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some MP officers are boaters too???


3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were (http://ossipeelake.org/news/2007/07/30/watching-but-not-enforcing/)).


Unpaid volunteer = Marine Patrol Auxiliary member Ray Petty

You know, why is every line you write carefully crafted to give the wrong impression to a reader? The truth shall set you free my friend. An auxiliary officer is hardly a schmoe off the street. In fact I'm willing to bet they even have some police type powers.


4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded).
5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!)


Already covered this, had results not been thrown out you still would have complained, about cosine error. And in that case it would be justified, now it is not. Who said this survey wasn't well designed.


6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?)


Why yes it does contradict the Director, he estimated 15% were travelling over 45 mph, when in FACT only 0.9% were. It's amazing what you learn when you study. This unprecedented study show that the people talking about mayhem, wild west, speeding boats everywhere were at best mistaken, at their worst liars.



7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood.



I've only seen the two proposed speed limit areas advertised, where I believe less than 30 % of the readings were taken. The other areas were not advertised to my knowledge, if they were show me.

Some of your links don't work, is that by design????

[jrc]

...What if the mainlanders got enough people together to lead a charge to rid the lake of excess boat traffic by limiting Islanders access? ...Not for the same reason, but in Nashua people were prohibited from using their island homes because the only access was cut-off by water. The fire department said if we can't get our trucks there, you can't live there. Imagine if the state fire marshal had the same thought. How can they protect the children on the islands from fire and injury if they can't get fire truck or ambulances there? For safety reasons you may not be allowed to live there.

Now that would be a stupid law with no evidence to back up the dangers and only driven by irrational fear of a statistically improbable event. But what about the children...

[Bear Islander]

Those Nashua islanders should have bought themselves a big twin engine fire boat, portable Indian Pumps and received firefighting training like the residents of Bear Island did.

[hazelnut]

jrc,

Excellent post. It further solidifies my point. Imagine that Bear Islander? A foolish law enacted preventing us from using our Island Homes? Based on fear mongering and no real fact? People dreaming up scenarios that "could" or "might" happen.

[GWC...]

I can love a wildflower, but when one grows in my lawn I will kill it. That doesn't mean I hate it, it's just in the wrong place.

This is your idea of compromising with Nature?

Sounds like your idea of compromise with the proponents is the old saying, "My way or the highway! (and good riddance)"

P.S.- Lady Bird would very disappointed in your viewpoint toward wildflowers.

[Bear Islander]

Sorry, not a good analogy at all. You have already admitted a problem exists on the lake, we only differ on the solution.

Remember earlier in this thread when Dick posted..

"Any camp director who would allow the kids to swim beyond the swim line buoys or take a canoe out onto the big lake should be fired immediately."

It seems like Dick also sees the danger.

If I ever get an inkling that living on the island is endangering my child, I will leave immediately, no legislation will be required.

[Cal]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out even if there were no other boats on the lake , simply for the rescue distance in case of a mishap.

[Rose]

Many high performance boats are beautiful, I even like the sound (except late at night) but if they disrupt children's camps, pollute my drinking water or endanger tourism, then they need to go.

I have explained to you the damage I believe the increasing numbers of larger faster boats are doing to the lake I love. I'm sorry, but it's time to go.

Please provide proof that performance boats are polluting the drinking water any more than other motorized watercraft. For that matter, prove that they pollute the water more than waterfront homes and businesses.

With regard to affecting tourism, I've seen a proportionate number of every motorized type having a negative effect on my boating experience. Where is your proof that performance boats are affecting tourism at a disproportionate rate?

[Bear Islander]

Our emergency response time is good. Several 911 calls have been made from the island in recent years, one from our home. The Marine Patrol usually arrives first, the fire boat is not far behind. There must be many homes in Meredith and the surrounding area, that due to their remote location have longer response times than the islands. From the Fire Station to my cabin is less than four miles.

[hazelnut]

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!

[Bear Islander]

No










.....

[jrc]

Those Nashua islanders should have bought themselves a big twin engine fire boat, portable Indian Pumps and received firefighting training like the residents of Bear Island did.

Or they could repair the access, like they did. But of course that's not the point.

BTW you do realize that acording to the USCG, NH boat registrations have been nearly flat or decreasing over the last few years. So the overcrowding rational is bunk. There are only about 2% more boats today than 5 years ago.

[Bear Islander]

Or they could repair the access, like they did. But of course that's not the point.

BTW you do realize that acording to the USCG, NH boat registrations have been nearly flat or decreasing over the last few years. So the overcrowding rational is bunk. There are only about 2% more boats today than 5 years ago.

The lake was overcrowded 5 years ago. We have been arguing speed limits for 3. And a 2% increase is an increase.

How have the registration of longer boats changed?

If I sold my bow rider and purchased a Nor-Tech last year, how does that effect those numbers? IT DOESN'T!

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

I do appreciate your honesty. I believe you are a reasonable person who is frustrated with the state of things on the lake. We share common ground with regard to our feelings about safety on the lake. As you have stated we just disagree on the solution. I do not expect to convert you. It's a shame it has come to this. I know you think that there is a light at the end of the tunnel with a speed limit. I really do not believe that a speed limit will solve anything. Education and enforcement is the answer.

Side note: is this truly a partisan issue? Are you a democrat ;)

[Bear Islander]

Please provide proof that performance boats are polluting the drinking water any more than other motorized watercraft. For that matter, prove that they pollute the water more than waterfront homes and businesses.

With regard to affecting tourism, I've seen a proportionate number of every motorized type having a negative effect on my boating experience. Where is your proof that performance boats are affecting tourism at a disproportionate rate?

First, I never made that claim. But more importantly, why don't YOU prove that performance boats pollute less.

The proof that tourism is being effected is in the below list of speed limit supporters. You will note many are tourist related. There are even several marinas in there. Including marinas that sell large fast boats.

The Common Man
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography
Hobo Railroad
Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore
Phoenix Leasing, Inc.
Silver Top Ventures
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration
Millie B
Wolfeboro Trolley Company
Wolfetrap Restaurant

[Bear Islander]

No







...

[hazelnut]

While that list represents individual businesses that support the Speed Limit it absolutely DOES NOT represent PROOF that tourism is being affected by fast boats. That my friend is one gigantic leap.

[Bear Islander]

The point is not if they think tourism if effected by fast boats.

The point is that they support a speed limit. And that, in my opinion, constitutes all the proof necessary. Many of these business are run by good old American Yankees, (the good kind, not the baseball kind). They know which side of the bread is buttered (and other euphemisms like that).

[jrc]

I'll finish this up then bow out of this thread until new data arrives. I will never convince BI and he will not scare me. It's like trying to convince my wife that polar bears don't eat penquins. They look so tasty why wouldn't they eat them.

That's the list of places that supported HB -161 three years ago, that is not a list of places who currently support a speed limit.

So to finish lets look at the last twenty years. The boat registrations in NH grew about 2% a year since 1988. Around 2002 they flatenned and then started shrinking about 2% a year. This is also true at the national level. (don't buy boat stocks) There are now double the amount of PWC sold as in 1988. Since PWC are a large portion of the total number of registered boats, I would have to reason that there has to be less non-pwc boats. Otherwise we would have more total growth.

I don't know what a Nor-tech is, I'm into comfort not speed. The USCG stats do differentiate between engine type and length but the stats are presented differently each year so trends are hard to follow. If you get past banning fast boats and get to banning big boats, it might be worth the trouble to ferret out the data and plot it.

Now maybe the USCG fudged all this data just so they can get jobs in the boating industry. Sounds silly, huh?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Here is how I dissect this list.

See the bold for explanation, My favorite is how all the Great American dining establishments are listed individually. There are 6 Alex Ray places, that should only count once! Many others in Bold are tenants of Rusty McClear, and I asked at least one when this list came out why they were on it. I was told she didn't feel she had a choice!

I could go on and on. But the bottom line is this list is a joke, most of it is repeats, and some businesses didn't even know they were listed. If anyone wants I can go into more details!




The Common Man 1.
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co Rusty tenant
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing = Were not aware they were listed. Call them and ask now!
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography

Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad + Hobo Railroad Same owner!!!!!
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls Rusty again
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille 2.
Lago 3.
Camp 4.
Town Docks Restaurant 5. Alex ray
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls Rusty again
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant Felt threatened by landlord (Ask Julie I did)
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments Rusty tenants
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore Rusty tenant
Phoenix Leasing, Inc. Another Rusty McClear partner!
Silver Top Ventures Principal Office Address: Mill Falls Marketplace
312 Daniel Webster Highway
Meredith NH 03253 Wonder who that could be??? Rusty you sneak
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn 6. Guess who? Alex again
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration

Wolfeboro Trolley Company+Millie B Same Owner!!!!
Wolfetrap Restaurant

[Bear Islander]

I have no doubt polar bears would eat penguins if they didn't live on opposite ends of the earth.

[Bear Islander]

... the bottom line is this list is a joke...


The list may be a joke, but the joke is on you.

I only copied the list, I will take no responsibility for it. I suggest you go to the source and complain to them. I copied it from OffShoreOnly.com the performance boating site where the opposition hangs out.

[Resident 2B]

Regarding the list of supporters.....

Now I know where I will no longer spend any of my money, regardless of the final outcome.

Thanks so much for this list. It is key to the future activities of my family, and I hope many other families.

It is too bad that Mame's is listed. We have been going there once a week for years, but we will never go there again.

Hart’s has also been a place for us to go very often, but we will not go there any more either.

I will print this list and hang it on the refrigerator with "Do Not Support" as a heading.

I refuse to do business with any business that lacks any common sense regarding safe boating on the lake. Speed limits do not address the real safety problems that exist on the lake. Boneheads, disregarding the existing rules, including the well designed 150” rule, are the real safety issue. This bill does nothing to address these irresponsible operators.

WinnFab's agenda is not about safety at all. Instead, the WinnFabs agenda is all about restricting boaters that happen to own a certain type of boat. To me, this is not something that we Americans should be supporting, as it is imposing restrictions on a certain group because another group does not like them. Whatever happened to freedom, something that was at the root of our country's beginning? There are no facts to support any of WinnFab’s claims that speed is a factor in safety or in accidents on our lake.

I would have hoped the local business on the list had more sense than to support this predatory bill. But since these businesses have openly supported this bill, we now know what we have to do. If you are in favor of real safe boating on the lake and are not supporting HB-847, please join me in a 100% boycott of these businesses. Their actions in supporting this bill tell me they are irrational in their business decisions. Therefore, they should not be supported by people that realize what the real safety issues are on the lake.

In this case, money should talk and BS should walk. Do not support any business that intends to restrict your personal freedom because of fabricated and embelished reasons that have no basis in fact. WinnFabs can fool some of the people all of the time, but they cannot, and should not, fool all of the people all of the time.

As stated in the past, we are family boaters with two kayaks and a 23' bowrider. We live near the Weirs. We do not have any capability to go over 45 MPH in any of our boats. Safety is our concern and HB847 does not address safety in our opinion.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

That is in fact why the list was posted on offshoreonly. It's the list of businesses they will never use again.

[Lakegeezer]

Its too bad that a group hasn't formed to promote safety rather than exclusion, something like WinnSafe. The report from the MP shows that few boats are going over 45. Experienced boaters know that 99% of the safety issues occur under 45.

Places on "the list" won't miss a family here and there, because they are not represented by a group. The WinnFabs tricked businesses to sign on during their well funded marketing campaign. Many who signed probably thought they were signing up for safety - not revenge. You really can't blame them. They are fooling a lot of folks on this forum too.

What would your business do if someone asked you to sign a petition on safety? They show you a push-poll study showing 90% of non-boaters feel the same way their members do. They show you news articles and editorials that were printed within days of "educational" press releases. They talk about safety, about how kids can't canoe on weekends, how kayakers are almost run over and how Winnipesaukee has become an unfriendly place. Many of their facts are true, but some critical ones are not. They are describing Captain Bonehead, not boats going over 45 MPH. WinnFabs methods remind me too much of why the US is in Iraq. They used fear and lies to justify revenge, and fooled the house into voting for their law.

If we are to reduce the fear of boating on the lake, we need to trust those who are trying to make things better, not assume they are fools that have been swayed by fabrications. So far, that group or any proposed law has not appeared.

[Rose]

First, I never made that claim. But more importantly, why don't YOU prove that performance boats pollute less.

The proof that tourism is being effected is in the below list of speed limit supporters. You will note many are tourist related. There are even several marinas in there. Including marinas that sell large fast boats.

You're singling out high performance boats. If they don't pollute any more than other motorized watercraft, you can't use that as an argument as to why they should go, and you did make the claim that it was time for them to go. That would be discriminatory and in violation of the public trust. If they all pollute equally, all motorized watercraft must go. And besides, I find it hard to believe that someone who wastes energy on a heated driveway is that concerned about the environment.

As for my need to prove that they're not polluting more...I ASKED YOU FIRST...NEENER, NEENER, NEENER. In all seriousness, as a proponent of a speed limit looking to make a major change on the lake, it is your burden to prove your case. Once you show your proof, then it is my burden to refute it. But if it's truly just a safety issue, then keep it as a safety issue...don't cloud it with pollution.

And your list of businesses is not proof that it is affecting tourism...how about proving that those businesses saw a loss in revenue, and that it was directly related to high performance boats on the lake? Good luck.

[fatlazyless]

Lake Winnipesaukee has been the go-to lake for high speed motorboats since about 1925. Whenever someone has a 'fast boat' on one of the many other NH lakes which annoys the neighbors, the fast boater gets told "your boat is too danged fast for this little lake, so why don't you take it over to the Big Lake, Lake Winnipesaukee.

Now, what's happened, is all the Winnipesaukee neighbors are just telling the 'fast boats' the same thing. 'Why don't you go take your fast boat over to the South Pole, or somewhere!'

And on the eighth day, God said "Melt down those fast boat, fiberglass hulls, and beat them into kayaks, and the world will be a better place!" Plus, try a bowl of granola, too. Understand the NH Dept of Mental Health is setting up a 'NH Fast Boat Rehabilitation Hospital', where fast-boaters can be admitted so's they can be cured of their "THE NEED FOR SPEED!" Balancing on one leg and eating granola at the same time is a very effective therapy.:laugh::banana::banana::)

[Acres per Second]

"...You're singling out high performance boats...As for my need to prove that they're not polluting more...don't cloud it with pollution...I ASKED YOU FIRST...NEENER, NEENER, NEENER..."

As one whose avocation deals with performance and high speed, I'm advising that there are products available through Internet sites that you definitely don't want in your recreational waters—much less in household waters.

One organic product in particular is objectionable to most civilized peoples of the world, but is in use in high performance applications—sadly.

Much to my dismay, it was recommended to me by friends at racetracks.

Describing it here specifically would promote its performance-enhancing properties and its even more widespread use.

(And it's not even toluene, which IS in widespread use). :(

[Bear Islander]

Talk about spin. If the list is so wrong, so inaccurate, so unfair and was obtained fraudulently, then why did the opposition post it on offshoreonly.com

Is there a list of businesses that oppose HB847? If there is then post it.

[hazelnut]

The list may be a joke, but the joke is on you.

I only copied the list, I will take no responsibility for it. I suggest you go to the source and complain to them. I copied it from OffShoreOnly.com the performance boating site where the opposition hangs out.



Bear Islander, Yesterday I thought we were on to something better here. I thought maybe we could elevate the discussion beyond hearsay and conjecture. I thought for a minute we could get beyond the usual banter.

Then you go and post this "LIST" as, let me go back and quote you, "proof that tourism is being effected."
I then refute the list as I believe it does not represent proof of anything with regard to tourism. Tourism is affected by so many external factors that is an oversimplification to tie it to one agenda. Just like the statement that "tourism will be negatively affected by a speed limit," not a good argument in my opinion due to socioeconomic factors.
Anyway when someone, Weirsbeachboater to be specific, comes along and further questions the integrity of the list and calls it joke, which after reading the post I concur, you go ahead and say THIS????

The list may be a joke, but the joke is on you.

I only copied the list, I will take no responsibility for it...

