I got this in an email
 

I received this in the email as I signed to oppose the speed limit. I am sure many of us got this today
This is a UnOffical breakdown of the voting, again I stress unoffical breakdown and a view of how they think teh voting went down

though not official,
Supported HB847
Joseph Kenney
Kathleen Sgambati
Betsi DeVries
Molly Kelly
Bob Odell
Margaret Hassan
Martha Fuller Clark
Iris Estabrook
Jacalyn Cilley
Harold Janeway
Sylvia Larsen
Deborah Reynolds
Peter Burling
Joseph Foster

Opposed HB847
John Gallus
Sheila Roberge
Peter Bragdon
David Gottesman
Robert Clegg
Theodore Gatsas
John Barnes
Robert Letourneau
Lou D'Allesandro
Michael Downing



People's thoughts?

You omitted one relevent link:
Its getting awfully deep in here....

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
...Hi Skip

Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!...

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion!
__________________
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=74

Didn't the Governor say he would not pass any bill that was not funded?

I hope so. Those darn sea lice really get to me :laugh:

Heard on the radio today that two of the Senators that voted for the bill are not seeking re-election: Senators Burling and Estabrook. They must feel great that they left such a legacy for others to deal with. At least we don't have to vote them out - they are leaving on their own. That only leave 12 other Senators that we have to send packing. Goodbye Senators - plenty of room in liberal states. We want Live Free or Die Conservatives back. Same goes for you, Governor Lynch - if you don't veto the bill, I think it's time for you to be voted OUT! Where's Steve Merrill when we need him????

The key words here are "when nobody is around," and this includes the Marine Patrol. If you are in an accident, while "opening it up" expect the book to be thrown at you.

And you guys really should be careful about dismissing the ability of this lake speed limit law to stand up in court, because the exact same "prima facie" language is used in the highway Speed Limitations:

NH RSA - Section 265:60:

Wasn't the lead sponsor of the bill a Republican? I think the proponents were skewed more D, but I don't know any of them, so being an R or D at the state level can be misleading.

Who should be careful?
 

If they are in an accident while "OPENING it up", I would assume that they were still in the process of getting up to their desired speed before the accident. Is that what you said? A minor point probably - Anyway:
How much bigger would that book be with the proposed "new law" compared to the same accident with the current rules, like a violation of the 150' rule and safe, reasonable speeds etc.?

Ms Evenstar, I believe that you should be careful about dismissing Skip as easily as you have done. In his post above he indicated, Ms. Evenstar, would you please point us to the information that you say is contrary to that which Skip presented.

Thank you.

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

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

I think it would be interesting to find out WHAT STATE the people who voted for this bill are orginally from. I'm sure there are those that have moved here from other states, to either get away from the CRAP in thier home state, or because they could not make it in the political ring in which they came from. The question is " ARE THESE POLITICIANS THAT VOTED FOR THIS BILL ORGINALLY FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE OR ARE THEY IMPLANTS FROM OTHER STATES? "

A bit gender skewed
 

In analyzing the vote, 90% of the women senators voted for the speed limit while 64% of the men senators voted against it. Emotion over logic?

That's what happens when you allow a woman into politics:eek:

Look, I'm just trying to be nice by pointing out that the language in this lake speed limit bill is the same language that is used in highway speed limit laws. If you don't believe me, fine. I'm not dismissing anyone.

Goodness, I can't even be nice on this forum, without being critized for it!

And I gave you the actual NH RSA - I'm not making this stuff up, but since you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm


And I asked you nicely to please stop using a distorted version of my signature. Continuing to do so is a trolling - which is in violation of forum rules.

I don't see how that is relevant. Skip was responding to a post I had made much earlier. He was not responding to my post about the broads.

Please re-read my posts carefully...
 

If you take a moment and read all my posts on this subject, particularly my post #15 in this particular thread, you will find that I have already clearly explained the relevance between the new boating legislation & the current applicable verbiage contained in most NH motor vehicle speed legislation.

Only by taking the information I have presented piecemeal or out of context can you imply than anyone in this thread was insinuating that the new legislation could be ignored or defeated in Court.

My intent was to show that the limits imposed are not absolute in nature and that there is a certain amount of reasonable leeway given the proper conditions, the most important issue being that you are always operating your boat in a safe and reasonable manner.

That you may not be able to comprehend these concepts is acceptable, as you have never presented....in your incredible resume...any credentials related to your expertise in matters pertaining to New Hampshire's criminal code.

Or perhaps I missed that post? ;)

Have a great summer,

Skip :)

If you're going to start talking about your signature, then I have to chime in.
I find it offensive, provocative and illogical so please remove it.

"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

I'm a boater and I love people, not objects. I also love spending time on my boat. It's a personal insult to me that you suggest in every post that I "love" my boat.

