You are a senator how do you vote on HB-847
 

No responses more than the poll questions. One response per user please. No comments just a general poll of how everyone stands.

How do you vote for a 45/25 mph speed limit for Lake Winnipesaukee?

1. For
2. Against
3. Undecided

Driving past Lakeport Landing, a fabulous Formula dealer in Laconia, their big sign out front used to say 'Senator Robert Boyce.' No need to guess how Boycie will be a-vote'n.......oopsie....guess what....Boycie is now known as the 'prior occupant.'

The same sign also used to say 'Craig Benson.' Lots of changes in NH politics since May 3, 2003. The 'Old Man of the Mountain' isn't the only NH institution that has crashed in the last five years. :D

ME, MA, NY, NJ, CT, VT—All Vote NO LIMITS
 

Why no comments? :confused:

Shouldn't an on-line poll be restricted in some way? Will a vote from Sweden—or Hawaii—count equally with one from Moultonborough or Meredith?

A member who joined April, 2008 from Nevada is counted the same as a member who actually witnesses the increase in boating anarchy on our most-treasured inland protected water?

It would have been more resourceful to take a poll during the "Temporary Speed Limit" period announced by Director Barrett last July. :rolleye2:

I'll say it before the poll closes next week: The same poll question appeared at this forum in 2002—and "broke even", so what validity can be gained from a poll taken this year? Just two days ago, everyone should have read here that online speed limit polls are actively manipulated by the Unlimited Speeds crowd.

I predict that this poll will NOT mirror the mood of the most recent House vote of 2-to-1 (overwhelmingly in favor) to the old House vote of 236-to-139. (Just warmly in favor).

The tide has changed in the NH Legislature, but don't expect to see that reflected at a poll where on-line voting is, sadly, actively manipulated behind the scenes.

One clarification
 

Having never posted a poll before, I put in the original post only one response per user, not realizing that the forum software only lets you respond once anyway.

Unlimited Speed is ALREADY RESTRICTED by current laws
 

Nice try Parrothead but Acres per Second (faster than Miles Per Hour) taint the poll IMO.

The tired claim that those opposed to the 45mph/25mph must be for unlimited speeds has already been shown to be FALSE.

APS posting it here and linking to his own more lengthy post is not fair to the voting process. There are already laws in place requiring reasonable speeds on the lake. APS's claim in THIS poll thread puts a bias into the results.

May I suggest that, since APS got his answer he DELETE his post, you delete your response and I delete this message. As for FLL ... :rolleye2: what can I say?

Thanks Parrothead

Catch the "wave"

What will APS do?
 

Acres,

Did you read these messages and the one that Parrothead already deleted?

Prove it. I just searched OSO and I couldn't find any reference to people encouraging others to come and vote here.

You can only vote once in this poll, and anybody that uses the lake should have the right to vote once, shouldn't they?

How about I ask for a copy of the WinnFABS list and I send out an email request for everyone to come here and vote?

That's why a poll like this or the Union Leader one don't work. It become a question of who can round up the most friends.

Somehow I seriously doubt there was any sort of large spike in registrations just to vote in this poll! Only 62 people have voted! However, I am sure our illustrious and patient webmaster could enlighten us all if there was!

49 against vs 13 for is hardly an skewed poll. At this point in time there are 23 members online and most are names I see often here. In fact thats approx 1/3 of the 62 people that voted!

Woodsy

First prove that this pole is tainted.

Better yet, why not ask for the phone numbers of poll participants.

After all, the poll results showed a majority were in favor of a Speed Limit.

Could it be that WinnFABS and the poll have skewered the truth?

P.S.- Don't forget to call all the Senators, too.

Why?

An easy check to see if this has been skewed would be to throw out any votes from new members, or members that have joined within a certain pre-set window. Pretty simple...

Oh my Lord!!!!!
 

Boy you all give me more credit than I deserve. I posted this poll as a way for anyone that frequents this website to vote on this issue without being dragged into the quicksand that is this debate. Just post a quick yay or nay and move on. Nothing more sinister than that.

Yikes
 

I know this is probably a waste of energy, but really? Islander, do you have evidence of this? I posted the poll and have not emailed, phoned, or registered mailed anyone about it. It was all in fun, there was no other motive. I'm sorry if you all think that there was sinister motive, that was not the intention.

I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

Don't bother asking me my offshore name.

Not that I have ANY reason to question the authenticity of your posting, could you cut and paste the message with the authors screen name? I don't need to know your name on that forum. I have SEVERAL friends on that forum and they know of no such PM's going out.

That would violate the TOS of both forums. I don't care what you believe.

P.S. Please post your friends names.:laugh:

Island Lover...

I am glad to know you pay $$$ to support the OSO website!:D:D

For the record, I would be one of those "friends" of HazelNut! Unlike some people I don't hide behind a screen name on the internet!

I did a quick search and there are NO threads on OSO asking anyone to come here and vote on this poll... While its entirely possible that some individual pm'ed you over on OSO, there was NO mass e-mail or PM sent by anyone... OSO limits you to 5 individual PM's just like this website does... def seems like alot of work to only get 51 votes! :laugh::laugh:

Your just unhappy the poll doesn't reflect what you believe..