Do you see how you begin to lose credibility or not? Do you know the phrase "have your cake and eat it too." Well you can't. When you post something as PROOF of your argument you need to be able to stand by it and defend it. Otherwise any further posts have absolutely no merit. This list is tainted and flawed, not to mention it represents a SMALL number of Winnipesaukee businesses. Oh the list may seem long and impressive but whip out the phone book and go to the Business section of the book. Now print out your little list and compare it to the hundreds of pages of just one towns business listings. As pointed out it seems that one organization Common man/Rusty McClear represents the majority of the "list." Now you want to call it a spin when people point out the inadequacies of the list? Regardless of where the list was posted the facts are the facts.

[JayDV]

When those store owner/operators were approached for signing the list ...

1) How was the subject introduced? As a support request for the speed bill? As an informative conversation with both petitions offered and a choice of which one to sign?

2) In the subject matter: Was the audience asked what their concerns were, vis a vis lake safety (swimmers, camp kids, power boaters, non-power boaters, pollution)? Were they offered full choice of solutions to choose from (speed limit, horsepower restriction, boater education, better enforcement) ?

Bear Islander - With all due respect, I was wondering why you qualify your concern of kids to just camp kids or your own? Of the camps on Winni, there are only a few on the islands. I haven't read anywhere here that the camps from the mainland have voiced the same outside boating concerns you listed. I applaud your efforts toward our families children, and as a former day-care host, I can understand the safety concerns. I hope my question aren't misconstrued.

Nor, for that matter, have I read of any concerns of the swimmers at the public beaches operated by the townships. Can anyone offer the formal town positions on the lake safety issues?

[Bear Islander]

Hazelnut

The "proof" is in the huge number of businesses that support speed limits. The list itself is not proof, it's just a list. Instead of picking apart the list and chipping away at the edges how about showing that there are businesses that oppose HB847.

I posted something. . . . the opposition is posting nothing!

Please tell us about the businesses that oppose HB847


JayDV

The reason why I qualified by concerns that way is because both as a camp director, and a parent, I have lost a child. But I wasn't really aware of that connection until you asked.

[KonaChick]

If tourism dollars are down in recent years at Lake Winnipesaukee it has nothing to do with fear of being run over by a fast boat. Simply put it's the economy. We entertain often on weekends up here and have never, not once been told by family or friends that they are afraid to be out on the lake. I take that back...we've been out on the broads on a particullarly choppy day and my mother did turn green. I have walked among BI and his cronies and they do indeed in my humble opinion want to see a certain type of boat/s taken off the lake. Are they using the speed rationale as their smoke screen? That I can't answer but do have my opinion. Do I get shot dirty looks and glaring stares when I take my shiny new pwc over to BI to pick up relatives to come back to our house?? Yes, quiet often.

[JayDV]

BI - Thank you for your candor. I wasn't expecting such a personal motivation. I apologize if I appeared to be lacking in couth. - JayDV

[Bear Islander]

JayDV - No problem.



Hazelnut

You are being very unfair.

You started all this by posting a "statement" of your position on speed limits. You asked for a similar statement from me. But you also requested that I not quote or pick apart your statement. Although I thought it contained a lot of unsupported opinion, I have done as you requested and not attacked it.

I posted my "statement" as requested. Now you and others are attacking every word. A capital case is being made out of my suggestion that increased numbers of larger and faster boats will cause more pollution. And it is now my responsibility to PROVE that speed limits are good for tourism.

Like you, much of what I posted was my opinion. Unlike you, I accepted your statement at face value, and stuck to the agreement.

[Bear Islander]

If tourism dollars are down in recent years at Lake Winnipesaukee it has nothing to do with fear of being run over by a fast boat. Simply put it's the economy. We entertain often on weekends up here and have never, not once been told by family or friends that they are afraid to be out on the lake. I take that back...we've been out on the broads on a particullarly choppy day and my mother did turn green. I have walked among BI and his cronies and they do indeed in my humble opinion want to see a certain type of boat/s taken off the lake. Are they using the speed rationale as their smoke screen? That I can't answer but do have my opinion. Do I get shot dirty looks and glaring stares when I take my shiny new pwc over to BI to pick up relatives to come back to our house?? Yes, quiet often.

I just did a mental calculation. My neighbor to the left has a PWC, as do 4 of the next 7 to the right. That is 5 out of 8 homes with a PWC. To be honest I'm sure that is way over the average. It could be those stares are envy, we love water sports on BI.

Next time you walk among us, please say hello.

[Rose]

I posted my "statement" as requested. Now you and others are attacking every word. A capital case is being made out of my suggestion that increased numbers of larger and faster boats will cause more pollution. And it is now my responsibility to PROVE that speed limits are good for tourism.

An increased number of ANY type of watercraft is going to cause more pollution. Why don't you support a limit on the NUMBER of watercraft (of any type) allowed on the lake?

Since the subject being debated here is about a proposed law, it shouldn't be a surprise that the supporters of the proposed law be asked to prove the need for the legislation. You haven't.

When I provide a forecast, I can't just state what the weather is going to be...I have to support my reasoning behind that forecast. Otherwise, my peers are going to be all over my behind. If others question my reasoning, I can't stand there saying, "Oh, you're making a capital case over the fact that I think the US model is going to verify just because you think the European model is going to verify. Prove that you're right!!!" Guess what happens when that does happen on weather forums? The credibility of the original forecaster is diminished.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

These NH Businesses and Associations Oppose House Bill 847

New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association
New Hampshire Wildlife Federation
New Hampshire Bass Federation

Marine Industry Businesses
ACL Industries - Manchester
Adam's Marina - Winnisquam
Adhesive Engineering & Supply, Inc. - Seabrook
All Professional Sports - Gilford
Andrew's Marine Service - Alton Bay
Art's Power Equipment - Belmont
Atlantic Watercraft Club (charter of American Watercraft Association) - Salem
Averys Auto & Marine - Newport
Back Bay Marina - Wolfeboro
Beede Electrical Instrument Co., Inc. - Penacook
Biggart Marine - Plaistow
Bob's Beacon Marine - Newbury
Browns Auto and Marine - Newport
Center Harbor Dock & Pier Co. - Center Harbor
Channel Marine - Laconia
C.F.M. Technologies - Moultonboro
Corey's Doreys - GIlford
Dasilva Motorsports - Hampstead, Moultonboro
Dave’s Motorboat Shoppe, LLC - Gilford
Derry Marine & Salvage - Derry
Diamond Shine Boat Detailing - Gilford
Dock Doctor - Gilford
Dover Marine - Portsmouth
East Coast Marine Storage - Epping
Eastcoast Flightcraft Marine of New Hampshire - Meredith
East Coast Performance Center - Salem
Eliminator, Inc. - Lee
Epping Motor Sports - Epping
Extreme Motor Sports - Windham
Gator Signs - Gilford
George's Marina - Dover
Gillan Marine Inc - Alton Bay
Granite State Boatworks - Milford
Glendale Marina - Gilford
Gray's Marina - Enfield
Great Bay Marina - Newington
Green's Marine, Inc. - Hooksett
Goodhue Marine, Inc. - Center Harbor
Hampton River Marina - Hampton
Harpers Boat Restoration - Meredith
HK Powersports - Laconia, Tilton, Hooksett
Irwin Marine - Laconia, Hudson, Alton, Litchfield
Jack Willey's - Tilton
JFG Enterprises Prop
Jim's Mopar Performance - Salem
JP Boating, LLC - Laconia
Lakeport Landing Marina - Laconia
Lakes Region Fiberglass - Laconia
Lakeside Boat Rentals - Alton Bay
Little Bay Marina - Dover
Lucky Lenny's Power Place - Tilton
Marine USA - Milford
Marlin Products Div. Pompanette LLC - Charlestown
Melvin Village Marina - Melvin Village
Miles Marine - Gilford
Moultonborough Canvas - Moultonborough
National Boat - Deerfield
Nault's Windham Honda - Windham
New England Boat & Motor - Laconia
New England Correct Craft - Rochester
Nimar International, Inc. - Walpole
Norm's Marina Inc. - Hinsdale
North/South Performance Boats - Alton Bay
One Stop Toy Shop - Epping
Outdoor Performance Center - Bridgewater
Outdoor Prop Service - Laconia
Owen's Marine - Hooksett
Philbricks Sports Center - Dover
Plaistow Motorsports - Plaistow
Pompanette, LLC - Charlestown
Production Trailer + Dock - Meredith
Professional Mariner, LLC - Rye
R & R Cycles - Manchester
Ray’s Marina & RV Sales, Inc - Milton
Ray Marine, Inc. - Nashua
Rochester Motor Sports - Rochester
Rockingham Boat Repair and Sales - Hampstead
S & W Sports - Concord
Sargents Marine - Georges Mills
Shep Brown's Boat Basin - Meredith, Gilford
Ship Shape Marine Works - Meredith
Shorline CoverWorks - Laconia
SilverSands Marina - Gilford
Sonic Power Marine of New England, LLC - Weirs Beach
Sunapee Harbor Marine - Sunapee
The Trailer Outlet - Tilton
Vintage Race Boat Shop - Wolfeboro
Ward's Boat Shop - Center Ossipee
Watermark Marine Construction - Gilford
Wentworth by the Sea Marina - New Castle
West Marine - Portsmouth
Windham Marine - Windham
Winnipesaukee Motorsports - Meredith
Winnipesaukee Marine Construction - Gilford
Winnisquam Marine - Winnisquam
Y Landing Marina - Meredith

Hotels and Restaurants
Anthony's Old Style Pizzeria - Center Harbor
Apre’ Cabin rental - Carrol
Bayside Inn - Alton Bay
Beacon Resort - Lincoln
Channel Cottages - Weirs Beach
Christmas Island Resort - Laconia
Dad's Restaurant - Lincoln
Escambuit Campground - Derry
King Birch Motor Lodge - Alton Bay
Lakehurst Cottages - Alton Bay
Maria Atwood Inn B&B - Franklin
NASWA Resort - Laconia
Pinewood Motel - Bethlehem
Anchorage Restaurant - Sunapee
Brick Front Restaurant & Lounge - Laconia
Christmas Island Steak House - Laconia
Crazy Gringos Mexican Restaurant - Weirs Beach
Donna Jeans Diner - Weirs Beach
Channel Texaco Food Mart - Weirs Beach
Eagle Tavern and Grill - Newport
East Alton General Store - Alton
Fat Belly's Restaurant - Portsmouth
Handy Landing - Weirs Beach
North End Pub - New London
Olde Bay Diner - Alton Bay
Paradise Beach Club - Weirs Beach
ParkSide Grill - Milford
Patrick's Pub and Eatery - Gilford
Pier 19 - Tuftonboro
Rivier Run Deli - Alton
Shibley's at the Pier - Alton Bay
Suzies Diner - Hudson
The Bay Diner - Alton Bay
The Dockside Restaurant - Alton Bay
Truants Taverne - North Woodstock
Wayne's Market - North Woodstock
Woody’s Restaurant at Sunapee Harbor - Sunapee

Fishing Related
A J Bait Shop - Meredith
Bubba Bassin Club - Sandown
Cool Water Charters - Center Harbor
Granite State Rod & Reel Repair - Nashua
Lakes Region Bass Fishing Guide Service - Meredith
Lil' Hustler Tackle Co - Pembroke
Nothern Bass Supply - Brentwood
NH B.A.S.S. Federation
Rocky Ledge Bass Tackle - Pittsfield
The Bass Harasser - Manchester

Builders, Landscaping and Construction
Al Hoyt & Sons, Inc. - Plaistow
All Quality Constructions - Meredith
AllBright Electric co - Alton Bay
Amherst Surface Restorations Inc. - Amherst
Atlas Foundations - Salem
Aqua Lawn - Moultonboro
B & M Glass Inc - Exeter
BaySide Concrete - Alton
Belknap Mountain Construction - Laconia
Blane Building Co Of Kingston LLc - Freemont
Blane Finnish Co - Kinston
Bob Jusko Bld/Remodeling - Hampstead
Bob's Painting & Pressure Washing LLC - Laconia
Boston Enviromental - Portsmouth
Brady Sullivan Properties - Manchester
Brian David Excavation - Moultonboro
Bruce White Const. - Hampstead
Busby Construction - Atkinson
Captains Construction - Alton Bay
Capuno and Capuno Masonary - Salem
Carino Masonry - Manchester
Cedarhill Concrete - Fremont
CLD Paving - Laconia
Clearwater Builders - Tilton
Clough Contracting Co. - Fremont
Cormier Home Improvements - Epping
D & H Construction - Plaistow
Dan Snow Plumb/Heating - Sandown
Dan's Appliance - Laconia
Davco Excavating - Ossipee
Don Lamontagne Painting - Gilford
Dovetailed Kitchen - Portsmouth
Farrell Construction - Salem
Faxon Art. Wells - Sandown
Fiela Plumb/Heating - Derry
Fillmore Industries Inc - Loudon
Gilford Home Center - Gilford
Granite State Stone and Pvers - Atkinson
Hillside Restorations - West Peterborough
J & S Electric - Milton
Jameson Excavating - Atkinson
JL Construction - Sandown
Kitchen Encounters - Laconia
Lachance Landscapes - Gilford
Lakefront Contracting Co.- Alton Bay
Lakes Region Design Group - Laconia
LJC Custom Homes - Hampstead
Mancusi Builders - Hampstead
Merrill Excavating - Salem
Northvent Mechanical - Alton Bay
Plaistow Custom Cabinets - Plaistow
Planet Green Landscape, Inc. - Meredith
Prime Construction Inc - Meredith
R J Lundy Excavating - Alton
Regan Electric Co., Inc - Portsmouth
Richard Murphy Contruction - Moultonboro
Rockingham County Concrete - Fremont
Scott Compton Builder - Laconia
Taurus Landscaping - Sandown
Tiffany Lee Custom Homes - Plaistow
Timberlane Plate Glass Co. - Plaistow
Tradesmen Builders Corp. - Laconia
Two Tall Concrete - Alton
VMB Construction - Tilton
Wentworth Builders - New Castle
Wetmore Electric - Moultonboro
Wm. Bartlett & Son - Plaistow

Automotive Related
Approved Auto - Plaistow
Aranco Oil Co., Inc. - Concord
Autoserv Concord, Newport, Tilton, Plymouth
Autoserv Nissan - Tilton
Ball Brother’s Trucking - Londonderry
Ben's Auto Body - Portsmouth
Bump & Grind Auto Body - Kingston
Color Concepts - Belmont
Complete RV - Kingston
Decelles Auto Clinic Inc. - Nashua
Evergreen RV - Rochester
Exit 20 Auto + Truck - Tilton
Fitzgerald Motorsports Ic. - Laconia
Foss Motors - Exeter
Gulbicki's Towing - Weirs Beach
Harpers Motorcycle,Auto Painting - Meredith
Harpers Towing - Meredith
Jakes Transmission - Fremont
Jim's Auto Parts - Salem
KarKraft - Gilford
Kwik Stop - Hooksett
Lakes Chrysler/Jeep - Laconia
McNovick Inc - Bow
Meineke - Bedford, Merrimack
R & L Auto and Cycle - Salem
Scott Wrights Auto Body - Exeter
The Tire Loft - Portsmouth
Tilton Autobody - Tilton

Real Estate
Austin Realty - Plaistow
Bayview Forest & Development - Alton Bay
Cascades Reality Development Trust - Alton Bay
Dakota Realty - Center Harbor
DJMJ Realty Trust - Laconia
Formula Development - Center Harbor
Ganong Realty - Laconia
Gamache Enterprises - Manchester
Leisure Time Rentals - Meredith
Living New England Homes LLC - Laconia
Ryan Properties - Titlon
White Mountain Management - Meredith

Other Businesses who oppose House Bill 847
Alpha Omega Management Co. - Gilford
Alumis Enterprises - Bridgewater
Andrus Carpet - Gilmington
API Insurance - Lakeport
Ashworth Enterprises - Atkinson
Bay State Cable Ties - Gilford
Blue NYC - Portsmouth
Bresnahan Movers - Plaistow
Broadway North Dance Outfitters - Tilton
Correct Temp Inc. - Salem
Cricket Corner Woodworks - Amherst
CSD Sealing Systems - Manchester
Delia's Boutique - Portsmouth
Envision Salon - Hampstead
Eye Contact - Portsmouth
Faux Paw Pet Boutique - Meredith
FitLife Design - Alton Bay
Gary Barnes & Sons, LLC - Hampstead
Geo. Merrill & Son - Salem
Golas Bros. - Plaistow
Howard Enterprises - Derry
Identity Footwear - Portsmouth
Integrated Equipment Solutions, LLC. - Kingston
J & D Screenprinting & Embroidery - Laconia
Johnson Logging - Newport
K & S Stephens Enterprises - Milford
Karen's Gift Shop - Weirs Beach
Key Site Services - Alton Bay
Lynch & Denoncourt CPA - Laconia Manchester Wholesale Distributors Inc. - Manchester
Macro Polo - Portsmouth
MB Tractor - Tilton, Plaistow, Rumney
Medcomp Claims & Consult. - Plaistow
Montero Group - Chichecton
NE Fiberglass, LLC - Gilford
Northeast Communications Corp (WFTN, WPNH, WSCY) - Franklin
Northern Pool and Spa - Tilton
Philbricks Sales & Service - Hampton
Pixel Force - Laconia
Plaistow Trading - Plaistow
Rapid Response Marketing - Manchester
Red Brick Clothing Co - Hudson
RJ Lundy - Alton
Rock Coast Printworks - Dover
Sandown Materials - Chester
Seabrook Equipment - Seabrook
Stanley Elevator Co. - Nashua
The Art of Hair - Newton
The Eyeglass Shop - Portsmouth
The Red Carpet Salon - Laconia
The Testing & Coring company - Alton Bay
Turbotek - Manchester
Wireless Zone - Milford

And thousands of NH citizens, see testimonials page for comments from many of them.