I'm also a kayaker and I strongly believe that kayaks are boats and should be treated as boats with the same right and the same responsibilties. You personally insult all kayakers in every post be discriminating between boaters and kayakers. All kayakers are boaters.

Your signature should read: Boaters enjoy boating... Boaters love being in the water

Skip, I did read all your posts and was not bring critical of anything you posted. I was merely responding to Island Lover's post #32, about boats "opening it up" on the Broads. And was just trying to clarify things a bit. I may not agree with many of the powerboat owners on this forum, but I don't want people getting in trouble because they misunderstand something that was posted here.

Skip, I'm just trying to be helpful here. Yet some people here still have the need to attack and twist everything that I post. And now you're assuming that I'm not able to "comprehend these concepts." I find your reply very condescending and insulting. Why is it that I have to continue to prove myself on this forum? Who else here is ever asked to back up their posts with any "credentials"?

But since my education is being questioned yet again: I graduated from NHTI last May with a degree in Paralegal Studies; I did my internship at the NH State House, under a UNH Political Science internship program, by working as an aid to a NH Senator from early January until early June of 2007; I just completed my Junior year at Roger Wiliams University, where I'm doing a dual major in Political Science and Legal Studies.

Now I'll likely get attacked for "bragging" about my abilities again.

Boys...why start this? It would be a good idea imho to let this one go tyvm.

If a boat revs in a forrest and no ne is around does it make a noise?
 

Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?

If they could prove that over the speed limit was the primary cause of an accident how would that effect the penalty?

Evenstar, why do you think that a lake speed limit citation would not hold up in court? I don't see where anyone said that.

BTW, I am a boater, what about my love? :confused:

Just like on a paved road
 

[QUOTE=Mashugana;70770]Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?




I bet they try to measure the SKID marks to determine the speed! :rolleye2:

My two statements were meant to be separate events. Sorry for not making that clear. Of course there would have to be some proof of having been traveling over the speed limit when the accident occurred.

I do think that a lake speed limit would hold up in court. Yet others here were suggesting that it would be easy to defend, due to the "prima facie" language that was used. I was merely trying to caution against that attitude. It is my understanding that the language in the bill means is that any speeds above the speed limit are automatically rated as "not reasonable or prudent" and therefore are unlawful ... the burden would be on the defendant to prove otherwise. And I don't see that as being easy to prove.

Here's examples from this thread about what others are suggesting:

Quote:

BTW, I am a boater, what about my love? :confused:

Why is my signature suddenly an issue? It was never meant to be an insult to anyone - so please don't take it that way. It doesn't state that boaters love their boats more than anything else or that they only love their boats. It does not state that kayaks are not a type of boat. It does not state that kayakers don't love their kayaks.

The point on my sig is that, if you kayak, you'd better love the water, because you are going to get wet. A slightly modified version of my sig could also be very appropriate for collegiate sailing as well, as I get much wetter racing sailboats than I do when I kayak.

Evenstar: I can go for a walk in the woods durring hunting season, I would not do it, but I could. I also would not even think about asking those that hunt to not do so because I want to take a morning walk in the woods. From what I am hearing you say I should enact a law that says that no one should be able to hunt so that I can take my morning walk? Your chances of being hit on the water are infinately less then being shot while walking in the woods during hunting season. Both are statistically much less then being in a car accident. Live and let live. There is an entire lake out there for everyone to use, find a place that you do feel safe and enjoy it.

The argument about me not being able to see as far at speed is totally false. If the proponents of the law ever drove one of these boats they would realize that. How is it that my vision becomes less when traveling at speed? When you are driving in a car does your vision become less when you drive at highway speed vs. traveling around town on back roads? Also, when I drive slower I have to look at 360 degrees of the lake as people could approach from the sides and behind. As I travel faster it is less important what is behind me and more improtant what is in front of me. Get up to 70 or so MPH and there is almost no chance that some one is aproaching you from behind. This allows me to focus more on what is in front of me. How is it that my vision is less at speed?

Marks in the milfoil
 

Measure skid marks to figure boat speed. Too funny :laugh:.

Hey maybe they can measure disturbed milfoil. The new pavement.

If no one is around and your boat doesn't sink what prevents a hit-and-run? :coolsm:

You guys love using our state motto to protect your own freedoms, while in the very same breath suggesting that others give up their freedoms – so that you can continue to have an unlimited speed limit on the lake.

You and others here contend that kayaks should be restricted to certain areas of the lake – I contend that an experienced sea kayaker should be able to safely use the entire lake – without fear of being run over by high speed boats. My boat is made to use on the main lake. I’m not supporting a bill that would limit what parts of the lake that powerboats should use.

