I did read carefully you wrote, bold is mine but the words are yours:
So you don't see boys and girls camps on islands sailing on Tuesday very often because that can only happen mid-week. Not a very clear statement at all if you are trying to say Tuesday is also mid-week because that is not what you stated at all.

Perhaps I didn't correctly recall the number of accidents you folks claimed occurred involving speed since it was soooo long ago that I posted a link to the 2006 NH stats provided by Woodsy. I could have made a mistake that you had said 44 instead of 47...okay, it's 44 involving speed? I believe the stats are on an exel file so you can supply the line numbers that would be interesting to read.
Actually I clearly defined speed in my original question when I brought it up in another thread as the 45/25 speed that you and others were supporting. As you may remember, or maybe you don't remember since you folks ignored it when it was still a relevant debate, I was responding to a Business Journal article posted by YOU that claimed 2006 was a very dangerous year on NH waterways.

You named the thread "N.H. among worst for boating accidents"

I looked at the stats for that same year quoted in your article and challenged their and your conclusions. I clearly spelled that out. As usual if the stats don't support your position you try to muddy the waters.

I guess it was such a long time ago you just forgot.

Of course you still have not given us the line numbers of the 44 speed related accidents that you claim to have found even if ALL the accidents don't have speed listed next to them. Why not? The data doesn't support your opinion so it must be flawed because Woodsy linked it.

It seems you just want to argue.

My definition of mid-week is Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I guess your definition is only Wednesday. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Another mountain you wish to make out of a mole hill.

I count 44 accidents that involve a speed. Count them anyway you wish. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

I am finished with this crazy argument. Please stop posting that nobody will answer your questions. I tried to answer you, but you keep not understanding and throwing more mud on the problem. You don't want answers, you want HB847 repealed.

Again making statements that apparently were intentionally worded so as to be confused so you can again deny...again making statements that you won't back up. If you've identified 44 speed releated accidents in 2006 then why not share them with us? Could it be because you can't?

What difference does it make? At this point it shows is that instead of directly addressing issues and answering questions all you can do is try to turn things around because you have nothng to back up your statements and choose instead to muddy the water.

Do I want HB847 to suffer a quiet death, yep it's an unnecessary feel good law that in my opinion will make the lake less safe.

When you decide to answer my question directly please let me know and I'd be happy to consider what you say. Until then...

Personally I think you are splitting hairs here. Airwaves probably meant how many accidents involved speed in excess of HB847 limits. Because he didn't spell that out you answer 44 accidents involve speed. So now let's go one further because Airwaves missed that and determine how many of those were in excess of HB847 limits. After all, in the spirit of debating this foolish law, this is after all the real point of it all. So I guess I am mentioning HB847 because it was implied but not spelled out.

If a boat is moving and involved in an accident then speed was involved, it was moving and therfore had some speed assocaited with that movement, anyone will agree with that. Point is HB847 will probably not have had any bearing on most of those accidents. I will not guess how many because I don't know the speed details. But it's my opinion that if there was a significant number of those accidents that actually involved boats traveling at speeds above the limits set in HB847, the Pro crowd would be all over those stats. This leads me to believe that the majority of those accidents did not involved speeds in excess of HB847 limits. This is reasonable logic on my part. So for you to cite 44 accidents in the same veign as an HB847 debate is misleading and irrelevant to the discussion of why we need a speed limit. If HB847 had been in place for all 44 of those accidents most would not have been cited for speeding as a violation of that law.

Oh, I was very specific and you are quite right, I used THEIR 45/25 speed limit as the benchmark. BI and crew know it and I spelled it out quite clearly in HIS thread "N.H. among worst for boating accidents" check it out.

The link to the 2006 NH Boating Statistics provided by Woodsy is in that thread as well as listed under it's own thread so you can check yourself and not take my word for it. :cool:

You'll also discover that some of the "accidents" listed appear to have been caused by rafting boats or damage by waves/wakes at the dock. NH requires reporting damage over $2000. That's not much damage and is listed as a "boating accident". I wonder if those are the ones that couldn't attributed to speed? I quess we'll never know.

Airwaves has been very specific. He is asking about 2006 Winnipesaukee accidents involving speed.

That is the answer he has received.

Airwaves these little games you want to play are over. The Governor signed HB847. You lost. Move on.

In about two years these arguments about statistics might have meaning again. Personally I think your chances of winning in two years is about zero. Let's wait and see. Bye.