Woodsy

Below are the new registration stats for the last 30 days. The poll was posted on May 2nd.

Thanks Don...

WOW!!! A grand total of 3... Yes 3 new members!!! Hardly a massive skewing of the poll!

That kinda puts Bear Islander & Island Lover's OSO conspiracy theory to rest! Unless they want to somehow discredit Don now....

Woodsy

I really don't see how this is all that important. It's a poll on a BOATING FORUM! I would be shocked if it came out any other way. In fact I think 22% in favor is very good on a BOATING FORUM!

However for the sake of argument....

I don't think anybody said the idea was for people to come here, register, and then vote. I certainly didn't.

It could be the people from OSO that registered for the LAST POLL, or the one before that, that still have identities here. Now if the webmaster could tell us how many voted that have not posted in months, that would say something.

However, if it makes you happy, I think you people won this fair and square (before the OSO thing).

Thank you Webmaster and parrothead
 

I wonder how some people will spin or challenge Webmasters posting. :laugh:

Appears that Acres Per Second is not going to remove his posting and others are not honoring parrothead's request. He just wanted a simple, unscientific poll with no debate.

Thank you Webmaster and parrothead.

Wasn't me
 

Was not my intention to "use" this poll for any agenda. I am not affiliated with any organization. I was just interested to see what the general opinion of people who frequent this website is. The opinions of a select few, me included, are already very well known on this topic.

I was not aware that this was a boating forum. I guess you learn something everyday!

I thought this was a forum open to all with an interest in Lake Winnipesaukee without any requirement for a fast, slow or row boat.

R2B

Go to the top left of the page. Click on "Forums" then click on "Boating". We are in the "speed limit" section of the "Boating Forum".

I know how these threads work, but thank you for your endless help!

I thought this poll was open to all people who were registered on the Winni forum. I am not aware of any special requirement to register for this thread. Webmaster, is there a special requirement?

Sorry if I am wrong. That is what I thought.

R2B

No, there are no special requirements to post or vote in the boating forum. Did someone say there was?

Please stop trying to bait me. I was just pointing out a fact that this vote is open to all registered forum members.

I understand that 'flooding' threads is against the forum rules, so I do not want to engage you in these endless discussions.

The end of this discussion.

R2B

Again, Islander if you want to drop comments like the PMing thing on OSO you need to back it up. Otherwise I believe it is inflammatory. If it continues I will follow up with a formal complaint. For now I'll leave it as it is. It's a continuation of what I have come to expect from the proponents. As of right now it is my opinion that you are lying about the PM on OSO. Woodsy, DoTheMath, cowisl are some of but not limited to my friends who post on both forums. As a matter of fact two of those members are MAJOR contributers on the OSO forum. One of them is in the boating industry. If anything is going on over there they would know immediately. It does a great disservice to all in an honest debate when someone fabricates information to stir the pot.

Hazelnut - Slow down a little. In the first place that is not Islander your are talking to it's Island Lover. Islander did make the first OSO post but did not say how she knew.

There is more than one possibility here. You could have sent the PM to create a controversy. Or it could have been me. Or IL might be making it up. The point is we have no idea who did what to whom or why. This is the internet.

Either way it was inflammatory in my opinion. It served no purpose but to discredit the thread and stir the pot. Islander/Island Life/whatever, I stand firmly by my post. It is one thing to debate opinions on a forum it is entirely different to lie and fabricate stories.

If I were Don these are the types of things that would have me banning/moderating posters.

Yikes
 

Lets calm down here folks. This poll was supposed to be fun. So I am sorry I started it. There was no malicious intent as I said before, and if this poll has been "hijacked" then I'm sorry again. But for God's sake let it go people. This is an small internet poll, that I came up with on a rainy Friday on a whim.

As a moderator of OSO who also happens to boat on lake Winni. I can tell you that NO emails went out from OSO regarding coming onto this site and vote against your polls. We also have to the best of my knowledge no threads going at this time about this poll on OSO. There is no way for a memeber to send out a mass emialing to all or any other members. Evan as a moderator I do not have that ability. Since no one knows your screen name how would we know who to target in a pointed emailing campaign? So honestly I have to assume that you have made this up. OSO has a HUGE member base and a lot of them frequent this site as a lot of them also use this lake. Just because some one is a member of both sites should not make a vote invalid. Island Lover are you a paying member of the site?

parrothead I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I really appreciate you posting the poll and I appreciate your comments on the subject matter. To that end I also appreciate Bear Islander (most of the time;)) I made an issue of this OSO post because I couldn't let it slide that one or two forum members would blatantly lie just to stir things up. I guess they just didn't like the results. :rolleye2:

I have deleted my post. Parrothead I'm sorry I posted it. I was told about the OSO pm from another member here.

Senators Only?
 