Our state's motto that we have on every license plate means a lot to those opposing House Bill 847

[GWC...]

Wow!!!

I can hear a pin drop...

[Bear Islander]

An increased number of ANY type of watercraft is going to cause more pollution. Why don't you support a limit on the NUMBER of watercraft (of any type) allowed on the lake?

Since the subject being debated here is about a proposed law, it shouldn't be a surprise that the supporters of the proposed law be asked to prove the need for the legislation. You haven't.

When I provide a forecast, I can't just state what the weather is going to be...I have to support my reasoning behind that forecast. Otherwise, my peers are going to be all over my behind. If others question my reasoning, I can't stand there saying, "Oh, you're making a capital case over the fact that I think the US model is going to verify just because you think the European model is going to verify. Prove that you're right!!!" Guess what happens when that does happen on weather forums? The credibility of the original forecaster is diminished.

If you write a bill that limits the number of boats on the lake I might support it. I would obviously need to read it first. The big question is how do you determine who gets to boat and who doesn't. There are some National Parks that only allow limited numbers of people that have reservations. I don't think that is workable for the lake.

Eventually there will have to be more and more limits to access. Just like there are on Quabin in MA.

However I think the most fair thing is a horsepower limit. Allowing 100 15 HP boat is more reasonable than 1 1,500 HP boat.



I don't need to prove that speed limits are necessary. 236 State Reps already believe that the case for speed limits has been proved.

[hazelnut]

Initially yes I wanted to make a statement and then I wanted you to make a statement free from quoting or disputing my statement. We did that. I think we both did a good job of that.

I never said that subsequent posts fell into that category. This is a debate about an issue. Here is the problem that you are running into as I see it.

The debate revolves around a House Bill regarding a SPEED LIMIT. The people who oppose a speed limit have hard facts and statistics as to why there is no reason or need for a speed limit. In short speed is not the problem. You yourself said so.

The people who support a SPEED LIMIT have no facts or statistics to support the theory that a speed limit is necessary. The House Bill is in effect a wolf in sheep's clothing. It masks itself as a safety measure when in fact the supporters see it as a way to rid the lake of what it thinks are undesirables. You yourself stated that Go Fast Boats do not belong on the lake.

With that said you will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS come under scrutiny for supporting a bill that is sneaky and underhanded. It is a form of discrimination. You support a bill that is discriminatory in nature. That is a fact. If you can live with that, fine. Personally when it comes to lawmaking we should not allow emotion to dictate protocol. I take this very serious. When a law is made based solely on the idea that we can get rid of something that a few people "don't like," based on no supportive fact it worries me. If this law passes it only paves the way for more silly laws.

By the way, you have no comment on the "list?" ;)

[ITD]

All you want to do is tear my posts apart in an attempt to misquote me. Misquoting is changing the meaning of what I wrote or taking it out of context.

Why can't you just accept that other people have had different experiences than you? To you, someone must be lying, unless they see things exactly as you. Guess what? We're all different (thank God), and everyone is entitled to thier own opinion.

My ability to judge distance and speed has been tested - so this is not just a claim. I've explained all this before: I suffered a severe head injury to the left side of my brain when I was little, because of this the right side of my brain became overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in spatial awareness. So I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea what 45 mph looks like. And I know what 150 feet looks like. If a speeding boat is less than 9 of my kayak lengths from me - they are too close. And I have had highspeed boats on Winni come within less than 5 kayak lengths, before they appeared to notice me.

There has been nothing "charmed" about my life. I have had a very difficult life. Although I will admit that I was very sheltered for many years.


All I do is read your posts and decide whether what you say is reasonable or not, based on what you say, what you have said, and my own experiences.

My conclusions on what you have printed are based mostly on what you have written. Unlike making oral presentations, written arguments, especially in a medium like this, are easily compared to previous written arguments you've made. Inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb. I actually held back for weeks if not months when you first started posting and I noticed that things weren't adding up. Then I realized the negative effect the exaggerations, misrepresentations, inaccuracies and in some cases ( I'm not saying you here) blatant lies were having, generating a groundswell of people who were actually believing the hype.

So I began pointing out the problems with your and other's stories. And there were many problems.

Through our and others interactions many truths have come out, truths that were not apparent when you first started telling us about your bad experiences on Lake Winnipesaukee. For instance, after you had been telling us about your bad encounters (implied to be on Lake Winnipesaukee) you finally admitted that you had at that time never paddled on the lake. Later we found out that your fear of motor boats was based on a near death experience you had while paddling on the Connecticut River.

Now you tell us that you have some kind of innate ability to accurately judge distance and speed that has been "tested". Give me a break. The more you try to impress me with your qualifications, the less impressed I become.

You allude to too many close, high speed encounters on Lake Winnipesaukee to be believable. One time, I might be able to believe, but the many that you talk about, not so much.

I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but to be honest with you I really don't care. The inconsistencies in your stories need to be pointed out, especially for people unfamiliar with our lake, who, if left to read your uncontested story will think that taking a kayak or similar boat on our lake is a deadly idea. It's just not true.

[Resident 2B]

WeirsBeachBoater,

Thanks for posting this list. It certainly is much longer than the "huge" list of supporting businesses.

For BI, this is another great example of why you should be very careful about what you are asking for. I am sure it is significantly longer than you thought it would be.

For me, this list also goes on the refrigerator, so that we will remember where to go when we need to make a purchase.

R2B

[WeirsBeachBoater]

No problem R2B. Glad to help out.

[Evenstar]

The debate revolves around a House Bill regarding a SPEED LIMIT. The people who oppose a speed limit have hard facts and statistics as to why there is no reason or need for a speed limit.
Just because now one has been killed or hurt by a highspeed powerboat is not proof that high speed boats are not creating a dangerous problem on the lake.

And the data that was collected last summer by the marine patrol is not proof that speed isn't a problem on Winni. (During those 11 weeks speed was only recorded during less than 2% of the daylight hours, on on select portions of the lake, and that fact that speeds were being recorded, as well as the 2 main areas were well publicized). According to everything I know about data collection (and I have taken a university course in research methodology, last summers MP study was not what any expert would consider to be a viable study.

There's another major factor: No agency keeps track of close calls.[b/] I have had close calls with high-speed boats on Winni (that were going faster then 45 and that came way closer than 150 feet frome me). Others have stated that they have had similar close calls.

And here is a hard fact: [b]The faster you are going, the further you will travel in the time that it takes you to react. That is a safey issue. I have had my 150 foot zone violated because the operators were traveling faster than their ability to see me.

For me and for many others this is ONLY about safety. Yet when I state my reasons here, I'm accused of exagerating or even of lying. I'm told that I must not be a very good judge of speed or of distance (when I happen to be an excellent judge of both).

I have only spoken to 4 MPs about a lake speed limit law, but all 4 wanted a lake speed limit. When that previous bill was in the House (which would have enacted a speed limit on all NH waters) I spoke with 2 Coast Guard officers, and they both were in favor of the bill. Both the MP and the CG members told me that they saw a speed limit law as a "necessary tool".

This is not about pushing any type of boat off the lake - it is about slower the fastest boats down to a safer speed. Fast boats do not belong on the lake - unless their operaters are willing to slow down. 45 mph is a fast speed on water. In my opinion, if you feel like you need to go faster than that, go to the coast. It is not all that far away.

[Resident 2B]

Places on "the list" won't miss a family here and there, because they are not represented by a group. The WinnFabs tricked businesses to sign on during their well funded marketing campaign. Many who signed probably thought they were signing up for safety - not revenge. You really can't blame them. They are fooling a lot of folks on this forum too.



Lakegeezer,

I think you are correct in most cases. However, there are some businesses listed that are driving this discriminatory bill. I will certainly stay away from them, but I am sure they will not be hurt from it. I do not think it is right to deceive people in an attempt to get a certain group off the lake. That is un-American and so very wrong. How these people can live like that is beyond me.

When you think about it, the package of misinformation and hidden agendas had to have an impact on elected members of the House as well. I believe the Representatives were, in many cases, voting for the bill because of the impact the misinformation had on people in their district, making those without direct experience on the lake to think this was all about safety. Who can be against safety? When so many people contact a Rep, the Rep has to listen.

Contacting State Senators to let them know what has come out recently in this forum is very important. I believe the Senators are more educated about the situation than the Reps were, but you never know.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

WeirsBeachBoater,

Thanks for posting this list. It certainly is much longer than the "huge" list of supporting businesses.

For BI, this is another great example of why you should be very careful about what you are asking for. I am sure it is significantly longer than you thought it would be.

For me, this list also goes on the refrigerator, so that we will remember where to go when we need to make a purchase.

R2B

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

[codeman671]

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

I am not picking on your for posting it, but a few of the supporters surprise me. Glendale Marine for instance, being that they are the local Manitou dealer at the lake and claim to have the fastest pontoons around- capable of 60mph. The sign they hung last year stated "Hot Rod Pontoon-60MPH!!! "

Rather odd for a supporter to advertise like this. He will be getting a call from me this week for sure. I think we all know why Rusty is a supporter, he is lucky to have a restaurant at all after his establishments involvement in a past incident. :eek:

[Bear Islander]

The people who support a SPEED LIMIT have no facts or statistics to support the theory that a speed limit is necessary.



United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary

The number of boating deaths, injuries and property damage increased
for the second consecutive year and when compared to 2005 are as follows:
710 deaths vs. 697; 3,474 injuries vs. 3,451; and $43,670,424 in
property damage vs. $38,721,088.

Overall, two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those
who drowned, ninety (90) percent of the victims were not wearing their life
jacket. Eight out of every ten boaters who drowned were using boats less
than 20 feet in length.

Consistent with previous years, 70% of reported fatalities occurred on
boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction.

Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.


Go ahead and spin that. And please note that 3 of the 4 contributing factors are already against the law on Winni. Only speed is unregulated.

And I never said speed is not the problem, please don't misquote me.

[Evenstar]

I actually held back for weeks if not months when you first started posting and I noticed that things weren't adding up.

For instance, after you had been telling us about your bad encounters (implied to be on Lake Winnipesaukee) you finally admitted that you had at that time never paddled on the lake.[/quote]
This is just not true. In my 2nd post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15044#post15044) on this forum I wrote: "Even though this is called the Winnipesaukee forums, isn't it about the entire Lakes Region? I mean, it's ok to ask about Squam and other lakes, isn't it. The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning. I wrote that on my very first day as a member.

Later we found out that your fear of motor boats was based on a near death experience you had while paddling on the Connecticut River.In my very next post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15090#post15090) I wrote: I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds.
That incident that I had on the CT river was not the first time that I have had a close call high-speed power boats. I never said that it was a "near death experience" and I'm not afraid of powerboats - just of the idiots who go too fast to see me.

Now you tell us that you have some kind of innate ability to accurately judge distance and speed that has been "tested". Give me a break. The more you try to impress me with your qualifications, the less impressed I become.
I never lie. I have been tested. When you have had a severe head injury, you get tested ALOT - in all sorts of ways. I have had electrocephalogram tests, MRI tests, and all sorts of medical, written, and vision, language, comprehension, and awareness tests. Just like anyone, I have strengths and weaknesses. Language is one of my weaknesses. Spatial awareness is one on my strengths. The woman who tested me told me that my spatial awareness is "off the charts". Look up spatial awareness.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience or ability than what I actually have.

I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but to be honest with you I really don't care. The inconsistencies in your stories need to be pointed out
You are attacking me! You are making up outright lies about what I wrote in this forum - just to discredit me. That is underhanded, it is wrong, and it is against the rules of this forum! I have always been totally honest here - you have not.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

I was with you until the last 9 words. I was not sniping. I was pointing out the TRUTH! Facts, as we call them. But I wouldn't expect your side to understand what facts are, supporters don't use them!

[hazelnut]

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE!!!!

Are you serious. I really had higher hopes for you.

Do you have amnesia? I asked you to answer a yes or no question YESTERDAY!!!!!

I will quote it for those who do not want to scroll up:

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

Please tell me what your answer was? It's right here on the forum for all to see.

Oh I see we are splitting hairs I should have said you yourself agreed that speed was not the BIGGEST problem. Whatever.

I want you to give me Lake Winnipesaukee specific statistics... Guess what YOU CAN'T. You are really grabbing at straws here. I should have expected it to go down this road. I had such high hopes.

[Rose]

I don't need to prove that speed limits are necessary. 236 State Reps already believe that the case for speed limits has been proved.

How many federal Reps and Senators believed that there was a case for going into Iraq based on inaccurate intelligence(I'm being kind...I think it was intentionally false)? Just because a large quantity of people believe in something doesn't make it true.

The main problem I have with your position is that it's discriminatory. Of all the watercraft on the lake, I like GFBL boats least of all, but I don't want to start banning certain watercraft from the lake just because I don't happen to like them, for whatever the reason.

[hazelnut]

The main problem I have with your position is that it's discriminatory. Of all the watercraft on the lake, I like GFBL boats least of all, but I don't want to start banning certain watercraft from the lake just because I don't happen to like them, for whatever the reason.

Rose, I could not agree more with you. The battle cry from those who oppose the bill has to be just that. It discriminates.

Deep down inside I believe that the perfect boat for Lake Winnepesaukee is a 21-27 footer. Preferably a runabout style or bowrider. I just don't see why someone would want a 100MPH boat on a landlocked body of water. I mean eventually you just run out of real estate. I am also not a huge fan of PWC's most of the older ones are noisy and they pollute. The newer ones are ok but when you get a gang of them together it can get chaotic out there.

With that said I do not believe in laws that single out either one of those classes of water vehicle. I think it flat out reeks when the interests of one group of complainers can dictate a policy that is based on nothing more than inflamatory, misleading statements. Point blank this law is targeted at the big fast boats hoping that they will leave the lake if this becomes law. It has absolutely no merit with regard to increasing safety on the lake. Speed has not been proven to be a factor on Lake Winnipesaukee in any statistics regarding injury or death. This is legislature against fiberglass and horsepower nothing more!

[GWC...]

I am not picking on your for posting it, but a few of the supporters surprise me. Glendale Marine for instance,...

He will be getting a call from me this week for sure.
Perhaps a review of the opposition list will be prudent before you make that call.

Seems Glendale Marine made both lists.

Also, seems they're not the only one. :eek: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

These NH Businesses and Associations Oppose House Bill 847

Marine Industry Businesses

Glendale Marina - Gilford

Y Landing Marina - Meredith

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary {snip}
Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.

Go ahead and spin that. And please note that 3 of the 4 contributing factors are already against the law on Winni. Only speed is unregulated.

And I never said speed is not the problem, please don't misquote me.

Excuse me Bear Islander, I know your penchant for wanting to know the details behind the data. How is was that data obtained? Did you find out? Did the USCG data mention the speeds? Did they say what number were in speed controlled water? Did the data include LAKES? I imagine you would want to know answers to these and other data gathering criteria. I sure do.