HB847 will not make the accident rate any lower than it is. Why? Because the baseline is ZERO. I have asked a zillion times on here for yourself, BI or anyone else to post the statistics of accidents that were directly caused by speeds over 45/25. There was one...the Littlefield incident, which we all know was caused by alcohol.
So how can HB847 improve this? You can't get any less than zero.

WOW!

Again with the zero accident lie! When you post that you should add all your qualifications, boat on boat, no alcohol, New England only, no other laws broken, fatalities only etc. Plus you should read the stats Airwaves keeps talking about, he has a couple more for you in 2006 alone.

So the high performance boats that flipped they don't count why? The fatal on Winnipesaukee last summer doesn't count why? No alcohol there except I have been told parental error is the excuse to ignore that one. And the Long Lake double fatality how is it we can ignore that one. Not to mention this years fatality.

Does that all add up to zero?

Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now).

"Anyway the accident statistics will be of no help to you in two years. Zero accidents will mean speed limits work. Many accidents will mean we need better education and enforcement of existing laws (HB847 is an existing law now)."


Darn the torpedos, full steam ahead!

So no accidents will support your cause, and many accidents will support our cause, and you'll include your silly law just because.

Just think, if all boats were removed from the lake, your wish would be granted. You'd still give credit to HB847.

What a silly nation we have become.

Also we need to wait for the outcome of investigations of the Diamond Is. accident. People on this forum have stated that if the boat is shown to have been going 25 MPH or less, then HB 847 would be of no benefit. On the other hand, if a boat(especially with a very experienced driver) going 25 MPH can cause such massive damage, lower night limits could be appropriate. Many feel that 25 MPH at night was too high a compromise and that limits similar to Squam would have been better.

I’m tired of being called a liar by the speed limits crowd a group that refuses to back up their barnyard expletive!

Here is the posting from BI’s thread in which I clearly spelled out my criteria for “speed” .....low and behold there is also the number 47 speed related accidents the speed limit crowd says occurred on Winnipesaukee in 2006.

I've bolded my comment on the criteria for speed so that the speed limit crowd doesn't have to look too hard!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6070

In post #5 of that thread you will find a link to the 2006 stats provided by Woodsy.

Anyone feel safe yet?

Why go back to trying and justify speed limits with stats that don't justify your case? It's about congestion, some people don't like that crowd, less boats, erosion, wakes, whatever.

An idiot ran up on another boat at a moderate speed at night and an innocent person was killed. That's unfortunate, and really unfortunate that it happens more than once. The very sad part about it, is that more anti speed limit people fully understand the problem, and want to eliminate it as much as possible. Even sadder, is that many whom I will not name, wouldn't be talking about accidents that don't happen to involve their least favorite boats.

I've read about countless accidents over just the last 2-3 years on this board alone (I researched to see what's going on back then). PWC accidents, swimmers drowning in open water, all kinds of stuff. Not very long threads though.

WOW yourself.
Again I will ask this. Of those accidents you cite, which one was caused by a speed in excess of 45/25? And keep in mind we are discussing accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee, not Long Lake.

You'll never get a straight answer from Islander. He is too busy gloating over what he feels in a personal victory, rubbing it in as much as he can. I find it better to ignore anything he says and won't respond to his posts. He doesn't get it, never will and isn't worth your time or mine.

I should know better .....

Perhaps a more likely scenario "might be" that things change very little. A small percentage of boats still go fast in open water. The risk of an accident continues to be present and the rate stays low. (+/- 1) The mater remains one of opinion, perception, emotion and speculation.

Fortunately we don't have a statistic that can be statistically improved. If we had 5, 10 or 20 speed related accidents a year, it would be easy to judge the impact of the pending test. This is not likely to change anyone's position.

II. The remainder of this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.
 

WHAT IS THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT..ON THE HB 847. LAW Section 2 of :confused: this act shall take effect January 1, 2011.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Your drawing took a lot of effort, shows the scope of the problem, and gives better meaning to both sides regarding our respective spaces. I examined it for some time. Thanks for producing it.

Too bad that so many middle-finger confrontations occur outside of "The Playground".

You were overgenerous to the fastest boats, however. Many islands were cut in half, shoals were ignored, and our lake's most recent victim, Diamond Island, nearly disappeared.

You could even say it was a slow speed, since both were traveling in the same direction.

In darkness, Might overcame Right.

Still, we lake dwellers would like to become accustomed to fewer injuries, safer lakeside yards, fewer close calls, fewer deaths, and for being noticed as living, sentient beings while on open waters.

The Governor agrees.

Repeal
 

(Section 2) 331:2 Repeal. RSA 270-D:2, X-XI, relative to speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, is repealed.