Until I saw the first-day's total, I thought voting was open to SENATORS ONLY! :blush: :emb:

(Though that might have made some interesting reading in itself). :coolsm:

The poll ran through the 8th.

Note the twin-spikes of 18 new members? They arrived when the sparkplug of this lake's largest Drinking-Speedboat-Partying forum broke a months-long silence to re-enter the debate here.

(That forum, like OBO, hides its super-secret-scandals forum.)
Some people have extended families in the Lakes Region who are in favor of sane Winnipesaukee boating.

(Who don't need the hassle-factor-savvy of some Internet users). :(

Parrothead wants an unscientific poll?

Yup...Let's lock out the comments. :rolleye2:

I dunno—I've probably missed any-and-all deleted messages.

While I watch this site progress weekly to become the most software-up-to-date forum on the Internet, half of my responses go to >>Preview Post>>Done>>blank screen>>"disappeared-forever". :confused:

(My Millennium isn't the most up-to-date computer in the world and, like me, tends to get "tired" by evening.). :emb:

How is the default position of sane boating law opponents NOT "Unlimited Speeds"?

Geesh...So many questions go unanswered. :confused:

How about membership before August 11th, 2002? :confused:

The outrage was palpable here at that hit-and-run-negligent-murder. (Especially before it was learned who it was and that it was a 4½ ton GFBL.)

Mine is not "a claim": those are direct quotes from OBO to throw a poll successfully. :(

Most revealing of OBO's quotes was...
Nope...no chance of that! :laugh:

Is it common for a OSO moderator to call a paying member a liar on a public forum? Without even listening to their side of the story?

Did you even read my post? Did I say anything about a mass mailing? Did I say anyone posted it in a thread? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

I got a PM. I have PMed them back asking for an explanation.

If I had wanted to make something up I could have posted at OSO saying "Go to Winnipesakee.com and vote on the speed limit poll there". Then I could have come back here and posted the same thing I did yesterday. It would be verifyable and true. But that would be a fraud, and I don't do things like that.

If you are not lying, prove it. Post a copy of the PM with the member name from OSO that sent it. Plain and simple. Prove your innocence or admit your guilt and move on. I doubt highly that the OSO moderator is going to hold you in contempt of a rule for posting a PM, not that it should matter to you anyhow since you have previously done it to someone here.

Nice Try!

How can I do that without showing my OSO name? If I can post the name of the member that sent me the PM I will. Can Chris confirm that I can break that rule?

To recap here the original intention by Islander and Island Life was to discredit the pole:

ISLANDER: Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

followed it up with this statement:

ISLAND LOVER: I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the backpedaling began.

ISLANDER: I have deleted my post. Parrothead I'm sorry I posted it. I was told about the OSO pm from another member here.

Hmmm I wonder who told you about the OSO pm???

Now we find out it boils down to Island Lover getting ONE pm from another member of OSO telling them to vote on the poll. So he says? :rolleye2: Any way you slice it, it was a shameful attempt to discredit a genuine poll and debate on a subject. Typical of their behavior and I guess to be expected. But now we're "..making a mountain out of a molehill?" I guess we'll leave that up to Don.

Honestly, who cares what your OSO name is? I certainly don't. Obviously you are there as a troll anyhow- simply to dig for dirt. Its not like you couldn't use another name anyhow. Just post the PM and the name of who sent it to or admit it is fake, discredit yourself here and move on.

I am am member of OSO as well, however I can't remember the last time I looked at anything other than the classifieds.

Acres
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashugana View Post
"...others are not honoring parrothead's request. He just wanted a simple, unscientific poll with no debate..."
Parrothead wants an unscientific poll?

Yup...Let's lock out the comments.

I don't know why I am bothering, but here we go......
Acres we have never met, so please stop questioning my character in a public forum. To say that I started this poll with some agenda in mind is just wrong. I guess me saying that isn't really going to make you believe me, but you are going on an assumption of my motives. As the adage goes, if you assume..., well you know the rest.
I didn't want comments because there are enough threads hashing out everyone's opinions on this topic. Do you actually believe that a poll posted on this site by someone sitting at home on a rainy day is going to affect the vote? You could of just voted that you were for speed limits to increase that number and moved on.
It was supposed to be fun, until you derailed the poll with your first post. The premise being if you were on the Senate, and able to vote on this issue, how would you vote. That was the question, and anyone that is a member of this website could vote. They wouldn't have to explain why they voted the way they did, they could vote and be done. Because we have seen how this issue can drag you in like quicksand. :) Have a good weekend!

It's about a 45/25mph speed limit or NO 45/25 limit - Not UNLIMITED
 

Geesh, why don't you remember the answers that have been posted several times already? You do not know what people SUPPORT just because we oppose the unwise proposed 45/25mph speed limit.

Opposition to the 45 mph day and 25 mph night speed limit is NOT support for unlimited speeds. We already have laws regarding reasonable speeds on the lake. Are you suggesting that if we oppose 45/25 limits that we also want to remove current laws about reasonable speeds and have a truly Unlimited Speed lake? Are you trying to convince readers that those opposed to a 45/25mph limit do not support some other speed related regulations or proposals?