"Excessive speed" does NOT in any way mean faster than 45 mph day or 25 mph night, does it? I believe it means excessive for the conditions and circumstances. Either way, there are NO NUMBERS (= no speed limits) in the data you posted.

Speed is indeed regulated on Lake Winnipesaukee. The quotes and RSAs have been posted several times. DO they include the numbers 25/45? as if 44 mph is OK and 46 mph is all of a sudden dangerous (exaggerated a bit to help make a point). On Winnipesaukee I believe the current law is more is more realistic. Excessive for the circumstances.

I've been quiet on the speed limit issue for quite awhile but now I feel I need to add my thoughts on this subject.

Anyway, BI. Do you know how the Coast Guard data was gathered and how does it relate to our Lake Winnipesaukee situation? I'm all for safety but I don't see speed limits (specific numbers) as a magic cure for any of the 4 primary factors contributing to reported accidents.

[Alton Bay]

I read with interest all the points being taken on both sides of the debate. However, the fact is, the House has passed a speed limit bill. I have to wonder how many legislators have ever even been to the Lake? Rather than beat this issue to death, have people been contacting their state senators? They hold the speed limit bill in their hands. Does anyone know where they stand?
Last time I checked we all have to have boater certification certificates by this summer. We should all know about the safe passage law, bwi and other issues. Rentals remain an huge issue in my mind.
Also, interesting that most Alton businesses do not support a speed limit. Ask them ( and Alton residents) if they support a noise limit and they would say "yes" and... you know what?? We have a law regarding noise. Is it enforced?? I can tell you it's very noisy in Alton (maybe cuz it's narrow?) and it certainly isn't just from GFLB. Let's enforce the laws on the books.

[Hottrucks]

I like GFBL boats least of all, but I don't want to start banning certain watercraft from the lake just because I don't happen to like them, for whatever the reason.

Didn't this happen already with the ban of jet ski's on weekends for a certian lakes and ponds???

the answer is "YES" incase you didn't know or haven't left winnie in awhile

[Dave R]

I read with interest all the points being taken on both sides of the debate. However, the fact is, the House has passed a speed limit bill. I have to wonder how many legislators have ever even been to the Lake? Rather than beat this issue to death, have people been contacting their state senators? They hold the speed limit bill in their hands. Does anyone know where they stand?
Last time I checked we all have to have boater certification certificates by this summer. We should all know about the safe passage law, bwi and other issues. Rentals remain an huge issue in my mind.
Also, interesting that most Alton businesses do not support a speed limit. Ask them ( and Alton residents) if they support a noise limit and they would say "yes" and... you know what?? We have a law regarding noise. Is it enforced?? I can tell you it's very noisy in Alton (maybe cuz it's narrow?) and it certainly isn't just from GFLB. Let's enforce the laws on the books.

Contacting Senators may not be as effective as contacting Representatives. Reps are supposed to vote the way they feel thier constituents would vote; they are the voice of the people and are not supposed to vote with their own opinion. If they do, they are not necessarily representing us. Senators are supposed to vote based the "correctness" of the bill, not the popular opinion. They are supposed to be the voice of reason in these situations, just in case the popular opinion is bad. Some feel we need more government control than we presently have, some think we need less.

My gut says the current majority in the Senate would LOVE to pass a law that takes away accountability from us and gives power to the state, especially if it costs money to implement. Count on this bill passing, regardless of what you tell your Senator. With luck, our Governer will veto the bill if it does pass, and perhaps we can get rid of some of the folks in the House and Senate that seek to add dumb laws before the next poorly-thought-out speed limit bill is introduced.

If you seek to blame anyone after this bill passes, blame the GOP, the very folks who generally oppose the bill. The GOP irritated the US population so much recently that folks voted them out and voted in the sort of people that seek to add laws and spend money.

FWIW, I oppose THIS speed limit bill. 45 is really slow, I've exceeded it several times on a bicycle (Pingree Hill Road). If a need for a reasonable speed limit is ever proven, I would not oppose it. 25 or 30 at night seems like a good idea, I have no issue with that, but then I've never seen anyone exceed it either, unless it was brightly moonlit. I also strongly support strict noise law enforcement, I really dislike loud boats, cars and motorcylces. Loud jet fighters rock though...

[Bear Islander]

Two weeks ago I rode a centrifuge at the National Astronautics and Space Training Center up to 6 gravities. But I did not experience half the spin I get on this forum.

It starts when an opponent posts there are "no statistics" or "no accidents" then they are shown the statistics and reminded of the accidents. Next comes the long list of excuses why those stats do not apply. A short period of silence, the it starts again with "no statistics" "no accidents".





Two years ago the house voted for HB162 .... what a bunch of idiots! ..... violating our rights! ... never been to the lake!.....

A few weeks later the Senate voted down HB162 .... responsible, intelligent leaders! .... informed, thoughtful representation!... they know what our lake needs!

Two weeks ago the house voted for HB847 .... what a bunch of idiots! ..... violating our rights! ... never been to the lake!.....

If the Senate passes HB847, will that mean they suddenly became stupid and irresponsible??

[Dave R]

If the Senate passes HB847, will that mean they suddenly became stupid and irresponsible??

No, they just became mostly Democrats. It's really a partisan issue. If it was a safety issue, it would have passed the Senate the last time.

[fatlazyless]

Not to worry...even if the senate does the unthinkable and passes HB847 sometime soon......Gov John Lynch will be right there with his veto stamp and he'll most definately pound HB847 with a VETO. Go Gov Lynch, go buddy!:)

[hazelnut]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;63119]... I did not experience half the spin I get on this forum..It starts when an opponent posts there are "no statistics" or "no accidents" then they are shown the statistics and reminded of the accidents. Next comes the long list of excuses why those stats do not apply. A short period of silence, the it starts again with "no statistics" "no accidents".


Bear Islander: Seriously? Again you baffle the forum. Please site the statistics that directly apply to lake Winnipesaukee. After all this Bill directly applies to Lake Winnipesaukee so you should easily be able to cite and provide the statistics and accidents that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee that were a direct result of speed. Go for it. I wait with baited breath. If you do not reply to this direct request I will refer to this as a "short period of silence" while you research and find NOTHING!

You have officially lost all credibility in my eyes. I know that means nothing to you but it is a shame because you had so much promise for your "side" of the argument. Now.... your ball my friend, provide those "accidents" and "statistics" on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE that were a direct result of speed. HA HA HA HA HA HA YOU CAN'T!!!!!!

[Bear Islander]

The spin starts already, they have to be on Winnipesaukee. Why? Do you think there is some magic that protects people on this lake? And what speed does it have to be in excess of? Does it have to be boat to boat? Day? Night? Can alcohol be involved? How long ago still applies? What if the speed can not be EXACTLY determined beyond any doubt?

Give me all the parameters now so I can save time.

[hazelnut]

Gee I guess you're right Bear Islander.

Can you please state which lake the HB in question refers to? Yeah I'm spinnin it allllright. The HB in question sets a speed limit on ONE LAKE and ONE LAKE ONLY. Which one you ask.... Well I'lls tells yas... LAKE WINNI.. What's that you say? Yup Lake Winneeeepesaukeeeeee. Well sir should we only discuss stats and incidents on the body of water in question. GOOD QUESTION meeee friend???? Well sir, accordin to one side of the argument we should throw in every incident on theeee continental US of A. But why's that pa? Well sir, it bolsters that there argument to slap a good ole speed limit on that there lake. But pa, that don' make no sense? Well junior it ought to make no sense, it only has to make sense to those folk who wanna make it make sense. Huh? Ya see Junior, Them folk who wanna speed limit wanna figur out a way to make the stats fith their agenda.......

I could go on but.. Nah. Bear Isle??? You are reachin and grabbin. Good luck to ya.

[hazelnut]

Your last post is in the category of "short period of silence" because you never cited specific incidents on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE that directly reflect the need for a speed limit on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE. Because the bill only applies to LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE. So start there.... Any and all speed related incidents regardless of day, night, alcohol, moon phase, sunlight, boat to boat, magic, etc. etc. etc. Here it is.... seriously all you need to do is site ANY incident from the beginning of time until now that involved speed on Lake Winnipesaukee and a death, injury, whatever... seriously anything that involves speed on this lake and this lake only. That's the only parameter, I swear. So go for it. I wait again with baited breath.............

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

I thought the speed limit test zones by Rattlesnake Island and Bear Island were temporary. I believed they were speed limits there for several weeks, not for the entire season. Was there really an expiration date, as I believe, on those speed limit zones? I thought they were finished before the end of the summer 2007 season and just for a pilot test program.

I ask because an alleged authoritative source indicates that those two locations are still active speed limit zones.

Thanks

[Lakegeezer]

Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed, and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported accidents.

Go ahead and spin that. And please note that 3 of the 4 contributing factors are already against the law on Winni. Only speed is unregulated.

And I never said speed is not the problem, please don't misquote me.OK BI, here is some spin, per your request. Excessive speed does not mean exceeding 45. The last time I dinged my prop, excessive speed was the cause. I was going 6 when I should have been going 2. Then I could have stopped in time when my look-out saw the rock.

What is your motivation for pushing for a speed-limit rather than against excessive speed? Safe boating demands that speed be related to conditions of the weather, water and traffic. When you use the term "excessive speed" to justify a speed limit, that is spinning the report in an unjustified way. Speed is already regulated in the careless/reckless rules, and that is no spin. Defining 45+ as careless/reckless is what the fight is about. 45 can be too fast - but so can 6.

[Acres per Second]

"...I don't know what a Nor-tech is...,"
Check Photopost for a 130-MPH Nor-tech in Alton Bay.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/176IM001018_2.jpg

Can you see the "driver"?

Nor can he see you. :(

The spin starts already, they have to be on Winnipesaukee.
Yup. But the above "Opponents List" can be filled with unknown persons scattered from Portsmouth to Berlin. :rolleye1:

"...Here it is.... seriously all you need to do is site [sic] ANY incident from the beginning of time until now that involved speed on Lake Winnipesaukee and a death, injury, whatever...That's the only parameter, I swear..."
Gilford had one run up a hill and into a house. (The Marine Patrol's first call for three body bags at Lake Winnipesaukee).

That said, there was no proof of excessive speed. :rolleye1:

"...WinnFabs methods...used fear and lies to justify revenge, and fooled the house into voting for their law..."
...and...
"...Just because a large quantity of people believe in something doesn't make it true..."

You're both right. It is quite a large quantity—at Snopes.com click here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp).

[ITD]

This is just not true. In my 2nd post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15044#post15044) on this forum I wrote: "Even though this is called the Winnipesaukee forums, isn't it about the entire Lakes Region? I mean, it's ok to ask about Squam and other lakes, isn't it. The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning. I wrote that on my very first day as a member.

In my very next post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15090#post15090) I wrote: I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds.
That incident that I had on the CT river was not the first time that I have had a close call high-speed power boats. I never said that it was a "near death experience" and I'm not afraid of powerboats - just of the idiots who go too fast to see me.


I never lie. I have been tested. When you have had a severe head injury, you get tested ALOT - in all sorts of ways. I have had electrocephalogram tests, MRI tests, and all sorts of medical, written, and vision, language, comprehension, and awareness tests. Just like anyone, I have strengths and weaknesses. Language is one of my weaknesses. Spatial awareness is one on my strengths. The woman who tested me told me that my spatial awareness is "off the charts". Look up spatial awareness.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience or ability than what I actually have.


You are attacking me! You are making up outright lies about what I wrote in this forum - just to discredit me. That is underhanded, it is wrong, and it is against the rules of this forum! I have always been totally honest here - you have not.

I know what spatial awareness is, and I also looked it up. "Spatial awareness is an organised knowledge of objects including oneself, in a given space. Spatial awareness also involves understanding the relationships of these objects when there is a change of position."

Nowhere in the definitions of Spatial Awareness does it mention the "ability to judge distance and speed". The human brain cannot accurately judge distance or speed without some type of tool. We can estimate, but our estimates generally are not very good. That's why we have rulers, tape measures and speedometers. You are, once again, mistaken if you think you can accurately judge distance and speed. Especially speed, while sitting in your kayak. In fact, that is probably the problem with your perceptions of the lake.

Pointing out inconsistencies in your posts, which are plentiful, does not make me a liar. You feel as though you should be able to post whatever you like and not be challenged as to your information's veracity. Well, when the information you post will result in restrictions imposed on me, you better have your act together. If I see a problem with your post, I am going to point it out. You can cry all you want about it, but that is the way it is.

As far as personal attacks go, reread what you write about me. You call me: a liar, underhanded, wrong and other things. Who's comments are bordering on personal attacks? Why yours are. It's ok though, I'm a grown up, I can take it.

The only thing I want to discredit is your message, that the lake is a dangerous place for kayaks because of boats travelling above 45 mph. It's simply not true. It's not supported by the statistics, the speed survey or many people's extensive experience on the lake.

Lighten up, stick to the facts, quit crying about personal attacks when you lose in the arena of ideas.........

BTW, I'm aware of your initial posts, they were used to point out that you didn't have extensive experience on the lake when your later posts gave the impression that you did.

[Alton Bay]

Stupid questions...Maybe someone here can answer them for me.
If your boat is old and has no speedometer, how do you know you now what speed you are traveling?
Also, has anyone ever considered the folks who will take up the job of policing the lake and calling in folks they consider are speeding. #1 How will MP deal with it with the small squad they have on Winni and #2 How can anyone determine, without a radar gun, what 46+ mph is? How many MP folks are normally out on a Sunday in July?

[Bear Islander]

OK BI, here is some spin, per your request. Excessive speed does not mean exceeding 45. The last time I dinged my prop, excessive speed was the cause. I was going 6 when I should have been going 2. Then I could have stopped in time when my look-out saw the rock.

What is your motivation for pushing for a speed-limit rather than against excessive speed? Safe boating demands that speed be related to conditions of the weather, water and traffic. When you use the term "excessive speed" to justify a speed limit, that is spinning the report in an unjustified way. Speed is already regulated in the careless/reckless rules, and that is no spin. Defining 45+ as careless/reckless is what the fight is about. 45 can be too fast - but so can 6.

I am pushing for HB847 because it is better than the nothing we have now. Just saying excessive speed leaves things to open to interpretation. Every ticket would have to be a huge argument. Why not use excessive speed as the limit on route 93? Because it will not work, that's why.


Hazelnut -

Limiting it to one lake creates to small a statistical universe. Why does the double fatality on Long Lake last summer not apply? If you want to exclude that accident you should tell me why it could not have happened on Winni.

Why stop at limiting it to Winni. Someone in Winter Harbor might argue that there has never been a serious accident in Winter Harbor, therefore it should have no speed limit. But WH is not a good example I guess since there was a fatal boating accident there last summer.

BTW HB847 applies to all the lakes in NH. The attached amendment the opposition wanted fixes it to Winni only. The Senate can pass HB847 and NOT the amendment if they choose.

Back to my limitations. There are still two questions open. You can't just say "involve speed", I didn't just fall off a turnip truck! What speed? 45/25? And how do we know what the speed of the boats actually were. Otherwise you will wiggle out with the "please prove the boat was going 90 mph exactly" crap. If a report, newspaper article etc says about XX mph, is that good enough?

[fatlazyless]

On Winnipesaukee, the MP has those three 27' military style, combo aluminum-rib interceptors, powered by twin Merc 150 two-strokes, two marked & one unmarked. Mostly, they just slowly cruise around at about 1/4 power, just being present, visible, and available in case something happens. They like to set up and wait in some likely spot, behind a little island or around a bend, and anticipate for something to happen. It's called law enforcement.

Bingo, you're it.....got you! Out on the water, you can always run, but you can't hide. Where you gonna run to? :D


Let's see...in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New Jersey....first speed violation=loss of your good driver's discount which stays on your record for three years...and costs maybe $500./year in higher insurance. How much is 3 x 500, plus the $88 NH fine?

[Hottrucks]

. Why not use excessive speed as the limit on route 93? Because it will not work, that's why.


?

They do next time it's snow drive by a State trouper going 65 and see what it gets you..............