With no other action being taken beforehand, on 1/1/2011 the speed limits on Winni and the requirement that all violations under this section be reported to DMV will be repealed....This is what is known in the trade as a "sunset clause".

Skip

seat belts
 

You know, after reading the line of dribble in this thread I think the only thing that makes any sense is that Jet-Skies should have a law that requires them to wear seatbelts. Yup lets get that into law, oh yes waterproof helmets as well.:emb:

Hey Birdsall: I completely agree..however, I think a "Roll Cage" should be mandated as well. Remember a couple of decades ago when "WhatsHerFace"...I apologize for not remembering her name..suggested the same for motorcycles? WHO WAS That? She is still around. NoBozo

Actually the only thing the governor agrees with is the removal of a campaign issue from the co-sponsor of this needless law in the wake of the Diamond Island accident.

So rather than do the right thing he took away a campaign issue from the senator who co-sponsored the bill, who was probably pandering for votes with the bill in the first place, who just happens to be running against the governor in the next election!

Remember, when the bill was proposed and the governor looked at it and the NH boating stats his comment was that he didn't think this law was necessary. It became necessary politically after Diamond Island, nothing more than that!

"Speed Limit Reality" has been in existence since proposal LSR430 in 2002, so the delays leading to the Diamond Island collision can only be laid at the feet of the opponents.

Any lawyer, like this Governor, would have reviewed all the relevant legislation proposed since Winnipesaukee's worst Hit & Run fatality. He would know of the existence of the mildest possible bill put forth in 2002 in response to a needless death. It was the very simple legislative proposal "25mph speed limit at-night-only". The proposal was titled LSR430, and sponsored by Representative Paul Hatch of Wolfeboro. The Governor would have reviewed correspondence put forth by both sides.

In response to this mildest of rules, a very long "open letter" to Rep Paul Hatch appeared at this Winni.com forum before you joined here. It began,
While Wolfetrap played a role, there can be no question Diamond Island played the key role, as you state. I quoted Les Hall as saying that here, and I used even fewer words to say the same thing.

But the fault lies with those who stopped the mildest political response possible (LSR430) and, in a political response to a second needless death, received HR847 instead.

Darn nice of him too. So what am I to discern from your post above? Is it a larger boat that's the problem at slow speeds? "Fewer deaths" on Winni would be around zero, which is ideal in my book.

Her name is Joan Claybrooke. (SP?) She also came up with "Botts Dots"..those little reflectors that were mandated to be imbedded in the centerline of most highways. This was also the time of mandated 55MPH speed limits. Don't remember if she was responsible for that. She is still very influential. NoBozo

I think there's more to it than political expediency. The bill was supported by his constituents (NH poll), passed by the house with a wide margin, then supported by the senate. He would have looked foolish had he vetoed this bill.

Except of course . . . as usual . . . that's NOT what he ACTUALLY said, is it?


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

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

"Not the most egregious problem" is not at all the same as "Not necessary".

He was in fact quite correct. Boat speed is not the most egregious problem on the lake. However a speed limit changes the lake in a lot more ways than just slowing boats down.

What are the other ways
 

than just slowing boats down?

Woodsy has predicted fewer performance boats will come to the lake due to the speed limit. Some have already left, some say they will never return.

The speed limit will impact the future boat purchasing choices of lake residents.

The speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the responsible boater, and makes Winni less desirable to the irresponsible boater.

Perhaps the lake reputation will change from a place for "thrill-seeking boaters" to a place for "family boaters".

The speed limit will make the lake more kayak friendly.



And none of these changes are Dependant on how many radar units the MP have, how many tickets they write, or how well those tickets stand up in court!

What's a performance boat?
 

The original Formula Hull the 233 has a long history of success as a rough water hull since 1962. In fact center consoles and fishing boats are made from the same hull.

1: Albemarle 242 - still in production today hull virtually identical.
2: Bluewater 2350 - still in production - hull virtually identical.
3: Contender 25 - older non-integrated bracket models
4: Cape Craft 23 - no longer in production
5: Eden 233: built in NZ http://www.edencraft.com.au/formula.html
6: Whitewater 25 - still in production

1.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...Hulls/Albe.jpg
2.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...lls/BW2350.jpg
3.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...Hulls/CT25.jpg
4.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2.../Capecraft.jpg
5.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...ls/Eden233.jpg
6.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...Hulls/WW25.jpg

The speed limits proponents consider Formulas as performance boats.
So all these boats are considered GFBL boats? I'm confused????