Let me try to say this one more way. There are many options with regard to speed. One is a 45/25mph speed limit that you support. There are SO MANY OTHER possibilities including the status quo. Opposing that one particular limit does NOT mean anyone is discarding any other regulations about speed including the current laws about reasonable and safe speeds.

This is really getting tedious and too time consuming.

Has everyone read the report?
 

A better poll might be this.

How many people have read the Speed Survey conducted by the MP?

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

One might infer from the below post that Evenstar has not...

18 new members would not make a difference
 

For the sake of argument assume that the 2 day spike in new members from 3 or 4 new members a day to 9 new members for 2 consecutive days is a plot to skew the informal poll. Not all 18 new members are poll pranksters, some are regular new members. Not all 18 might have voted but we will assume they did. In fact assume all 18 voted against HB847. Heck let's make it 20 votes. Subtract those 20 votes from the number against the bill and you still have more than twice as many votes against HB847 as you have for HB847. So much for alleged poll tampering.

The poll does not represent anything more than opinions of those who bothered to participate and nothing more so let us not argue about the results.

We all want sane and safe boating on the lake. Even those who are opposed to the 45 m.p.h. speed limit.

If one is against HB847 it does not follow that they must be for unlimited speeds. That is faulty logic. It is a scare tactic and a cry that has been made before. It is illogical. Against 45 m.p.h. daytime and 25 m.p.h. night time limits is just that with no other implications.

The correct way to interpret the Speed Survey:
 

GWC, you know very well that I have read that study, since I have repeatedly posted my views on it - but just in case you don't remember, I'll repeat them:

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. I know how to do surveys correctly and am currently involved in the final stages of a municipal survey at my university that will be used in a town’s comprehensive plan. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done.

To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period. 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling, these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). BTW: that’s the correct why interpret a segment/population survey. The raw data means nothing until you expolate it back into the total population/period/area.

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake? Why wasn’t the Broads included in the study, if they were actually trying to record the fastest boats?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. If the study area was equal to 25% of the lake (which I doubt), than that translates to 2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Isn’t it possible that some of those boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

GWC:why are you still dredging up my posts from over 3 years ago, and taking them completely out of context?

Let us pretend that Evenstar is 100% right on this point
 

If you want to use what you believe is a meaningless study to make your point I will be gracious and try see your pointt and respond to your conclusions.

Yes ma'am it is absolutely possible that some of those boats many not have seen a certain kayak until they were closer than 150 feet. It does not mean that they did not see your kayak but it certainly is possible. You are right on that point. The possibility exists.

Your interpretation of the statistics has 2,156 boats actually going over 50 mph on the entire lake in all of 11 weeks. You did not say how long in minutes or hours they were presumed to be over 50 mph so I will ignore that omission for this post. How many of those 2,156 "speeding boats" were the cause of ANY kayak accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee? Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, if these violators (unsafe operation, 150' rule and maybe others) were going 45 mph instead of 50 mph would it have made any significant difference in their attentiveness? Probably not.

You will say that 45 mph instead of 50 mph would give the inattentive (and illegally operating) boaters more time to react to your presence. Maybe a fraction of a second or so. The main point from me is that these boaters are already violating the laws. If the MP aren't around to enforce those laws we already have that make those 150' violators behave how can you expect them to be there to enforce a new law that we do not need?

Again, I am accepting your interpretation of the statistics here simply for discussion purposes even though I may not believe your analysis of the data. You have not shown where that 5 mph difference would have prevented any of the kayak accidents that we never heard of or were unreported.

I don't know what happened to no comments only votes in this thread, but everyone else is ignoring it so I might as well too.

I see the survey has entered the discussion again. First of all, let's do the simple math, 36 boats out of 3,914 (day and night added together) were going over 45mph, which equals 0.9 % of the boats measured were at or over the proposed speed limit. Less than one percent. Calculate for the "high speed" boats, those over 50 mph and we end up with 0.28%. That would be 1 boat travelling 50 or over out of every 355 you see on the lake.

Pretty damning numbers against the "wild west" high speed boats everywhere argument if you are a proponent. So the spin doctors come out with their anecdotes.

Here are a few:

1. The areas were announced.
Actually only 3 of 9 were publically announced. The other 6 weren't.
2. Marked MP boats were used.
Ok, that's true, so what. Another argument used by the proponents
is that these high speed boats can't see anything until they are on top
of it giving them little time to react. For this study, the argument
is the high speed boats see the MP boats miles away and slow down.
Can't have it both ways guys.
3. The study only covered a small percentage of daylight hours, or the
study only cover a small area of the lake.

Irrelevant. We are talking about speed here, not boating density or
habits. If I believe these arguments, then I have to take them to the
appropriate level. For instance, the radar gun obtains its reading in a
few milliseconds and the average boat occupies only about 100 square
feet of the lake. So in reality the actual boating time the readings
reflect would be 2 milliseconds times 3,914 boats or about 8 seconds
of real boat time. The area covered by the readings would be 100
square feet times 3,914 boats, or 391,400 sq ft out of 72 square miles
of lake. Who cares, it doesn't matter, it's not relevant to the speed
recorded OR the sample required to get an understanding of what is
happening on the lake.