Bingo, you're it.....got you! Out on the water, you can always run, but you can't hide. Where you gonna run to? :D


Let's see...in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New Jersey....first speed violation=loss of your good driver's discount which stays on your record for three years...and costs maybe $500./year in higher insurance. How much is 3 x 500, plus the $88 NH fine?

First off IF they hunt you down there is no way for them to prove who was driving ......thank you have a nice day....

second the new laws keep things on your record for 7 years......

[hazelnut]

Bear Islander,

The burden of proof lies squarely on your and the supporters shoulders. It's not up to me to provide hypothetical situations in which speed might be a factor.

You go ahead and list all the fatal accidents or accidents that involved injury in the state of New Hampshire that involved a boat traveling in excess of the arbitrary magic number of 45MPH. That is your burden not mine. I'm not the one trying to pass a law. I just want the MP to enforce the existing laws that are designed with safety in mind. Not some random 45MPH limit that is based on nothing.

[fatlazyless]

Snowmobiles have a New Hampshire land speed limit of 45mph, and snowmos even have brakes, & groomed trails, which boats do not have. After HB847 is law, snowmos will continue to not have a speed limit on Winnipesaukee, so's at least you'll still be able to run that snowmo up to 125mph, if you want. Got to be an optimist, here!

236-111.....14-10......hut-hut-hut....hike!!!:banana:

[Bear Islander]

Bear Islander,

The burden of proof lies squarely on your and the supporters shoulders. It's not up to me to provide hypothetical situations in which speed might be a factor.

You go ahead and list all the fatal accidents or accidents that involved injury in the state of New Hampshire that involved a boat traveling in excess of the arbitrary magic number of 45MPH. That is your burden not mine. I'm not the one trying to pass a law. I just want the MP to enforce the existing laws that are designed with safety in mind. Not some random 45MPH limit that is based on nothing.

Spin, Spin, Spin... now they must be fatal or involve injury... see what I mean. And why not over 25 mph at night? that is what HB847 is.

However the real problem is proving the speed. The Marine Patrol does not list specific speeds in boating accidents. Even if they did the argument is that those speeds are "only estimates". I have been down this road before.

I don't need to prove anything. 236 to 111

The truth is there have been many serious or fatal accidents, on Winni and off. Real people are really dead. But the opposition closes its eyes to every one.

[hazelnut]

SPIN???

You are a riot!! Ok name ANY!!!! ANY ANY ANY ACCIDENT that involved over 45 during the day and over 25 at night.... HA HA HA SPIN?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA. You lose credibility with every post BI. I'm really at a loss for words to describe your inability to debate a subject based on facts.


FLL,

GREAT POINT. I bet we could find far more speed related fatalities on Snow Mobiles. However no cry for a speed limit because Bear Islander and other special interest groups aren't ascared or bothered by snowmobiles.

[Bear Islander]

And why does the fatal Meredith Bay accident from 2002 not count?

28 mph at night.




awaiting spin cycle...

[hazelnut]

Why is it Spin when you don't agree with something? It's like debating a child. Why should I even respond to you any more? Whatever I say right now will be written off by you as spin. I'm not going down that road. Anyway is that the best you have? That accident from almost six years ago. Lets say I accept that accident, I won't bring up any debate over that one. I'll give you that one. I'm laughing as I type that last sentence..... Anyway, you can have it. So that's it? That's the reason for a Speed Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee?

Bravo Bear Islander you've proven the case, well done. I concur based on an accident from 2002 that involved a boat traveling 3MPH over the proposed speed limit we should emphatically accept HB847.

Thank you for showing me the light :rolleye2:

[EricP]

I think it was the summer of 2005. I did not measure the speed myself but it was claimed to have gone 130 mph.

How many children in canoes were run over?

[Bear Islander]

How many children in canoes were run over?

Is that supposed to be funny?

I'm sure the Senators are amused.

[EricP]

And why does the fatal Meredith Bay accident from 2002 not count?

28 mph at night.




awaiting spin cycle...

estimated 28mph, there was radar gun there so there is no way to accurately state the speed of that idiot's boat. Alcohol was the problem, not speed. Even if there was a speed limit 28mph is not really such a huge infraction that we need a law passed. ALCOHOL was the problem.

[EricP]

Is that supposed to be funny?

I'm sure the Senators are amused.

Point being is there was no accident so talking about a fast boat that didn't have an accident is no defense of the need for a speed limit.

[chipj29]

Check Photopost for a 130-MPH Nor-tech in Alton Bay.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/176IM001018_2.jpg

Can you see the "driver"?

Nor can he see you. :(


Wow! That boat is FLYING! He must be going what, about 5 or 6 knots? Man, look at the wake he is putting down! OMG Look out everybody, it is a big bad GFBL!! :rolleye2:

[GWC...]

Check Photopost for a 130-MPH Nor-tech in Alton Bay.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/176IM001018_2.jpg

Can you see the "driver"?

Nor can he see you. :(

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/502/medium/DSC_0020a.jpg

One could say the same about the driver's "danger zone" in this quaint sailboat pic.

Must be nerve-racking not knowing what's on the other side of the jib?!

Is this an example of driving-by-feel? If you don't feel anything; you must not have hit anything?

See how easy it is to spin?! :D :laugh: :laugh:

[Hottrucks]

I could take him If I could get over his wake

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

I read with interest all the points being taken on both sides of the debate. However, the fact is, the House has passed a speed limit bill. I have to wonder how many legislators have ever even been to the Lake? Rather than beat this issue to death, have people been contacting their state senators? They hold the speed limit bill in their hands. Does anyone know where they stand?
I signed up for NHRBA emails regarding HB162 (and now HB847). At one point, I emailed back and suggested that NHRBA organize a day to invite ALL the legislators for a ride on a performance boat (preferably boats of different lengths), to show them first-hand what 45mph looks and feels like and what 25mph looks like to the driver. Later on, during this past summer, when I ran into an NHRBA officer (from Alton Bay, I believe) and mentioned my suggestion, I was informed that they had attempted to organize something like that but the offer was turned down because the legislators were afraid of the appearance of accepting a "gift" from the performance boat owners. To me, it sounds more like they weren't interested in getting any factual evidence about something they had probably already made up their collective minds about.


Acres Per Second originally posted the photo below and it illustrates a point I haven't seen discussed here as of yet. As you can see from the picture, this boat is not moving very fast, probably headway speed or slightly above (he's certainly not on plane and he's creating very little wake). APS stated in his original post, "Can you see the "driver"? Nor can he see you. :( " Notice the "bow up" attitude of the boat; at slightly more than headway speed, it's difficult to see over the bow of a 30ft boat. At 25mph, the bow is even higher in the air, making it even more difficult to see what might be ahead of you!! I don't know the specifics of everyone's boat, but I know my own 25ft Baja won't get up on plane at 25mph and even if I pushed to 35mph to get on plane, it won't stay there if I throttle back to 25mph. I spoke with the owner of a 42ft Fountain once and he told me he can barely keep it on plane at 40mph! So if HB847 passes, you've now exchanged one safety hazard for another; you've slowed us down to a "safe" speed but now we can't see where we're going!!! Thanks for blinding me in the pursuit of safety!



Also, interesting that most Alton businesses do not support a speed limit. Ask them ( and Alton residents) if they support a noise limit and they would say "yes" and... you know what?? We have a law regarding noise. Is it enforced?? I can tell you it's very noisy in Alton (maybe cuz it's narrow?) and it certainly isn't just from GFLB. Let's enforce the laws on the books.
If noise is such a problem on the lake, ask your state reps why the state bans switchable exhausts on boats?? When I bought my boat, I inquired about a switchable exhaust but I was told they were outlawed by the state however no reason was offered. Personally, I'd LOVE to have a switchable exhaust so I could quiet the exhaust down when I'm in a crowded environment (docking, etc.) or if I'm out at night and returning to my dock and don't want to bother the neighbors. But, the state bans them, probably only because they're banned for automobiles and trucks!! After all, if they're bad on land, they MUST be bad on the water (just like speed limits are good on land so they MUST be good on the water, no?)!! :rolleye1: Perhaps it's time this one small section of law is reviewed and maybe, CHANGED!! If anyone knows WHY switchable exhausts are banned on boats, please let me know because I honestly don't see the logic in that.

[Bear Islander]

I don't know anything about your boat, but if you can't operate at legal speeds AND be able to see where you are going, then it should not be on a crowded lake.

I have heard the switchable exhaust story before. There might be a few responsible people that would use it in a crowded environment. However I'm sure the reason it is illegal is because it would mostly be used to quiet down when the Marine Patrol was around.... I was born at night, but I wasn't born LAST night.

[nightrider]

Snowmobiles have a New Hampshire land speed limit of 45mph, and snowmos even have brakes, & groomed trails, which boats do not have. After HB847 is law, snowmos will continue to not have a speed limit on Winnipesaukee, so's at least you'll still be able to run that snowmo up to 125mph, if you want. Got to be an optimist, here!

236-111.....14-10......hut-hut-hut....hike!!!:banana:

Unfortunately, once the boat speed limit is passed, it will only be a matter of time before the "take-your-freedom-away" crowd go after the sleds on the lake. It's like they can't help themselves. If there's not an active issue they can work on to restrict others' activities, then they're not happy.

[Dave R]

I'd like to see switchable exhaust become legal, but only if the boat passed the noise requirements on both settings. The reason they are illegal is because they typically fail the noise test when set to "open".

Oddly, I have to agree with BI about boats that ride dangerously bow high (meaning the view forward is blocked) at speeds above 25 MPH. Sounds like a design issue that should be addressed. Sustained operation in that mode is reckless, IMO, and ought to earn the operator a ticket. If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense.

That said, I've never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner. Riding bow-up and making a huge wake is much more common on cabin cruisers, bass boats, and bow riders, from what I have witnessed. Unless it's really choppy, I have never been able to figure out why anyone would do that. It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.

[codeman671]

Honestly, at both settings on the exhaust (thru-hull and diverted down) as long as the decibel level meets state law why ban it??? Hmm, I can go from legal to even quieter and back again with a switch. Maybe mandate that if equipped it needs to be on the quieter setting at night?

As far as the picture posted by APS, from the distance that the picture was taken it is hard to see the driver anyhow. It has nothing to do with the nose of the boat...That is misleading. Go figure? :rolleye2: I don't see boats typically driving around with their noses so high in the air that they can't see where they are going. That is not the problem on the lake.

To heck with the 130mph Cat, below is a speedo pic from my boat, 194mph. Bet the Cat can't do that! (actually it was a bad ground that whacked out the speedo but the picture was priceless)

[Acres per Second]

"...That is misleading...I don't see boats typically driving around with their noses so high in the air that they can't see where they are going. That is not the problem on the lake.
For Winni, always drive GFBLs so you can drive anywhere—in any weather—in comfort. :rolleye2:

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

OK, let me try this again.

I have heard the switchable exhaust story before. There might be a few responsible people that would use it in a crowded environment. However I'm sure the reason it is illegal is because it would mostly be used to quiet down when the Marine Patrol was around.... I was born at night, but I wasn't born LAST night.
BI, where did I say anything about lifting the existing decibel limits? I didn’t!! So, as codeman671 put it, I could either be legally loud or courteous and quiet. What a novel idea!!! God forbid I should ever try to be courteous because we all know performance boaters are not courteous!! Yeah, right; what a bunch of BS!!


I don't know anything about your boat, but if you can't operate at legal speeds AND be able to see where you are going, then it should not be on a crowded lake.
Nice, twist my words. BI, I CAN operate my boat at legal speeds because for now, at least, “legal” is “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions” which means I’m allowed to throttle up, at night, to get my boat up on plane so I can SEE where I’m going without having the bow of my boat blocking my forward visibility. I can also see in front of my boat if I’m moving at no-wake speed. 25mph is where the problem arises; it's simply too slow to get my, and I'm guessing alot of other boats, up on plane. If the 25mph night-time speed limit is imposed, the only way I would be able to keep the bow down so I could see in front of my boat, would be to break the speed limit to get up on plane and stay there (GASP!) or motor at no-wake speed and, to borrow from Dave_R, no-wake speed is not the most efficient speed possible on a boat. My wife and I work hard to afford our boat; we're not rich. Since we're not rich, I’m not going to waste money and fuel! You pro-limit people think all the GFBL people are “rich” but I, for one, am NOT! Oh, I almost forgot, there is one other option, stay home and not go out at all. But this isn’t about keeping a certain type of boat off the lake, is it?!?!?


Oddly, I have to agree with BI about boats that ride dangerously bow high (meaning the view forward is blocked) at speeds above 25 MPH. Sounds like a design issue that should be addressed. Sustained operation in that mode is reckless, IMO, and ought to earn the operator a ticket. If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense.
Dave_R, as far as I know, it’s not a “design issue” that needs to be addressed but then again, I’m not a designer. From my own personal experience and what little bit I’ve read about boat design, any boat that has a “planing” type of hull will encounter a bow high condition until it reaches planing speed. Obviously, the lighter and/or shorter the boat, the lower the planing speed will be. You’ve “never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner” because we (the performance boat owner/driver) KNOW it’s unsafe and our intent is to get up on plane as soon as we are clear of traffic (this is where the 150’ rule comes into play!) so that we CAN see in front of us! Apparently, the intent IS to keep a certain type of boat off the lake, because the longer and heavier a boat is, the higher the minimum planing speed of said boat. So if the 25mph limit is imposed, a lot of performance boat owners won’t be able to safely use their boat at night.

Dave_R, in one paragraph you say “If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense” and in the next paragraph “It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.”, referring to bow high operation. We can’t have it both ways. Most, maybe not all, performance boats can’t “reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see” (to meet the proposed 25mph night-time limit) and still operate efficiently. I don’t want to waste the fuel (and money) by being on the lake at night and only go “no-wake” speed and besides, we’ve already heard from the people claiming we pollute more than any other type of boat (including the two-cycle outboards?) so it’s really not advisable for that reason also.

This is why the current standard, “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”, is STILL the best alternative. It’s not the performance boaters making the lake unsafe, it’s the boneheads that either don’t know or ignore the existing laws that are unsafe. Fund the MP so they can enforce the existing laws and ticket THEM to death until they either get it straight or stop coming here altogether but don’t legislate us to death for their ignorance and/or arrogance.

OK, rip me apart; I know someone out there wants to do it.

[Lakegeezer]

25mph is where the problem arises; it's simply too slow to get my, and I'm guessing alot of other boats, up on plane. This kind of boat might encourage agressive driving. If a captain has to fall below 25 to avoid traffic, it probably takes a gallon or so of extra gas to regain a plane. In congested times, what is a captain to do?

[Dave R]

If the 25mph night-time speed limit is imposed, the only way I would be able to keep the bow down so I could see in front of my boat, would be to break the speed limit to get up on plane and stay there (GASP!) or motor at no-wake speed and, to borrow from Dave_R, no-wake speed is not the most efficient speed possible on a boat.

Dave_R, as far as I know, it’s not a “design issue” that needs to be addressed but then again, I’m not a designer. From my own personal experience and what little bit I’ve read about boat design, any boat that has a “planing” type of hull will encounter a bow high condition until it reaches planing speed. Obviously, the lighter and/or shorter the boat, the lower the planing speed will be. You’ve “never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner” because we (the performance boat owner/driver) KNOW it’s unsafe and our intent is to get up on plane as soon as we are clear of traffic (this is where the 150’ rule comes into play!) so that we CAN see in front of us! Apparently, the intent IS to keep a certain type of boat off the lake, because the longer and heavier a boat is, the higher the minimum planing speed of said boat. So if the 25mph limit is imposed, a lot of performance boat owners won’t be able to safely use their boat at night.

Dave_R, in one paragraph you say “If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense” and in the next paragraph “It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.”, referring to bow high operation. We can’t have it both ways. Most, maybe not all, performance boats can’t “reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see” (to meet the proposed 25mph night-time limit) and still operate efficiently. I don’t want to waste the fuel (and money) by being on the lake at night and only go “no-wake” speed and besides, we’ve already heard from the people claiming we pollute more than any other type of boat (including the two-cycle outboards?) so it’s really not advisable for that reason also.