Besides, I’ve had close encounters with high-speed powerboats when I’ve been only a few hundred feet from shore. And others had testified about similar close calls relatively near the shore. I should not have to hug the shore or be restricted to coves to be safe from being run over. Slowing down the fastest boats to a safer speed is the fairest thing for everyone – since it is the least restrictive.

My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow).

This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.

I never stated that vision is less at higher speeds – just that vision doesn’t magically get better at higher speeds (as some forum members have suggested).

Not every boater has perfect vision, and not every boater pays enough attention to smaller boats, and visibility is not always perfect out on the lake. Combine any of these with high speeds and you can have a dangerous situation for smaller boats.

You made it an issue.

You are the one that made others signatures an issue. They have a right to use whatever they want as long as it meets forum regulations for decency, even if it does poke some fun at yours.

Give it a rest and move on.

its not speed it is distance
 

[QUOTE=Evenstar;70826]

My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow).


It is not the size of boat. I have had Captain Bonehead run right up next to me in a 19' boat.:eek: It is the 150' rule and not speed!

Evenstar. My smaller boat (the one that I use the most) is probably only 2-3 feet longer then your kayak. I am willing to bet that it sits only slightly higher in the water then a kayak. I have NEVER had any issue with some one almost running me over at speed. Lots of people have violated the 150 foot rule around me. Not once has it been a speed boat at a high rate of speed.

YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????

AMAZING!!!!! yet sad.....:(

I know... here you go, you can all read it for yourself : http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...0&postcount=36
While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down.

No I didn't. Others make it an issue by trying to us my signature against me.

I explained my signature. No member has the right to take another forum member's post and twist it in a way that pokes fun at the other member. That is hateful and it is trolling - which is in violation of the rules of this forum. I'll "give it a rest and move on," just as soon as others here do. I'm the one being made fun of, not you.

Size is more than just length. My kayak is only 22 inches wide and it weighs only 50 pounds. If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.

That is not true and you know it! You are just taking my post out of context again (just like you did in #251 in the "Life after speed limits" thread).

In my very next post,#43 (which was posted way back on April 4, 2005!), I wrote: "That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!

I also explained this in my reply to your former accusation:
Hazelnut, you have no business posting these sort of posts,as they are in direct violation of the forum rules: "Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."

Why is it that I have to constantly defend myself on this forum???

This goes back to the drawn out debate about how many non-powered boats have been hit by a speeding powerboat on Winni? In NH? In New England?

How many powerboats have been hit by a powerboat on Winni where the operator had not consumed alcohol?

I think tipping and drowning seem to be the issues that are claiming kayakers across the region. I know I've read of at least 2 in the past few weeks.

So, if I'm going over 45mph and enter somebody's 150' zone with a smile :) it's ok?

Evenstar: First your point about you getting hurt more in your boat then me in mine if we get hit by the same boat I am sure you can see is very flawed. It is the low stance of the boat that allows the other boat to travel up and over our boats should we ever be hit. It has nothing to do with the weight. Now your boat may break in half and mine may not but I assure you the damage to the occupants and boats would be substantial.

Now your point about the Squam incident... First back in 04 or when ever it was you pointed out that the guy was laughing at you as he passed. Well how are you sure that the other people that have come close to you (violated your 150 foot rule) also did not have the same mentality. When I first went up to the lake I did not know about the 150 foot rule and did go to close to a friend of mine. He explained the rule to me that I had no idea about and from then on I obayed the rule. You could also just be running into every jerk on a boat. They come in all shapes, sizes, powers, speeds. I was anchored at a beach and I had a sail boater hit me and actually claim that he had the right of way!! :rolleye2: He actually said that since he was a sail boat that I had to get out of his way! Speed had nothing to do with that incident stupidity had everything to do with it. Again those same people are going to not know the laws and will still come way to close to you. Speed limits do not fix this problem for you.

Lastly let the owner of this board decide what is or is not against the rules of the board. Just about every post on this forum is moderated. He has read them all. I would assume that if he thought that they were against forum rules he would either edit them or not post them. Everyone needs to lighten up on this board and have a little more fun. ;);)

Spin spin spin spin spin I am soooo dizzy spin spin.

Evanstar you lied and said it never happened on Squam yet when I post YOUR words that clearly state somebody came within 40 feet of you VIOLATING YOUR 150 FOOT ZONE I am attacking you???????? Enough is enough. You are bordering on troll posting now. I move to have you moderated again because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

Let her talk, it only helps. If her argurements are all they have...

Error by omission
 

I'm not claiming that you made this stuff up Evenstar. I'm just saying that you left out an important portion of what Skip quoted which qualifies the "exact same language". Skip was talking about the differences in how the violations are handled. If you don't understand what he is saying, don't dismiss him or try to change the meaning of his statements. The qualification you omitted, Evenstar, makes a big difference.