It is dangerous to take these numbers and start drawing boat population conclusions. The only relevant number from this study is that 1 out of 355 boats is travelling faster than 50 mph.

That number shows there are no problems on this lake that a speed limit will solve, everything else is just spin....

You post this and then say everything else is spin?

Was the proponent that brought up the visibility problem talking about kayaks, or Marine Patrol Boats.

What you posted is the very definition of spin....

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

Marked boats do not make the study invalid, just as marked cop cars do not make their speed readings invalid.

The "wild west" out there, "unsafe speeds", boats capable of "130 mph", close calls with high speed boats, all arguments used by the pro speed limit crowd. They make it sound like mayhem out there, yet a study is done and shows NO PROBLEM. Not even a hint of a problem. So the spin doctors come out and have done a pretty good job of tarnishing the reputation of the professionals who only tried to identify if there is a problem. They found there wasn't, and the pro speed limit crowd has no shame when it comes to manipulating to get what they want.........

There is no speed problem on the lake, reasonable people who look objectively can see that. People with an agenda can't.

If you were going to do a speed study on the lake, and you wanted good data. Not politically motivated results or feel good results, but the real answers to how fast boats are going on the lake. Would you conduct the study from marked or unmarked boats?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I didn’t interpret anything, it’s called statistical analysis – the marine patrol provided the raw data. The MP didn’t publish any data that give how long boats were going over 50 mph, so why would I be expected to include that “omission.” First of all “over 50 mph” does not mean 50 mph. according to the MP, 8 of the boats were going between 51 and 60 mph, and 3 were going between 60 and 70 mph. At 70 mph, a boat is going 103 feet per second – in less than 1.5 seconds it would cross my entire 150 foot zone – that’s not much more than a blink. The faster a boat is traveling the more of the lake that gets covered in that blink.

I’ve been trying to explain this for months, but most people here still don’t get it (or they are ignoring it). This is not about the difference between 45 and 50 mph – this is about continuing to permit boats to travel at unlimited speeds. If no boat ever went over 50 mph, then I wouldn’t be fighting so hard for a speed limit. The study actually gives that 27% of the boats that were traveling over 50 mph were traveling at speeds over 60 mph. When you plug that into those 2,156 boats, you have 582 boats that were traveling over 60 mph.

The other thing is that lack of kayak/powerboat high-speed collisions is not proof that we don’t need a speed limit – it just proves that people like me have been lucky so far. I have had high-speed boats violate my 150 foot zone just because the operators were traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats (based on their expression and reaction when they did finally notice me.) These were unintentional violations – caused by their excessive speeds. Had they been traveling at a more reasonable speed they probably would have seen me much sooner.

So far I have not been run over by a powerboat – but I have had way too many close calls. And I’m not the only one – sooner or later a close call is going to result in a fatality. That’s what I’m fighting to prevent. Squam lake has a 40 mph speed limit, and I kayak there a lot on weekends. No powerboat has ever violated my 150 zone on Squam because they were traveling too fast to see me. That has only happened on likes without a speed limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc (Post 70161) If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
This has nothing to do with probability (this is the correct way to spell it, BTW). And there's nothing wrong with my statistical analysis. If you're so knowledgeable in this area, why don't you try to explain why my analysis is incorrect, rather than just making derogatory comments about my education?

Both marked and unmarked boats
 

This whole 45 mph daytime and 25 mph nighttime speed limit debate is no laughing matter. Most of the 100s of messages about the proposed law in recent threads don't even qualify as debate IMHO.

I'm no statistician but I would want to see results from both marked and unmarked boats. Aircraft observations would also be interesting. The Marine Patrol conducting real world tests might have done the tests the same way they would put any new law into practice.

Just curious Islander, you and Bear Islander have the same last name. Are you related?

You beat me to it...:laugh::laugh: I was going to say the same thing. The variables alone have enough in them holes to sink the Mount. Drivel absolute drivel. Not to mention you can't EXPOLATE data. You can EXTRAPOLATE it though. I know you are going to claim that I am just being negative Evanstar but please. If you want to throw it around how "educated" you are and then post a completely ridiculous "lesson" on statistics you are going to be called out.

The end results even based on your flawed interpretation do prove one thing. The MAJORITY of boats on the lake are NOT exceeding 45MPH. You can spin it any way you want but that is a fact.

Evenstar the student
 

Hey be nice jrc. Not everyone gets a 4.0 perfect score in every class (even spelling - probablity :laugh: ). Evenstar might have gotten a 2.0 or less in that course. Sometimes the student is at fault and sometimes it is the professor. Not everyone is an Einstein as Evenstar has demonstrated.

What's wrong with you people?
 

What is it with you people????!!!! Just because I'm in support of this bill does not give you the right to insult me!