This is why the current standard, “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”, is STILL the best alternative. It’s not the performance boaters making the lake unsafe, it’s the boneheads that either don’t know or ignore the existing laws that are unsafe. Fund the MP so they can enforce the existing laws and ticket THEM to death until they either get it straight or stop coming here altogether but don’t legislate us to death for their ignorance and/or arrogance.

OK, rip me apart; I know someone out there wants to do it.

I am very much against speed limits. I don't want to rip anyone apart. I like to see boats like your on the lake even though I have no desire to own one or hear one if it's loud. Does yours have those cool purple graphics Baja seems to sell a lot of?

I disagree about fuel efficiency, hulls are most efficient at displacement speeds. They are least efficient when running bow high and making a big wake. Planing hulls are also pretty efficient (some nearly as efficient as displacement speed) when cleanly up on plane, but no faster. I can see how some GFBL boats would be propped such that even at idle speed, they are above displacement speed and perhaps getting a little less MPG than they would cleanly up on plane, but the difference would be negligible and the MPG would be vastly superior to plowing speed.

Say the speed limit passes:

If you operate your boat at idle, in gear, the bow will be down enough to see properly and you'll be well below the proposed speed limit and operating safely, efficiently and legally.

If you operate at 24 MPH with the bow blocking your forward vision, you'll be legally staying below the speed limit, but not very safe, and you'll be wasting a bunch of fuel.

If you operate at 26 MPH with the bow down, and light conditions allow you to do this safely, you'll be doing the smartest thing, but breaking the law.

If you have a boat that can't plane below 25 MPH, you still can operate at night safely and legally, it's just not much fun.

I hope it does not pass.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

This kind of boat might encourage agressive driving. If a captain has to fall below 25 to avoid traffic, it probably takes a gallon or so of extra gas to regain a plane. In congested times, what is a captain to do?
That depends on the captain. IMO, this type of boat requires cautious driving. In congested times, common sense dictates slowing down to headway speed. In my opinion, congested implies an inability to maintain 150ft from all other boats/craft in the vicinity which means we should ALL be moving at no-wake speed in that vicinity. I slow down whenever I'm near (meaning within 200ft of) other boats to wait and see because I never know what they're going to do!

In the situation you suggested, I'm not concerned with the amount of fuel needed to get back on plane once I'm clear of congested traffic, but I don't like the implication that, if the 25mph limit is imposed, if I want to travel back from Weirs Beach to Wolfeboro at night, I'll have to do it at headway speed (and waste MORE fuel than in the scenario you suggested) even if there were no other craft within 500ft of my boat the entire way!!

Think of the no-wake zone between Eagle and Governor's Islands. No way is that 450 feet across but most boaters wouldn't slow down to no-wake speed if they were going through there at the same time another boat was. MP (or whoever makes these decisions) had to mark it as a no-wake zone because people did not use common sense and slow down when they were going through. And even with that no-wake zone marked, people STILL don't slow down when going through there!! I'm constantly cursing to myself about the boneheads that ignore the 150ft rule in this particular area (Eagle/Governor Isl.).

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Dave, I wasn't referring to you when I said "ok, rip me apart", I just knew somebody will eventually. I think your posts on this issue have been very sane. To be honest, when I was writing that post, I couldn't remember where you stood on the issue but I felt I had to address the comments you made.

To answer your other question, no, my wife hates purple!! We have bright yellow, lime green and dark blue graphics; actually, they look very nice together!

Regarding displacement hulls, I don't know how efficient or inefficient they are compared to planing hulls But I did find this at About.com:Powerboating:
Some advantages of a displacement hull are 1. a relatively small engine can easily drive it; thus, its ability to travel long distances is outstanding, and 2. because it's traveling through the water, not on top of it, it has a very smooth, seaworthy ride. However, an obvious disadvantage is that this boat hull is slower than molasses in January!

Regarding planing hulls, the same website had this to say (but they made no comment as to fuel efficiency):
When a planing hull is either not moving or going very slowly, it is, in effect, a displacement hull. As power and speed increase, however, a planing hull lifts itself up on top of its own bow wave. This causes the boat to displace much less water. As a result, there is much less wetted surface on the hull bottom, meaning much less friction as well. The speed of the boat will now increase at a great rate. With this hull, the more horsepower added, the faster the boat will go.



Now, to answer your questions about if the speed limit passes:
If you operate your boat at idle, in gear, the bow will be down enough to see properly and you'll be well below the proposed speed limit and operating safely, efficiently and legally.Not going to happen because of the high cost of fuel and I can't afford to waste it.

If you operate at 24 MPH with the bow blocking your forward vision, you'll be legally staying below the speed limit, but not very safe, and you'll be wasting a bunch of fuel.Also not going to happen because of the safety issue and the cost of fuel that I cannot afford to waste.

If you operate at 26 MPH with the bow down, and light conditions allow you to do this safely, you'll be doing the smartest thing, but breaking the law.If my memory serves me correctly, my boat must be moving approx. 32mph to stay on plane and that's with my trim tabs ALL THE WAY DOWN. I'm not sure I'd even do this because I can't afford the speeding ticket on my license. But let me ask you this; how many people do you think actually ALWAYS travel at the posted speed limits on land (30, 35, 45, 65, etc.)? Most of the time, I'm travelling at 5mph above the posted limit and I've done it either in front of or behind the police travelling in the same direction with me or passing by in the opposite direction with no hand gesture to slow down.

If you have a boat that can't plane below 25 MPH, you still can operate at night safely and legally, it's just not much fun.
Correct and the pro-limit people will have won and taken away my freedom of enjoying my leisure time the way I want to.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

This quote from the Radar Thread (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64136#post64136)
I have been totally honest here. Yet whenever I mention the fact that I have had high speed boats violate my 150 foot zone - because they were apparently going too fast to see me in time - {snip} I have never twisted anything, yet I have been repeatedly accused of doing do. The truth is that some operators travel faster then their ability to see smaller boats in time to stay out of the 150 foot zone. I've seen this happen way too much.

Evenstar, you have consistently claimed that your 150' space is violated by boaters who CAN NOT SEE you due to their excessive speed. I have no doubt that you honestly feel that way. One fallacy is that many of these boaters may actually see you and just not care. Another is that it's primarily boaters going over 45 mph that can not see you soon enough to avoid your 150' zone.

Boaters have violated my 150' space going much slower than 45 mph and some are Go Fast boats that aren't going over 45mph. My 24' cruiser is not low in the water and it's easy to see. I conclude that these violators don't know or care about the 150' rule. I'm up high enough so I can often see that they see me. This is an education and enforcement issue, not a speed problem.

Why do you not address the main theme of your fear - Boaters INABILITY TO SEE WELL. Where is it required that boaters have good vision? Why are you seemingly unconcerned about that?

As an extreme example of my point: What prevents a legally BLIND person from taking the helm of ANY recreational boat on Winnie? At 30 or 50 mph it really won't make much difference if they can't see well in the first place. Even if they see well enough to have a driver's license it may not be good enough in my opinion.

I won't use this un-retouched picture to bolster my point but I can tell you that the Captain of this cat did not see the boy or his OCEAN KAYAK less than 20' away!! Plus now I know what an Ocean Kayak looks like. :)

[Evenstar]

This quote from the Radar Thread (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64136#post64136)
Evenstar, you have consistently claimed that your 150' space is violated by boaters who CAN NOT SEE you due to their excessive speed. I have no doubt that you honestly feel that way. One fallacy is that many of these boaters may actually see you and just not care. Another is that it's primarily boaters going over 45 mph that can not see you soon enough to avoid your 150' zone.
The speed limit will not prevent all unsafe behavior on the lake - and I've never sugested that it would.

But I do know that some power boat operators travel faster then their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of the 150 foot zone. I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time - it's the faster boats that are the problem in this situation - and a speed limit will in my opinion make this less likely to result in a serious accident.

People do intentionally violate the 150 foot rule all the time, but the violation of one law does not negate the need for a different law. Perhaps we do need a vision test as well. There's a great deal that can be done to make boating safer - in my opinion the speed limit is one of the needed steps in making the lake(s) safer for everyone.

[Mashugana]

This quote from the Radar Thread (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64136#post64136)

Where is it required that boaters have good vision? Why are you seemingly unconcerned about that?

As an extreme example of my point: What prevents a legally BLIND person from taking the helm of ANY recreational boat on Winnie? At 30 or 50 mph it really won't make much difference if they can't see well in the first place. Even if they see well enough to have a driver's license it may not be good enough in my opinion.

Interesting thoughts Skipper. How would a vision check be put in place? Eyesight testing does not seem practical.

You can put speed limits in place but you won't see vision tests as you have for driver's licenses. Speed limit proponents feel that their method is the most practical for that feel good feeling.

the Captain of this cat did not see the boy or his OCEAN KAYAK less than 20' away!! Plus now I know what an Ocean Kayak looks like. :)

Sails can block vision but at sailing speed the kayaker could blow the whistle or yell to the catamaran to alert people to his position. That sail catamaran is lucky to get 10 mph so speed limits would not make any difference here.

How could you deal with any vision requirement for boaters?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

How could you deal with any vision requirement for boaters?
Since there are special licenses and testing for motorcycles, commercial trucks (different classes of licenses for different classes of trucks), etc., perhaps it's time for a real license for operation of a boat. A vision test could be administered at the time the license is issued or renewed. All fees generated from a boat license could be directed solely to the Marine Patrol to increase their staff. Mandate that if the boat owner lives out-of-state but registers their boat in NH, they MUST have the NH boat license. Then, find a way to mandate those visiting from out-of-state have something similar showing that they KNOW the boating laws of NH and know how to operate a boat safely. That last one would probably be the toughest one to implement.

At the very least, in lieu of an actual license, maybe all boaters should be required to take a refresher of the boater safety course every 5 years or so.

We all know ignorance of the law is no excuse but if anyone wants to be ignorant, just don't let them operate a boat!

[Mee-n-Mac]

{snip} At the very least, in lieu of an actual license, maybe all boaters should be required to take a refresher of the boater safety course every 5 years or so.

We all know ignorance of the law is no excuse but if anyone wants to be ignorant, just don't let them operate a boat!

I like the idea above. I've said it before, the problem with a 1 time test is that it's all too easy to "cram" for the test and then flush whatever knowledge that might be retained, away. Repeated testing is like the old school style of rote learning, repeat, repeat, repeat until the knowledge sinks in. I bet everyone my age got the multiplication tables stuffed down their throats until they gagged. I also bet most can do simple math in their heads today as a result. I bet that even Capt B would remember the more important rules if he was forced to repeat them ad naseum.

Whether that would make a difference can be debated.

2 x 4 = ?? Anyone .... ;)

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

2 x 4 = ?? Anyone .... ;)

I know this one Mac

2 x 4 = an almost 2" by an almost 4" piece of lumber of various lengths often used in construction. a 2 by 4. Do I get 100 on this one teach'? :laugh:

P.S. I used to get a lot of A's on my report card... I think they were mostly A for Absent though...


RE testing: I agree with you MnM and Wolfeboro_Baja. Plus you don't need to be a professor to know that regular testing (including vision checks) is not a bad idea.

[winnidiver]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/512/medium/604Alton_Duck_8-64.jpgI have read all the speed limit debate.I have come to the conclusion that we don't need speed limits.
I think what we are all talking about is bad operators and bigger boats.There are way more boats than there use to be and they are bigger.It makes the lake seem more crowded than it is. A 30' boat going by at 25 seems a lot faster and more dangerous then a 16' boat at the same distance and speed. A lot of 25 to 30 foot boats in a smaller area makes people feel uncomfitable ,even if you are in a similar sized boat.
I put up a picture from another thread to show what I mean.That was Alton in the seventies. Back then there were not many boats over 20'.The bay seemed bigger then.
There is nothing we can do about more and bigger boats.But we can all set a example in our boating and encourage the state to do more enforcement.
I think that is the real problem,better enforcement of the laws costs money.Passing a new law to appease the people who are complaining cost nothing.

[parrothead]

I have spent that last two days at lunch reading through all of these posts. And after reading the posts from both sides of the issue, I don't think a speed limit is the answer to the problem. The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid. You become an obstruction on the highway even in the far right lane. A law is already on the books that says you should not operate your boat at an "excessive" speed. The middle of the Broads on a Tuesday and Meredith Bay on a Saturday call for different speed considerations. A Marine Patrol officer can stop you if you are operating your boat in a manner that can cause harm to you or your fellow boaters. The problem is that they can't be everywhere at all times, stopping every captain bone head. Excessive speed could be headway speed if you are coming into shore and there are other boats or swimmers in your area, or going 200 mph and weaving through other boat traffic. I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower. If you want to fight for something, then perhaps we should be trying to get more funding for boating safety. Just think what could have happened if both sides pooled all the money they used to lobby for this one bill, and used it to fund boater education, or providing a larger better trained Marine Patrol auxiliary. The likelihood of you doing something stupid decreases proportionately with your likelihood of getting caught. I pulled up and read though the USCG accident statistics that have been quoted many times during this discussion. While excessive speed is a cause of accidents/fatalities I find other statistics more frightening. The first is that "70% of reported fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction." Second that the leading cause of fatalities is alcohol related fatalities. And finally that the leading cause of accidents is operator inattentiveness. These are education/enforcement issues, and not based on anything else. So why isn't there a big push or outcry for education and enforcement? I just don't get it. I guess I am just naive, but I am most "afraid" of the boater that doesn't know what they are doing, or drunk. Because they can cause harm at any speed.

[fatlazyless]

Hey Parrothead...maybe not where you drive, but here in the NH lakes region, the speed limits on the roads are definately enforced. Every single day, I always see those blue lights at work, with another car stopped for something, and it's my guess it is usually for speeding.

On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that.

Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark.. :D

[parrothead]

FLL, I guess we have different experiences, but I did think out my remarks and still stand by them. I still believe that a speed limit will just be one more regulation that capt. bone head will disregard. I still believe that the Marine Patrol does not have enough of a presence on the lake to adequately enforce it. I still believe that the biggest issue facing boater safety is that some boaters do not follow the existing laws. People drive while intoxicated, do not pay attention to where they are going, or get too close to other boats,swimmers, and land. I still stand the original premise of my post that boater education and more enforcement will make the lake safer, and that a speed limit will not make as big an impact.

[fatlazyless]

Well, in my opinion, it would just seem to me that sighting a hand held, radar, speed detector on a speeding 32' fiberglass hull from a distance of one quarter mile would be about as difficult as hitting a large barn with a snowball from thirty feet. The surface and angular design of a fiberglass boat should easily be detected as it moves across the lake. It's about as non-stealthy as a moving object can be, plus there's the noise, wake, bright colors, lights, and rooster tail of water.

Add to this the speeder's 'fear factor' for getting dunned through their next three year's car insurance bill, no matter which state you call home.

......sorry....but that's the way I see it. :)

[michael c]

1 5/8 x 3 5/8

[Acres per Second]

"...The lack of regard and enforcement of the existing laws is the problem. Just like land speed limits are not followed, why would a boating speed limit be followed? Try going the exact speed limit on any highway, talk about feeling afraid..."
How many drivers in your example were at anchor? :confused:

A driver can't legally stop in Interstate traffic, but boaters can travel at less than 70-, 75-, or even 10-MPH. Boaters have been endangered when legally stopped!

BTW: The Marine Patrol's Speed Survey arrived at their "average" by including boats traveling under 10-MPH.

[Mark]

I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time -

Ms. Evenstar's justification for her zealous desire for a speed limit is based on surprised reactions by those who see her. I can speak only for myself but I know some others think like I do and I look surprised when I see some females. Be they very cute or the extreme opposite and sometimes in-between I would look surprised when I see them. Did we not have a thread about nude kayakers recently? If I got close enough to see the persons features I would look surprised even if I saw the kayak more than 150 feet away. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from your observation which you claim is your basis for speed limits.

I would not expect an ocean kayak like this to be in the broads during a windy busy weekend. There should be a law about that.

Here it looks like the boat is going to hit the kid. The captain did not see the kayak. The kid did not appear to notice the boat probably because a slow sailboat doesn't make noise like a GFBL boat. Fortunately the boat in this picture is not going fast due to the laws of physics not government.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1730&stc=1&d=1204119647 Why would you want to paddle one of these Ocean Kayaks across the broads in heavy weather? It's your choice but does not seem wise.