It is nice to be nice Evenstar. I did not say that you were making up stuff regarding this topic. I did suggest that you were dismissing or maybe I'll call it mis-clarifying, what Skip had said. Whatever you call it the omission can change the meaning of his message.


You have accused me of trolling. That is your opinion but I don't agree. I am rather annoyed at various people in the speed limit discussion who seem to want to tell me what I think or what I know or what I pretend not to know or even tell me where my love goes.

Hmmm, you say I am violating forum rules. Well now, maybe we need "new and improved" rules that are sure to reduce violations... no wait, that's the speed limit con... never mind.

Some boaters love kayakers --- and some don't

To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.

And how many of those were on winni? Or on a NH lake? And were those victims wearing PFDs and were they wearing appropriate clothing? The thing is that I can protect myself from things like drowning, by being a good swimmer, wearing a PFD and usually going with a friend. And I own and use cold water gear like a wetsuit, a drysuit, and underarmor. What I have no control over are the powerboat operators who travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats. If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law.

No, it’s not. And I never suggested that it was. That is dangerous and it is breaking a law. But these are two different violations – one is intentional and one is unintentional. It is my belief that a speed limit law will help reduce the unintentional violations.

When I wrote: “If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most?” The two boats here were my kayak and the powerboat that hit me. I was not talking about you and your boat. My point was that size is more than just length – mass is a major factor.

Other boats have intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. I actually pull one violator over with my kayak – much to the amusement of the MP that I reported the incident to. My point is that some high-speed powerboats (boats going over 45 mph) have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone because they were going to fast to see me. And I’m 99% sure that this was not intentional, because I had a very good look at their expression when they did finally notice me.

The forum rules are something that all members agree to follow. I did not make up the rules – they are very clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I know what a personal attack is.

I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation!

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.”

So please stop your personal attacks on me. You have no right to repeatedly accuse me of lying. Your attacks are personal – they are intentional – and they are done with malice.

The legal definition of slander is: “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.”

I wasn’t even disagreeing with most of what Skip posted. I just was trying to clarify something that other members seemed to be misunderstanding. I honestly didn’t want people here getting in trouble because of a misunderstanding.

Well it is not my just opinion - it is clearly stated in the forum rules: “No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!” I asked you to please not use a distorted version on my signature. Yet you continue to do so – even though you know that this upsets me. That is trolling, according to the definition given in the forum rules. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

What, exactly is a "close call" is it a boat that travels within 149' of your kayak? 120'? 75'? And why aren't/can't these be reported?

Again, without proof (radar, laser) that these boats were going 46mph or faster, you seem to make great case for better enforcement of the 150' rule. The speed limit is not going to solve this.



You sound like you are very well protected and prepared in case of tipping. Since we're talking about being in an encounter with a high speed motorized vessel travelling at speeds that make the captain inattentive, unable to slow his vessel due to his/her inability to clearly identify your sea kayak and bright paddles in a manner timely enough to change course and avoid a potentially fatal accident - maybe a kayak flag would make a sensible addition to your equipment? ;)

Few members of the forum have posted that their boats are capable of reaching 45mph. Of those, many admit that they reserve pushing their boats to speeds of 45mph in open areas, such as the broads. Let's say 10% of the boats on the lake are going 45mph or higher at any point in time (0.29%, speed survey, blah, blah, blah - we know those numbers are just totally fictional and serve no relevance about speeds on the lake) but applying this logic - it seems like you'd have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, involved in an airplane crash, or winning the lottery (might be a good night to buy a ticket) than having MULTIPLE incidents with a "Speeding" vessel on the lake. But that is just my opinion (except for the lottery ticket thing - you seem to be able to beat the odds time after time!!!!!).

Will you give it a rest already. I never attacked you. You absolutely can not stand it when anyone disagrees with you so you get all defensive and cry attack? This post in itself is an absolute personal attack. A LAWSUIT?!? Are you for real. I have not once spoken an untruth about you.

You posted a while back about a close call on Squam. Whether he saw you before he violated your 150 foot zone or not or unintentionally or intentionally came at you was not referenced in any of my posts. You pointed to a 40MPH limit on Squam as the reason nobody ever infringed upon your 150foot zone. I used YOUR WORDS to remind you that in fact it had happened to you.

If you just stopped the whoa is me attitude and stuck to your arguments you may be a bit more well received here. This isn't personal and it never will be. I absolutely 100% disagree with everything you say. Oh well move on. I don't dislike you, I don't wish you ill will, I don't know you. Unfortunately you fail to see where you have been extremely condescending and negative to just about every poster on this forum. Maybe you don't mean to be, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't. Unfortunately most here and most I've spoken to personally or have PM'ed me think that you do mean it and that you are being smug and or arrogant. Sometimes the written word does not accurately reflect the true personality of somebody. I have but one request. Please stop playing the victim.