It is also in violation of the forum rules:

I would get a radar gun and start pointing it at boats.

Let me tell you, after reading the initial reports on the speed limit debate in the media, you people had me doubting my own experience on the lake. I was worried that this study was going to show that 35 or 45 percent of the boats on the lake would be travelling at speeds well in excess of 50 mph. The snow job you guys did was that good, even though after spending most summer days on the lake for the past 7 or 8 summers, my experience is more in line with what MP reported.

If I accept your argument that using marked MP boats would cause speeding boats to slow down ( I don't accept this but for argument's sake let's say I do) I would have expected at least 10 to 15 percent to still be exceeding 50 mph based on the proponents reports of what it was like on the lake.

Instead the number was 0.28 % !!!!!!!!!! The report we got was right in line with what I see on the lake day in and day out. 1 out of 355 boats travelling in excess of 50 mph. It fits, it's reality on the lake. You may not like it, it may not fit your agenda, but it is the truth.

The only thing a speed limit will do on the lake is make it more dangerous as MP leaves other duties that have made the lake so safe to set up speed traps to serve your agenda, your need to make the lake your own little playground......

Evenstar

They have trouble attacking the message, so they attack the messenger. Every time they get personal it's an admission they have lost the argument. When they deliberately "misunderstand" your posts, it means they can't argue with what you really posted.

There is no question that speed limit supporters have been more civil and respectful in this forum. But then common sense, logic, evidence, public opinion and Coast Guard Statistics are on our side. All they have is a "need for speed" and a misplaced "live free or die" attitude.

Need Speed Limit Help
 

I work in Concord and I would really like to ride my horse to work. My family has been coming here for years, and, until the fast cars came along, we were always able to ride our horses anywhere. I would love to be able to take 104 to 93 and have my horse gallop all the way to Concord, just like my great grandparents did.

Now, with all those irresponsible people in their really fast cars, it has become dangerous out there. It scares my horse when those cars go by real close, like within 150 feet.

I think route 93 needs a speed limit of, say, 10MPH (5 MPH at night) so that my horse and I will be safe. Maybe even a horsepower limit! (My way of thinking is one horsepower is just right) That way, all of us can enjoy route 93 at the same time without infringing on my rights to travel on horseback any where I want, and everyone else's right to drive their car. It's a win win solution!

As for proof that the speed problem exists: Two years ago my cousin told me that his wife's sister knew a guy who knew someone who had a friend who was killed in a car accident on route 93 and they were going over 10MPH. There you have it!

Perhaps WINFABS and all the speed limit proponents can get to work on this right away. Don't be so self centered that you only concern yourself with the lake. Help to make our entire state safer!

Thanks BI, That explains it.
 

Bear Islander, you have now explained why Evenstar, responding to my post said to me, Referring to my comments as "lame" and "you guys (me included) are getting really pathetic" are not personal or attacks? I took it personally as I have with some of the other things I have been called (some with qualifications) in the Speed Limit threads.

BI, with all due respect, this style has been used equally by posters on both sides of the speed limit debate here.

No, it has not. Not even close. Not in the same ballpark.

I rarely have used personal comments, and then only if provoked. Shall we post a list of comments and innuendo about me as opposed to those I have made about others?

I was not talking about you, nor anyone else specifically. Just the two groups, the proponents and the opponents.

How about we get back on topic?
 

No, let's please not.

How about we all act like adults and return to the original intent of this thread:

Thank you....:)

OK it's over
 

The poll is closed. So it is what it is, read what you want into it. But voting is stopped.

My slow computer and I have just as much right to use the forum as you do.
 

Oh, Evenstar, I didn't know that I was attacking you. I thought I was making fun of "jrc's" spelling of "probability".

that course being statistics or whatever and not spelling. I don't not think you are taking a spelling class in college.

I did not know what kind of grades you get so I made the comment that you or anyone for that matter could get a 4.0 or a 2.0 and we would not know. No one asks to see a report card. Do you ask your doctor if he got an "A" or a "C" in broken arms?

The Einstein comment is easy to explain. He said "E=MC squared." A few characters. What you wrote was much more than that and I am not going to waste hours trying to figure it out. I couldn't follow it no way no how. It's not like an easy Einstein equation that has been proven. Your formula for safety has not been proven. Only speed limit of 45 mph will force boaters to give you your 150 feet of space there is no QED (thus it has been proved). There is no evidence that this speed limit will do much of anything except use resources that could be used to enforce current law.

For the record I am Against the proposed speed limit,

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't slow down just because I was in sight of an MP boat.

Would it be legal to equip a kayak with a dummy (no offense to anyone) and a gps system and let it roam various parts of the lake. Equip the vessel with a distance measuring device. Program the kayak to travel a random journey but not approach anything within 250 feet. Keep track of every encounter of moving objects. You could calculate the other boat's speed and how close the minimum passage point was. Keep track of boats that pass within a 1000 feet. Have the system audited by both sides of the issue and publish data on every passing event.