Hello Bear Islander it is interesting how you equate the speed of a boat to being an irresponsible boater as if the mere fact that someone is going fast must mean they are irresponsible or dangerous.

If this true, then how do you explain that on land, the number of accidents and fatalities actually decreased when States increased their highway speeds. Some sates have no daytime speed limits others have between 65mph to 80mph speed limits. So on land if there is a correlation between safety and speed it is counter intuitive. Meaning that you are safer on the highway that is posted 65mph than you are on that very same highway when it is posted 55mph.

So on land, the mere fact you are going fast does not equate to being irresponsible or dangerous.

As for our lake there have been no fatalities related to speeding boats in the last ten years, twenty years… not sure when there was a fatality due to speeding. I am not sure how many accidents have been caused by boats going over 45mph. Not sure given the number of boats on the lake every year that any accident is statistically meaningful. Frankly, I am not sure that it really matters as the speed limit is here and once the State gets a taste of this revenue stream they will push speed limits on all lakes. States love money and speeding tickets are easy revenue sources.

So you are saying this is great… just what I wanted. But I say you missed part of the equation.

As a result of this speed limit, I agree with you that the Lake will become a very desirable place to boat.. Meaning the Lake will see more boats. What you think being “family friendly” will result in less boats. Does that make any sense. Really does it. Of course not. Family friendly will result in increased boaters.

So more boats will mean more boat traffic, more wakes. etc.

Face it, the speed limit law will actually have the exact opposite effect then what you were looking for.

Sometimes when you win, you actually lose.
or be careful what you ask for
either way, you did not think this thru. :)

Our experience at the lake last week was that many people have already slowed down, probably to get the most miles per gallon. We were among those who have slowed down.

We found a couple of offenses that decreased our boating pleasure. The first was the channel cloggers who would go barely above headway in the middle of the channel or who would start tubing or wake boarding in the middle of the channel, so they obviously weren't a speed issue. The second was the people who would overtake us and then cut across our bow as soon as they had the right of way. They just as easily could have passed us on the other side. They weren't going much faster than us, and we were doing 20-25 mph, so they too were not a speed issue. The only boat that overtook us and didn't cross our bow was a GFBL with one young guy and four bikini-clad women...if I were a guy, I think I'd want to be him. :)

By the way, crossing another boat's bow is considered an act of war in the Navy, so we're going to make sure we're well-armed next time. ;). And before someone goes nuts thinking I'm going to add a gun rack to the bow rider, I was kidding.

Surfing might become a lake sport!
 

Au contraire! The affects of the impending legislation are already underway. Some folks have already begun to ditch their pricey GF boats for a bigger cruiser type boat = bigger wakes. (Even my husband and I are looking for a bigger boat and we're not really affected by the speed limit).

Anyway, bigger wakes from the increase in cruiser traffic won't make the lake more kayak friendly unless you have something like this in mind...:laugh:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ersacsmile.jpg

Who knows, maybe even surfing might become popular! I always wanted to try that.

Trading in a GFBL for a big cruiser may not be a good idea in the long run. As many speed limit opponents have been pointing out for years....

The big cruisers are next!

You might have something there
 

You're right on. I don't doubt they're the next target. There's a lot of folks in denial though! (me included) Can you imagine the Doris, Sophie or Mount getting booted off the lake?

They're too big anyway.

Scrap metal prices are up and the leftist liberals desire to break from the past...

you guys picked on a very small minority who didn't have a lot of people sticking up for them. it's hard to argue against "speed kills".

a size limit or a horse power limit will impact a significantly larger amount of boaters/marinas/businesses. i don't see that happening in the next 20 years. a sales tax and an income will have to happen first. it'd be hard to argue that nh wouldn't lose a significant amount of cash if you ended up kicking those boats off of your lake too.

Big cruisers are next
 

The proponents got their inch. Now they want the mile. The Winnipesaukee grapevine are loaded with the story that the next step is to convince the legislature that since the lake is a public water supply, it should be the next Massabesic. Limit the size of boats, limit horsepower. You can't stick a finger in it let alone swim.

As a waterfront property owner, the big cruisers are my biggest fear. There is enough erosion on my shore. I voted against the speed limit because of the 25 at night limit. Big wakes at that speed.

Why would anyone buy a big cruiser right now, with the price of gas and all? Why not trade in for a couple of kayaks? In my sea kayak, I get about 20 MPS [mile-per-sandwich (usually peanut-butter-&-jelly)].

Most sea kayakers are not bothered by boat wakes - in fact I often do surf them. We like big waves http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BioujCzXgJg