Perhaps we do need a vision test as well. There's a great deal that can be done to make boating safer - in my opinion the speed limit is one of the needed steps in making the lake(s) safer for everyone.

Perhaps we need a vision test? perhaps? You are concerned about being seen that you demand speed limits but are not so concerned about vision qualifications?

:confused: Is it just me or does this not make sense?

I was for speed limits originally but reviewing all the information presented in these threads I have switched sides. There is no need for speed limits on the lake. Enforce the ones we have and educate the boaters.

[chipj29]

On Route 93, trucks or cars going over 70 definately get stopped, conditions permitting. And, on more local roads, ditto that.

Your premise, or supposition, at the start of your argument is simple ' not so' , so maybe you want to go back and rethink the entire remark.. :D
I strongly disagree with this statement. On I-93, at least from MA up to Concord, 75 is the norm. Yes, I am sure that some cars that travel over 70 get stopped. But those are the guys who are driving recklessly. Swerving in and out of lanes etc. Drive 75 in the left lane, and it is unlikely you will be stopped.

[fatlazyless]

My use of Route 93 is pretty much from exit 20 to exit 42 and that's of what I speak. On Friday evenings, the traffic is probably ten-twenty times heavier than on a tuesday at 10am.

With speed enforcement, It's sort of like duck hunting....a flock of 20 fly past....and maybe one gets hit.

There's a well known speed trap at the south end of Franconia Notch on Rt 93-south, where the road signs are all brown indicating a parkway. The road returns from one lane to two, it's supports a 70mph speed but the limit is still 45mph until you get to the next sign that says 65mph.

Basically, there's usually no crowds of traffic.....it's cruise control country.

It seems like with less traffic and a more empty route 93, the traffic settles on 65-70tops, and people drive a lot more polite.

The state police & highway patrol stake it out behind the snowbanks, or blending into the woods, and with not much traffic, a speeder is like a sitting duck.

Last time I was stopped for speeding was over three years ago, by a Thornton officer, who cut me a break, and lowered my offense by one level. It takes three years, here in NH, for a regular class 3 license, to get "safe' again with your ins co. Do not know how long it takes for a cdl-a to get "safe' again, and do not want to find out.

[Bear Islander]

.... I don't know how passing this speed limit is actually going to change the behavior on the lake. The Capt. Bonehead that will speed by you within 150 feet, is not going to suddenly become the perfect boater because you tell him to do it slower....

Perhaps I can explain how it can work..

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior. The fact that some will ignore that standard, is not a reason to have no standards at all. Right now are standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS. That is not an appropriate standard for an already crowded lake.

Further, I maintain that most people are law abiding.

[KonaChick]

I'm sure Capt. Bonehead's wife will have a huge impact on his boating purchases....it's worked for years on our highways and roads. :rolleye2:

[hazelnut]

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

How does that work now? So when more and more lakes enact limits they'll what? Drive to Michigan and launch? What about all the people who call the lake home and own these boats?

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

When did you determine that the go fast drivers=Captain Boneheads? I thought we mostly agreed that Captain Boneheads encompass all types of boats. Most notably the rental boats and the small affordable runabout crowd most likely has a larger percentage of Captain Boneheads. What are we doing to shun them from operating on the lake. If anything the lake will be more appealing to the novice if you use your logic. Less "scary" = open invite to the rookie captain.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Based on a scientific study? :emb:

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior.

We have SEVERAL standards of behavior. They are ignored. Just like this speed limit will be ignored.

.... Right now are[sic] standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS.

Talk about spin. There ARE speed limits on the lake. The 150ft law dictates speed as do the plethora of No Wake Zones. Marine Patrol has many reasons to pull someone over for excessive speed based on CURRENT LAW!

I maintain that most people are law abiding.

I do too. However, most people do travel on I-93 over the posted Speed Limit. By most people I mean the majority.

[fatlazyless]

NH has tens and maybe hundreds of smaller lakes, and whenever some neighbor shows up with a new 'go-fast boat,' the neighbors all whisper to each other....psssst....that big fast boat...it don't belong on this little lake...that fruitloop should trailer it over to Winnipesaukee and leave it there.....until Captain Fruitloop sooner or later gets the neighborly message and takes it to the Big Lake.

Therefore, all the problemo, go-fast be-loud, boats end up on the Big Lake.

Verdict: the Big Lake needs and wants a speed limit.

After consulting with Judge Judy, this case is closed.....I have spoken!~! Please exit the courtroom on opposite sides of the room. Thanks and have a nice day! :D

[codeman671]

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"


The average Captain Bonehead is not driving a few hundred thousand dollar GFBL, he/she is driving a 21' bowrider, small cruiser, rental boat, pontoon, or jet ski. I think that the average performance boat owner has more respect for their boat and the laws. There are certainly exceptions to any rule, and in this case it is the drunk ones that usually offend. You do not have to drive a GFBL to get drunk and kill someone, I could get loaded and flatten someone in my pontoon boat.

I would be happy to provide my boat for an afternoon to do our own survey of who the offenders really are. An hour at Glendale, an hour by Bear and an hour by the Weirs on a busy weekend would be all that we would need to see the gross disregard of the existing laws.

I do agree that a speed limit would limit my choice of boats if I was shopping in the GF market. I have wanted to pick one up for a few years now and decided against it for the possibility of a speed limit. It would be stupid to spend $100k+ if there is a chance the law will happen. The performance boat market in this area is hurting badly so there are plenty of deals out there but come resale time you will feel it.

Since the proposed law is Winnipesaukee only, maybe the GFBL's will redirect to Winnisquam, Ossipee, or other bodies where I am sure they would be certainly welcome... :)

[Bear Islander]

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean.

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Some wives get their way!

[codeman671]

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

Some wives get their way!

We are not missing your points, we just don't see eye to eye.. Why try to ban a few Captain Boneheads though when the true efforts should be to put in place preventative measures and/or training that will help deal with the overwhelming remaining 95%???


The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Agreed, although I disagree with the standard in general, not the fact that it will be ignored. It is the fact that it is not needed that is my issue. The basis for it is simply not there.

[parrothead]

Perhaps I can explain how it can work..

There are thousands of Capt. Boneheads and future Capt. Boneheads out there. When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.

Not having ANY speed limit is like a big sign on the lake "Welcome Capt. Bonehead". I want out lake to be the one they shun, not the one they congregate at.

Also many Capt. Boneheads have wives, wives that will stand in a boat showroom and ask "why are we spending an extra $100,000.00 on a boat that will go 90 when the speed limit is 45?"

Having a speed limit sets a standard of behavior. The fact that some will ignore that standard, is not a reason to have no standards at all. Right now are standard, with respect to speed, is NO LIMITS. That is not an appropriate standard for an already crowded lake.

Further, I maintain that most people are law abiding.

I agree that most people are law abiding. But I still feel, and this is my opinion here, that many folks out there are breaking laws/regulations that they don't even know about. I think this is supported by the 70% of accidents that occur are by uneducated (to the rules of the water) boaters. Now I also want to say that the speed limit isn't really an issue that will affect my boating. My family's boat runs the most economical from 25 - 30 mph where it just gets on plane and that is where we run it. I am more concerned that the speed limit issue is getting so much hype that other safety issues on the lake are being swept under the rug. The main one being that some boaters are operating their boats in a manner that can harm others. Now that maybe going too fast, or not paying attention to their surroundings, or drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Why is it that no one is up in arms about this issue? Why aren't we spending time trying to provide more education and enforcement to educate boaters on the laws we already have. The speed of a boat does not equal safety. A guy going headway speed playing with the radio could run over a swimmer. And a boat exceeding 45 mph in the broads where there are no other boats around them is not excessive. While a boat going 45 mph in Meredith bay on a Saturday with many boats around them is excessive. I guess after reading all the posts and information I could find over the last few days, I just don't see how regulating speed is going to help. I do think somehow getting more funding available for education/ and enforcement will help. I know form past posts that many have have complained about their run-ins with Marine Patrol, me included. But an increased enforcement presence would be more likely to put a dent in boaters operating "excessively" than a speed limit. And provide a safer environment for everyone to enjoy the lake.

[Bear Islander]

.... Why try to ban a few Captain Boneheads though when the true efforts should be to put in place preventative measures and/or training that will help deal with the overwhelming remaining 95%??? ...



I agree that most people are law abiding. ..... I do think somehow getting more funding available for education/ and enforcement will help.....

The old "let's have more training, education and enforcement" argument is a good one, except that IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

Those ideas all cost a lot of money, so once again IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

Speed limits are an imperfect solution. However they cost little to nothing and they ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

A partial solution that will in fact be implemented is preferable to better solutions that will not be implemented.

Instead of hacking away at speed limits perhaps you people should sit down and write legislation that will provide more education, training and increased numbers of MP officers. I'll tell you why you are not doing that, because you know it will never, never, never, get anywhere.



An additional argument is that Boneheads can be very resistant to education and training. The do respond well to things like a summons or handcuffs.

[KonaChick]

Once again the arguments against what I have posted miss the point.

You can't get rid of all the Capt. Boneheads, the idea is to get rid of a few.

Every car sold in the US will go 90 mph. With boats it's different, an extra 10mph can double the price.

They don't need to drive to lake Michigan. Long Lake in Maine is very close. So is the Atlantic Ocean.

The argument that we should not set a standard because some will ignore it is absurd. Murder is committed every day, does that mean it should be legal. An insane argument!

Some wives get their way!


Are you certain we're all missing your points or are your points simply so transparent they're difficult to see? ;)

[hazelnut]

....I am more concerned that the speed limit issue is getting so much hype that other safety issues on the lake are being swept under the rug. The main one being that some boaters are operating their boats in a manner that can harm others. Now that maybe going too fast, or not paying attention to their surroundings, or drinking too much and getting behind the wheel. Why is it that no one is up in arms about this issue? Why aren't we spending time trying to provide more education and enforcement to educate boaters on the laws we already have. The speed of a boat does not equal safety. A guy going headway speed playing with the radio could run over a swimmer. And a boat exceeding 45 mph in the broads where there are no other boats around them is not excessive. While a boat going 45 mph in Meredith bay on a Saturday with many boats around them is excessive....


Very well put Parrothead I could not agree with you more!!!! This law will change NOTHING in terms of idiots/drunks/carelessness etc.

[BroadHopper]

Interesting Debate

Just letting everyone and to join those that agree. I agree with Parrothead. The current laws are sufficient for safe boating.

[trfour]

Adding a speed limit would be ludicrous... Putting teeth into the laws that are already on the books, makes much more sense to me.

Such as;

1. Vision and hearing Test

2. Handling and Driving Test

3.Boating certification Test, and on all copies of the above and including final in hand certificate in large letters, " Being found guilty of any offence related to boating safety brings a mandatory one month confiscation of the boat involved. And if the boat involved just happens to be a Rental, or not owned by the operator, So Be It-First Offence, and no exclusions. And I don't care if you know The President Of The United States.




Caught on the portible Weirs Bridge Cam awhile back

[parrothead]

An additional argument is that Boneheads can be very resistant to education and training. The do respond well to things like a summons or handcuffs.

I agree, who is going to provide the handcuffs and summons? The Marine Patrol and auxiliary are already spread too thin to patrol all the bodies of water in NH. Without enforcement of the speed limit, how is it going to be any more effective than the 150' rule, or excessive speed? I am naive, but not naive enough to believe that just because a law exists, that it will change everyones behavior. There are always a subset that will push the limits and the laws as they do now. And that is what the speed limit is aiming towards a small subset of the boating community. A Marine Patrol boat stationed somewhere with a radar gun will change the behavior of the boats around them, but what's to stop someone from speeding up once they are out of site. Regardless of the speed limit, I would imagine the presence of a Marine Patrol boat would cause everyone to be more cautious anyway. I am not really "hacking" at speed limits, as I said I don't really care one way or the other. I don't think that the speed of boats on Winni is the biggest issue facing a boater on Winni. And that the boating public's scourn should be more focused on the drunk boater, or the boater putting themselves and others in danger by not knowing what they are doing. Just my opinion, and I don't imagine it will change any views, but it seems that all this energy to get this one bill passed may have been better spent on other bigger issues.

[brk-lnt]

When choosing a lake to torment they are less likely to pick one with a 45/25 speed limit. As more and more lakes enact speed limits these Captains will tend toward the ones without speed limits.



Your logic is really quite laughable here. The same people that are either blissfully ignorant, or purposefully ignorant, of other boating laws are suddenly going to be intimidated by a speed limit law, and factor this into their consideration of where to boat?

I'm relatively new to Winnipesaukee (but not boating), if it wasn't for this forum and all the speed limit threads, I'm not sure that I'd even be aware of the great speed limit debate. Someone who doesn't even care to use courtesy and common sense in the first place is hardly likely to do some in-depth study on where they want to go boating, the likelihood of a speed limit law actually deterring anyone is about nil.

The boats on the lake that can actually top 45MPH are really a minority, and even the ones that can top that speed don't necessarily do so on a regular basis. This is truly a solution looking for a problem, no matter how valiantly you try to position it.

The speed limit law, if it passes, will solve no problems, nor will it discourage the types of boaters that you don't like from coming to the lake. Being a moderately sized inland lake, Winni is the perfect Captain Bonehead magnet. All the people who want/can afford big boats, but couldn't actually handle such a craft in truly "big" water love to putter around Winni in relative safety.

Further, if more lakes enact this law, the people who really want to go fast are probably MORE likely to come to Winnipesaukee (larger body of water, more places to go fast, harder to patrol).

This debate rages on, and I've stayed out of it for the most part, but my prediction is that if it passes you won't really be able to determine a season without a speed limit from a season with a speed limit, if your measure is overall safety and comfort on the lake.

[Islander]

I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com

Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee.

"I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!"

Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine.

Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.

[hazelnut]

I have been checking the posts on the anti Winnipesaukee speed limit thread on offshoreonly.com

Analyze This owner of a 42' Fountain Lightning posted this about speed limits on Winnipesaukee.

"I've boated on Winni for the past 10 years...pulling the boat out of the lake this year and dropping it in the Ocean down the cape. Going to miss the lake though...great times!"

Some of the posters there are unhappy because the "Poker Runs" (unofficial races) have been moved to Sebago Lake in Maine.

Anybody want to tell me again how speed limits are not going to make the lake better. GFBL's are already leaving because they know the No Limits party on Winnipesaukee is over.


Re-Read the thread... This time read it carefully. Note: The GFBL boaters are NOT the problem. We are discussing the fact that the amature/ignorant/careless/captain bonehead comes in all shapes and sizes, most notably the family runabout. So what we lose a few GFBL's and that's the magic pill. *POOF* Winni is safe now. LAUGHABLE:laugh:

[Islander]

Your logic is really quite laughable here. The same people that are either blissfully ignorant, or purposefully ignorant, of other boating laws are suddenly going to be intimidated by a speed limit law, and factor this into their consideration of where to boat?

I'm relatively new to Winnipesaukee (but not boating), if it wasn't for this forum and all the speed limit threads, I'm not sure that I'd even be aware of the great speed limit debate. Someone who doesn't even care to use courtesy and common sense in the first place is hardly likely to do some in-depth study on where they want to go boating, the likelihood of a speed limit law actually deterring anyone is about nil.


Re-read yourself Hazenut. The post above mine thought nobody was going to leave because of a speed limit.

You yourself had the Lake Michigan comment. But now the facts are in. GFBL's are leaving because of speed limits that have no even passed yet. Get ready for a big exodus and more peaceful Lake Winnipesaukee!!

You should go to that thread and read what they really think about speed limits and all of us.

[Bear Islander]

Re-Read the thread... This time read it carefully. Note: The GFBL boaters are NOT the problem. We are discussing the fact that the amature/ignorant/careless/captain bonehead comes in all shapes and sizes, most notably the family runabout. So what we lose a few GFBL's and that's the magic pill. *POOF* Winni is safe now. LAUGHABLE:laugh:

Entering Spin cycle

Who says GFBLs are not the problem?

We have been talking about performance boats all along.





So do you admit now that performce boats will be leaving?

[hazelnut]

ARGGGGGGGGHHHHHH

Seriously Bear Islander? SERIOUSLY??!?!?!

Do I really need to spell every little tiny detail out to you. I am guilty of one thing only and that is giving YOU any shred of credit to be able to read and understand meaning behind a message. Ok so here you go I'll explain it out the long way just for you!!!