How many boats encountered?
Percent at 5, 10, 15 ... 125, 130 mph?
Minimum distance of passage?
Graph of speed vs passage distance of events < 150 feet.
Maps showing where 150 violations occurred.
Maps showing where 150 violations occurred with speed > 45.
Report results when dummy wearing orange and dark blue.

Can just picture this poor mannequin passing between governors and the weirs on the forth of July weekend.

Beep 70 feet at 24 mph @ 3 oclock
Beep 40 feet at 30 mph @ 11 oclock
Beep 15 feet at 15 mph @ 5 oclock
Mama.....

Expanded on RGs idea
 

I think you have a handle on a good scheme RG. It may not be legal though to let a vessel float around without control. What would keep it from crashing into something even another kayak? Would it have a Rumba type sensor? Why not put an MP officer with radar in the unmarked kayak. Aww but then someone might claim a bias on one side or the other.

What ideas do you have for impartial measures about other concerns? There are already laws about 150 feet safe passage and more for loudness, erosion, and all the others but some people say only a new speed limit will work.

I think it's a great idea.There would be nothing illegal about anchoring the kayak.But I'm sure if the collected data shows us what we have already learned about the lack of speeding over 45 and the large violations of the 150 ft law by the slower craft,it will soon be dicredited by you know who.

An anchored boat with nobody on board is an illegal mooring.

What do you think collecting data on boat speed will prove?

1. If no boats are going over 45 then a speed limit will inconvenience no one, and no enforcement at all will be required.

2. If boats are going over 45 mph in small numbers then we need a speed limit to regulate them.

3. If boats are going over 45 mph in large numbers then we need a speed limit to regulate them.

This is a no win argument for the opposition no matter what the numbers are. You can call it spin, or you can call it reality. The numbers of boats going over 45 just doesn't matter.

OH MY HEAD!!!

It actually pains me to respond to some of your posts! It matters because it is a PERSONAL LIBERTY that I (and others) happen to exercise! It matters because it COSTS MONEY to implement & maintain! It matters because you have no basis of fact for your argument other than FEAR!

I would be pretty interested to see the RSA that explains how an anchored boat is somehow an illegal mooring....

Woodsy

Sorry Woodsy, I know that it matters to you very much. However the number of boats going over 45 does not matter TO THE ARGUMENT. We need speed limits "no matter" how many boats go over 45 now. The argument is not relevant.



Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.


270:61 Mooring Permit Required; Limitations. –

BI...

It's YOUR OPINION that the number of boats traveling over 45 isn't relevant. To many others it is in fact the crux of the argument... Why pass a law that cost people thier liberty and taxpayers money if the number of baots that travel over 45 MPH is a small percentage! Wouldnt the time & money be better spent elsewhere?

You want this law to get a certain type of boat off the lake and to your credit you make no secret of that, however many others who support the passsage of HB-847 say something completely different...

As far as your Quote of SAF-C-401.12 - You need too look up the definition of "Mooring Anchor"! There is a HUGE difference between a "MOORED" boat and an "ANCHORED" boat! A MOORING is considered a permanent anchor point! Thats why you need PERMITS to get one!

Woodsy

Really? Since you want to get technical, if I anchor my boat and jump in the water to swim around then by your statement that makes my boat in violation? Are you telling me that all the boats that are anchored during the day at various spots around the lake with nobody in them are in violation of the mooring rules? Why doesn't MP site all of the empty ones in Braun Bay when they make their run through there? Because your statement is ludicrous that's why. Pleeese.

Please go back and re-read the applicable rules.....
 

As has already been pointed out, that is not the correct interpretation of either the RSA or the Administrative Rules governing mooring.

No need into hijacking this thread any further as its obvious that the spirit and the intent of the regulations in question in no way offers a definition of mooring as expressed by your opinion above.

As always, I urge the reader to visit HERE and feel free to utilze the contact information given to receive up to the minute correct information regarding New Hampshire's boating regulations. :)

We can argue the definitions all day. I have been involved with this and the Marine Patrol. There are plenty of people that would like to find a way around the mooring rules. If you think the MP will let you stay because you are using a "boat anchor" instead of a "mooring anchor", you are mistaken.

If you attach a boat to the bottom of the lake it's a mooring in the Marine Patrols eyes. To be "anchored" instead of "moored" you must be on board (or I guess swimming near by).

If you find it's legal to anchor a kayak without anybody on board, please let me know. I have two kayaks and a couple of cement blocks I will use to keep power boats away. Who needs a swim line permit, just get a bunch of old kayaks. I don't think so.

Skip - ask your MP friends about this one. You may be surprised. I have had the MP explain it to me in detail. I called the office and got a firm confirmation. You can't "anchor" an empty boat. I tried it, they didn't buy it.


Saf-C 401.12 "Mooring" when used as a noun means a mooring anchor or other fixed object or stationary point, with or without a mooring buoy together with attached chains, cables, ropes, and pennants and related equipment used for the purpose of securing a watercraft.

What about divers?
 