We were all discussing that a Speed Limit solves nothing because the bad behavior on the lake has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED! We had all discussed earlier that by removing GFBL boats we solve NOTHING. I had said in SEVERAL posts before that I do not own a GFBL boat and I don't care either way about them. MY POINT IS and ALWAYS WILL BE that by enacting a law BASED ON NO FACT is not the answer. Islander claims that the lake will be "getting better" because GFBL boats are going to leave... I DO NOT AGREE that they will. HOWEVER if and IF they do it makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of safety on the lake. The boneheads will still be left behind in their wake to cause HAVOC and continue to ignore the RULES THAT EXIST.

Besides, You REALLY think that by GFBL boats leaving the lake all of a sudden the lake is going to be safer????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::

Entering Spin cycle
Who says GFBLs are not the problem?
We have been talking about performance boats all along.
So do you admit now that performce boats will be leaving?

By the way I do AGREE with you on one point you DID enter spin cycle on that last post.

[Skip]

Since I started this thread originally about comments that Lt. Dunleavy made in a "letter to the editor" many, many moons ago; can I ask if anyone has anything new to add in reference to that?

Otherwise most of what has gone on here for the last week or two (or three)is regurgitation of a lot of stale arguments.

Yeah, I know....if I don't like, it ignore it. However I have tremendous respect for both this website and its webmaster and am cognizant that many folks visit this site and its threads as guests...many times first time guests. I would hate for them to stumble onto some of these very lengthy and often nasty diatribes and think that it is representative of all of the great folks (and topics)that populate these and all the other threads.

We're not changing anyone's minds here folks!

So, does anyone have anything new and to the point? :)

[Evenstar]

We were all discussing that a Speed Limit solves nothing because the bad behavior on the lake has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED!
I totally disagree with your statement. Bad behavior becomes extremely dangerous behavior when you add high speed. When someone violates my 150 foot zone at low speeds, it is much less dangerous than when this happens at high speeds.

Just because no paddler has been killed or hurt by a high speed powerboat is not proof that high speed boats are not creating a dangerous problem on the lake. No agency keeps track of close calls. So we have no way of knowing how often high speed close calls happen. It's been my experience that they happen way too often.

I have had close calls with high-speed boats on Winni (that were going faster then 45 and that came way closer than 150 feet from me). Others have stated that they have had similar close calls. And here is a hard fact: The faster you are going, the further you will travel in the time that it takes you to react. That is a safety issue.

For me and for many others this is ONLY about safety. Yet when I state my reasons here, I'm accused of exaggerating or even of lying, or my posts are just ignored. I'm told that I must not be a very good judge of speed or of distance (when I happen to be an excellent judge of both).

Besides, You REALLY think that by GFBL boats leaving the lake all of a sudden the lake is going to be safer?
Speed limits do make lakes safer. With all else being equal, slower speeds are safer than faster speeds - that's a fact. And I've seen the effect of a speed limit on Squam - which is NH's 2nd largest lake.

I have only spoken to 4 MPs about a lake speed limit law, but all 4 wanted a lake speed limit. When that previous bill was in the House (which would have enacted a speed limit on all NH waters) I also spoke with 2 Coast Guard officers, and they both were in favor of the bill. Both the MP and the CG members told me that they saw a speed limit law as a "necessary tool".

The speed limit will not prevent all unsafe behavior on the lake, but the violation of other laws does not negate the need for a different law. And I do know from personal experience that some power boat operators travel faster than their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of the 150 foot zone. I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time - it's the faster boats that are the problem in this situation - and a speed limit will in my opinion make this less likely to result in a serious accident.

[brk-lnt]

Re-read yourself Hazenut. The post above mine thought nobody was going to leave because of a speed limit.



Re-read my post that you quote, I did not say "nobody was going to leave", I said that a speed limit wouldn't discourage ( or measurably reduce ) the types of boaters that you want off of the lake.

Your quote of one example from another forum proves no points.

[hazelnut]

Since I started this thread originally about comments that Lt. Dunleavy made in a "letter to the editor" many, many moons ago; can I ask if anyone has anything new to add in reference to that?

Otherwise most of what has gone on here for the last week or two (or three)is regurgitation of a lot of stale arguments.

Yeah, I know....if I don't like, it ignore it. However I have tremendous respect for both this website and its webmaster and am cognizant that many folks visit this site and its threads as guests...many times first time guests. I would hate for them to stumble onto some of these very lengthy and often nasty diatribes and think that it is representative of all of the great folks (and topics)that populate these and all the other threads.

We're not changing anyone's minds here folks!

So, does anyone have anything new and to the point? :)

So true.... I'm done. I think I've said all I need to say. The original thought on this thread was in reference to Mr. Dunleavy, I sent him a lengthy email quite some time ago in support of his efforts. That was the most important thing I wrote in the last month.


Honestly I would like to apologize to anyone who might have thought my posts to be "over the line." I get very passionate about "stuff" and I get so amped up. I would really really like to meet up with some of you, including and especially you Bear Islander and have a beer and discuss. I really am one of those people who just get passionate and involved with whatever I feel is important to me. I really think that we all have the same passion and love for the lake. We just have different ideas on how to make it better. Bear Islander I do appreciate your love of the lake and what you do with the cams and stuff.... I also know a Speed Limit is probably inevitable at this point but I do not have to like it!

[Evenstar]

Ms. Evenstar's justification for her zealous desire for a speed limit is based on surprised reactions by those who see her. I can speak only for myself but I know some others think like I do and I look surprised when I see some females. Be they very cute or the extreme opposite and sometimes in-between I would look surprised when I see them. Did we not have a thread about nude kayakers recently? If I got close enough to see the persons features I would look surprised even if I saw the kayak more than 150 feet away. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from your observation which you claim is your basis for speed limits.
I can tell ogling surprise from the surprise of suddenly realizing that they are about to run me over (and they have been close enough for me to see their eyes). I've offered to take anyone of you out kayaking on the lake anytime (well once I'm off crutches and finished with this semester) - then perhaps others here would understand why I'm so zealous for a speed limit (for all NH lakes).

Here it looks like the boat is going to hit the kid. The captain did not see the kayak. The kid did not appear to notice the boat probably because a slow sailboat doesn't make noise like a GFBL boat. Fortunately the boat in this picture is not going fast due to the laws of physics not government.
I'm also a collegiate sailor (my team is currently rated 8th in North America). It is the sailor's responsibility to know what is on the other side of the sails at all times. We wouldn't win many races if we didn't keep an eye on the other boats at all times. So the "captain" of that boat is an idiot, if he didn't see the kid.

Why would you want to paddle one of these Ocean Kayaks across the broads in heavy weather? It's your choice but does not seem wise.
That is not a sea kayak. Just because the manufacture slapped the words "Ocean Kayak" on it does not make it one. Other than speeding boats that don't see me, there is nothing dangerous about an experience sea kayaker, with the proper equipment, crossing the broads on a windy (within reason of course) day. 2 and 3 foot waves are not a big problem for an experienced sea kayaker, with the right equipment.

Perhaps we need a vision test? perhaps? You are concerned about being seen that you demand speed limits but are not so concerned about vision qualifications?
My point was that this is a discussion about the need for a speed limit. A vision test is a totally separate issue - which would require another law. And I don't know enough about the ability to implement and enforce a vision test requirement to intelligently discuss this. Again the need for other laws does not negate the need for a speed limit law.

I was for speed limits originally but reviewing all the information presented in these threads I have switched sides. There is no need for speed limits on the lake. Enforce the ones we have and educate the boaters.
Come kayaking with me, and you may just switch sides again. The 4 MP officers that I have spoken with all want a lake speed limit law - they see high speed on our lakes as a problem. I agree with them.

[chipj29]

We were all discussing that a Speed Limit solves nothing because the bad behavior on the lake has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED! We had all discussed earlier that by removing GFBL boats we solve NOTHING. I had said in SEVERAL posts before that I do not own a GFBL boat and I don't care either way about them. MY POINT IS and ALWAYS WILL BE that by enacting a law BASED ON NO FACT is not the answer. Islander claims that the lake will be "getting better" because GFBL boats are going to leave... I DO NOT AGREE that they will. HOWEVER if and IF they do it makes NO DIFFERENCE in terms of safety on the lake. The boneheads will still be left behind in their wake to cause HAVOC and continue to ignore the RULES THAT EXIST.

Besides, You REALLY think that by GFBL boats leaving the lake all of a sudden the lake is going to be safer????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::



By the way I do AGREE with you on one point you DID enter spin cycle on that last post.

My last post on this:
The goal of the speed limit proponents is not to make the lake safer by correcting the poor boating behavior. The goal is to get rid of the GFBLs. Period.

[Dick]

Supporters of the boat speed restriction bill often state that Lake George, New York, is a prime example of how well boat speed limits work. Really? A 202 page research report was published in 2006 concerning boating on Lake George. In part this report stated, “67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.” Evidently the speed limit has not solved the concerns of the lakeshore property owners. Nor did the speed limit prevent the tragic deaths of 25 senior citizens on a small tour boat two seasons ago . . . that was precipitated by a boat wake. Nor did it prevent the death of that young man who ran into a diving board off a dock with his boat. You can’t compare Lake George with Winnipesaukee . . . their configuration is completely different. New Hampshire has a 150 foot Safe Passage law on her waters. Lake George does not have such a rule.

If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.

[Bear Islander]

...If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.

Top me that is an indication that the Lake George speed limit is working! Enforcement does not seem to be a problem.


“67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.”


I'm surprised the percentage is so low. Unsafe operation of boats is a problem everywhere.

Nobody has claimed that a speed limit will stop unsafe operation of boats. Anybody that does make that claim is a liar or an idiot.

[Island Lover]

Supporters of the boat speed restriction bill often state that Lake George, New York, is a prime example of how well boat speed limits work. Really? A 202 page research report was published in 2006 concerning boating on Lake George. In part this report stated, “67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.” Evidently the speed limit has not solved the concerns of the lakeshore property owners. Nor did the speed limit prevent the tragic deaths of 25 senior citizens on a small tour boat two seasons ago . . . that was precipitated by a boat wake. Nor did it prevent the death of that young man who ran into a diving board off a dock with his boat. You can’t compare Lake George with Winnipesaukee . . . their configuration is completely different. New Hampshire has a 150 foot Safe Passage law on her waters. Lake George does not have such a rule.

If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.

If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

It's wondeful that 33% of the George residents think their lake is safe! After a few years with a speed limit I hope we can increase our percentage from 0% to 33%. That would be great.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

...If you read the annual reports from the Lake George Marine Patrol (8 boats & 8 officers) you will not find any mention of the use of radar or court cases.To(p) me that is an indication that the Lake George speed limit is working! Enforcement does not seem to be a problem.
Strange; I understood that to mean they weren't using radar. How can you enforce a speed limit without using radar?


67 percent of residential dock owners and 65 percent of annual permit holders said that unsafe operation of boats was a problem on the lake.I'm surprised the percentage is so low. Unsafe operation of boats is a problem everywhere.
Low?? I was thinking that was high, considering they have a speed limit which should make more people "feel" safe.

[Seaplane Pilot]

If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

Everyone repeat after me: Unsafe operation of boats does not automatically equate to speed. Speed does not automatically equate to unsafe operation of boats.

[Neanderthal Thunder]

We're not changing anyone's minds here folks!


Check out the second post on the day you posted. :cool:

[Steveo]

I don't get it...this Post has 243 responses...What a topic!

[Mee-n-Mac]

{snip}Speed limits do make lakes safer. With all else being equal, slower speeds are safer than faster speeds - that's a fact. {snip}

How much ? How much safer ? As the survey shows and is apparent to those of us who boat on the lake, the number of boats exceeding 45 is small. The majority of bonehead encounters occur at speeds under the proposed limit and therefore won't be affected by the presence or absense of a speed limt. The increase in safety (more below) is going to be minimal at best.

As for safety being increased with lower speeds, OK, but why not 35 or 25 or 10 mph ? Certainly these would all be safer than 45 mph. Why not those limits ? Why not a night-time limit of NWS ? It's done on other lakes. Why not ... because safety is not the be all and end all of considerations when it comes to using the lake ... or anything else. Speed limits on RT93 aren't set to make it as safe as possible w/o consideration for anything else otherwise we'd see them around 35 or so. I can understand your desire to feel safer but at what cost, what limitations for others ? You want what you want, "they" want what they want and frankly I don't see why I should much care about either wants.

There are times and places where you can go "fast" and times and places where you can't. It seems a lot of the debate here has been framed around what the lowest common denominator of boater could/might do. That is we're now letting the worst drivers dictate what the rest of us should be legally allowed to do. It's been stated that Winni should have a speed limit to better catch drunk boaters. It's been stated the Littlefield's* actions that night somehow support a need for a speed limit. I'd laugh at both arguments where it not that the thinking behind them (as best as I can determine it) further perpetuates the LCD disease. What ever happened to the "reasonable man" line of thinking ? If we are to limit peoples actions, let's not limit what a "reasonable man" could do safely. So what can be expected from a "reasonable man" in Evenstar's situation ?

How far away on a typical day can "we" reasonably expect to see Evenstar in her kayak ? I don't know about you all but in 30 years of boating on Winni I've yet to fail to see a canoe or kayak at distances in excess of 1/2 mile or greater. Next time anyone finds themselves driving a car down a long, flat, straight road think about how far ahead you could see someone sitting in a kayak. For the moment I'll take 1/10 of a mile as the minimum distance that a person paying attention will see Evenstar in her kayak. Winnfabs states that a boat doing 80 mph might take over 300 ft to stop. Let me use 350 ft. Use their number for reaction time (1.5 secs, a pretty standard 85% number for these types things) and guess what, you're not run over. I'm not sure of their numbers for stopping distance but then again I've left out any manuvering that would certainly be done as well in such a situation. Does that make 80 mph OK ? I'm not saying that (based on this simple analysis) but the point is that at speeds well over 45 mph, a "reasonable man" isn't going to run you down. When boaters nearly miss you it isn't because their speed is so high they don't have a chance to react (unless your contention is that these boats were doing 80), it's for other reasons. They may think their distance from you is an acceptable one. Could be they weren't paying attention. Could be they're being malicious. Could be a bunch of other things (BUI among them) as well but none of them make 45 mph as being the proper limit.

Is there an upper limit on how fast a normal human, not Superman with super vision nor the Flash with super reaction speed, can go before he/she is risking other's life and limbs on even the best of boating days ? Of course. But it ain't 45. Until the discussion starts to revolve around facts and reason vs wants, I'll just keep wondering about what kind of "free" world we'll be leaving to the next generation. :rolleye2:


*Do I have to debunk this bunk again ? :eek2:

ps - If you want to substitute "reasonable person" for "reasonable man" ... go ahead, I'm just not very PC at this moment. :devil:

[Mee-n-Mac]

If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

It's wondeful that 33% of the George residents think their lake is safe! After a few years with a speed limit I hope we can increase our percentage from 0% to 33%. That would be great.

Hmmm, what would the relative percentages be if I offered up this question :

Unsafe operation of boats is a

major
middling
minor

problem on Winnipesaukee. {pick one}

Then also let me ask (as well) but substitute the word rude for unsafe. What would the result be I wonder. Betcha a lot would rank rude as major and unsafe not so much.

[Evenstar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Acres per Second]

Unsafe operation of boats is a minor problem on Winnipesaukee.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/data/512/medium/176July_3rd_accident.jpg

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

[Dave R]

Hmmm, what would the relative percentages be if I offered up this question :

Unsafe operation of boats is a

major
middling
minor

problem on Winnipesaukee. {pick one}

Then also let me ask (as well) but substitute the word rude for unsafe. What would the result be I wonder. Betcha a lot would rank rude as major and unsafe not so much.

I'd vote minor in this poll.

As far as rudeness goes, I'd also have to say minor. The couteous people far outnumber the rude ones on the lake. People that see rudeness as a major problem are not giving credit to courteous people. They may also fail to understand boating laws and/or fail to comprehend how close 150 feet really is.

Keep a running count by adding 1 for people being courteous thing and subtracting 1 for people being rude. Even if you initially saw rudeness as a major problem, I bet you end up with a positive number, at the end of the day.