I thought there was a time frame portion of the anchor/mooring difference. I thought anchoring was temporary and mooring was more permanent. There could be no one on board of a dive boat in use so are they anchored legally or moored illegally? Or, as BI indicated, at a sand bar as the boaters are in the water or on a public beach or out for a ride with a friend on a SeaDoo? Hmmm another law that we need a law firm to figure out :) .

withdrawn as off topic

Sorry
 

I honestly was not trying to make fun of you at all - I was just pointing out the proper spelling, as that's the way that my spell checker corrected it. I meant no harm.

If the study was done properly, it would have been done in the areas of the lake that represented the overall condition found on the entire lake. I have to assume this is the case to do the analysis - what would you have me do, guess?

Yes, it is called margin of error - and I've commented on this a number of times (I call this a statistical factor - you call it probability, language is my weakness, so I may very well be using the wrong word here).

As I have stated before, the report on the speed study did not give the margin of error - which in itself makes the data meaningless. Yet when I pointed that out, the speed limit opponents here jumped all over me. Claiming that I was just finding fault with the study because it didn't support the need for a speed limit.

Look, you either accept the study as valid or not. If you accept it as valid, then you have to use the raw data from it and plug it back into the environment. My analysis is only as accurate as the study - which I don't feel was done in a way that resulted in any usable data. But my analysis is still correct for the data that was given.

I withdrew my previous comments as off topic. If you want me to explain probability and statistics as applied to the speed survey open another topic.

Is unattended the operative word?
 

The states definition of a mooring is very broad, perhaps on purpose. A rope tied to a brick meets the criteria. What is the difference between an unattended boat at anchor and a boat on a mooring, not much!

Perhaps the Marine Patrol use the duck rule. If it walks like a duck....

I agree that the length of time seems important. But I can't find it in the rules.

Intent...
 

Good point Skipper, andf it brings up an element of the offense the many laypeople don't understand....intent.

The State must show what your intention was in committing the offense. That is why no time frame needs to be specified for this particular offense, and why the blanket definition " a boat anchored with no one in it is an illegal mooring" is not a correct definition.

It also explains why you can see, on any given wekend, dozens if not hundreds of anchored unattended boats scattered about Winni or Ossipee with full marine patrol presence, and no summonses being issued.

Here's an example:

You anchor your boat and all head off for a swim, or a walk ashore, or what have you. Your actions are temporary in nature and you have no intent of making that particular anchoring point a permanent or semi-permanent point to return to on a regular basis. Your intent is to anchor...not create a mooring. You therefore have not created an offense, and you see this happening virtually anytime you boat on Winni.

Second case. You decide that you are going to control a particular sectiuon of your lake by anchoring a kayak or other vessel out in the navigable portion of the waterway to force the 150 foot rule, or to circumvent the swim line requirements. Here your intentions are completely different and you will run afoul of the NHMP if they are made aware of ther situation and derive the same intent.

A whole world of difference according to my friends at the NHMP.

I apologize to Don and the readers for being baited in to this thread hijacking. As always, anyone is welcome to PM me offline for addtional information or resources to opursue to find correct interpretations of New Hamposhire's boating regulations....

Anchors away! :)

Skip

On TOPIC - my vote
 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... er... I mean topic:

I vote against the proposed addition of a 45/25mph speed limit.

If I'm a Senator I might change my vote if the current NH law were amended to reflect the laws used on many out-of-state lakes with speed limits - that is, remove the 150 foot rule. If speed limits work on those other lakes that have no 150' rule then we should make NH work as well as those other state's lakes. :look:

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

I must respectfully disagree on that. I think that removing the 150' law is an IMMEDIATE danger to everyone on the lake. Allowing it to be legal for boats to travel 45mph within 30 feet of each other is extremely dangerous. One false, slight turn of the wheel at that distance and people can die. If boats are traveling that close and someone takes a wave the wrong way it could mean a collision as well.

I agree!

The 150' rule is violated all the time. But how close will they come if we don't have it. At least its existence is a reminder to maintain separation. It also provides an opportunity for the Marine Patrol to boat stop Capt. Bonehead.

Not that they need a reason to stop people, but it is also a built in excuse for MP to pull people over to inspect or whatever. It's an almost impossible rule to argue with - can people say with certainty that they're 160' away and not 149'? I always err well on the side of caution to avoid any potential dealings with Marine Patrol. Not that I have anything to hide, but it's not my idea of fun times on the lake.

I spend a lot of time on my jet ski on Moultonborough Bay, which isn't exactly a narrow passageway. Over the last couple years, I've had four or five different experiences of Marine Patrol blatently changing their course which if we both kept on our current headings would have brought us within 150'. There was no obvious reason (other boats, markers, etc.) to do this other than to see whether I'd react appropriately.

Doing a Capt. Bonehead test is all well and good, but it also has some shades of "let's see if we can get this guy".

Captain MP Bonehead
 

I've seen this a lot too, and don't believe it is appropriate. They are not only trying to entrap, but they are being discourteous. There is enough of that going on without our MP joining in. They should be setting a good example of proper boating manners.