Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.

Airwaves posted that I was claiming performance boats were committing violations at summer camps. I corrected him by saying I had never made that claim. What are you finding so confusing?

Please tell me the post number where you think I made that claim so I can go back and review it.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.

BI didn't say there were no violations.

[Mashugana]

I asked:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

Your reply did not answer my hypothetical question. Noise is addressed in the rules as well as the 150 foot rule. You want speed limits to limit noise rather than the noise laws?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.

Errosion? Look at the picture of that big boat throwing that huge wake at well below 45 mph. Speed limits won't help there. It is not a safety issue relating to speed.
Congestion? Fast boats will be out of the way quicker than slow boats. Some claim that speed limits will attrack more small boats leading to more errosion, polution and congestion but that is not my point.

Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today. Would a speed limit make the lake safer? How can it make the lake quieter? slow boats have blaring stereos and some have loud engines too. Will there be less errosion from those plowing boats? Will campers be able to use the lake more often on weekedays?
Please do not dismiss the question. Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer.

Thank you.

[Bear Islander]

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow. Your get out of the way theory is quite frankly mashugana. It takes a lot of open water for a boat to be able to travel at 90 mph. Boats going headway speed use up very little space, you can have quite a few of them in a very small area. Naturally I am giving you the extreme examples, however the theory holds true for all speeds.

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care.

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.

All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. . . .If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG! Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.

So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

Originally Posted by codeman671

Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.

I wrote: "At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni." That is a true statement. Starting at the tip of Alton Bay, and keeping at least 200 feet from shore, I get that is 20.4 miles to the end of Center Harbor.

Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.

Power boat owners hit rocks all the time on Winni. Read my comments above concerning Squam, Winni, and Champlain.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

Gee, let’s review in post #289 you wrote:

When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

So if performance boats are not causing infractions near summer camps why have you implied that they are reason to limit summer camp activities? If there are no performance boats causing problems near summer camps why bring it up? Fear mongering again!

BTW, you still haven’t answered the specific question I put to you, neither has Evenstar and way back when APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well.

Originally posted by Evenstar:
Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me

Nope, sorry you knew you were quoting a CWO from Florida and that he was writing based on his experiences as the CO of a CG Station in Florida. BTW I believe the Coast Guard operates in the Atlantic and Gulf in Florida and leave the inland waterways and swamps to the State of Florida to patrol,

But it’s interesting that you admit comparing Florida boating to Winni is comparing Apples and Oranges in your statement directly above the one in which you deny bringing up Florida

Originally posted by Evenstar
Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange.

So which is it? Quote a Coast Guard official speaking about ocean boating (USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH) and say he’s really speaking about Winnipesaukee, or that the ocean and Winnipesaukee are completely different?

So, any of the three of you going to answer the specific questions I asked? APS you’ll have to go back through the threads and look for them yourself!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow.

Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50. If I'm two miles away, I can adjust my spead to sync up with the 50 MPH boat speeding through the graveyard, and have my turn while on plane. If I have to wait for the trollers, I have to come off plane and add extra exhaust to the waters to come back on plane aftewards. I am in the vicinity longer so create a more concentrated plume of exhaust. Plus, I create more wake by coming off and back on plane. In this case, the faster the better. Here's another example. If a boat crosses the lake at 60 rather than 30 mph, they are on the water half as long, so out of more people's way, meaning less congestion. Boats at headway speed take up huge space. Not only are they a blockage, but they back up others who wish to get by.

[Silver Duck]

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

I don't think you want to answer that question because the answer will not support the speed limit cause. You, Evenstar and other speed limit fans know that we already have the rules we need. We just need to enforce the rules and laws we already have.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

What will never happen, all the speed deaths or my answer? Might it be that you think I could never change my position on the subject? I am not stuck in the groove. I have an open mind. Speed limits are not the answer here.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

You brought up erosion as a benefit of speed limits. I simply responded that speed limits will not reduce erosion by using the big boat example. Others have presented valid arguments about erosion, speed and plowing boats. Speed Limits are not the answer to that concern

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

My inital question still is valid. There are rules and laws about maximum noise limits. Noise Limit laws deal with NOISE. Speed limits will NOT lower the level of loudness allowed by law. I'm not that "crazy" to believe it would. Many slow boats can make plenty of noise and have loud sound systems.

I concur that there will never be 100% rule compliance including any potential speed limit rule. My question takes away the variable. It assumes the current rules are followed and enforced 100%.

When you skirt the question it speaks volumes about your position.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

. I know that some boaters like to be loud and some big fast boats are so expensive that no $$ is left for a good muffler .

Noise is not a new issue. I remember a forum thread from 8 years ago on the subject. Someone wanted to make their boat louder to get closer to the legal limit. That whole thread from the archives makes me laugh a bit. Anyway, there was a post that addresses making any size boat sound loud. I'll reprint it below but you can read it and the thread if you wish:
The original post from 2000 Forum Archive

Re: More Sound Please - I've got your answer!!!

Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 5:54 p.m.

In Response To: More Sound Please!!! (Screw-Canoe)

I have an excellent cassette and CD of a LOUD boat motor at various stages of RPM. No need to modify your engine, just plop in my tape or CD and PUMP up the volume. Track 1 for idle, Track 2 for fast acceleration, and etc...

I assume you have a 5,000 watt stereo system on-board so that you can play your music loud enough for all of us within 5 miles of your boat to enjoy (whether or not we want to). SO, why modify your engine when you can buy MY tape or CD and achieve your goal of sounding like a BIG GUN on the lake?

Of course my tapes and CDs come with a "self destruct" remote mechanism I can use if/when I get annoyed at the noise.....

AL
-------------------------

Go Fast does not necessarily mean Be Loud. Going slow does not mean quiet. varoom varoom under the Weirs Bridge is not fast or quiet. It is the boaters choice to be loud or not. When I was on my honeymoon (lakeside of course) it was the loud fishing boats that woke us up, not the big fast boats you speak of. Many motor boats of all sizes and types were able to be considerably loud at idle, during warm up and out on the water.

As has been said several times. Sound level laws are already in place. To add a speed limit in an attempt to lower sound levels is not the way to insure less boat noise.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft..."

"Oh, would that it were true, would that it were true..." (Apologies to John F. Kerry).

Originally Posted by hazelnut

WRONG!...The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM...Speed is a relative term...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!

You can increase the GPS speed of your performance boat by taking it to less-choppy waters; unfortunately, that's where the people are.

Even in The Broads, among the sailboats, drifting I/Os, inflatables, kayaks, and even cruisers out there, I'd call that "Reckless Endangerment".

That rich neighbor in his tunnel-hull going past my dock at about 110-MPH—dodging swimmers, tubers—missing a neighbor's Hobie with five pre-teen girls—should have been arrested!

Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him around these past few seasons....

And now, top speeds for tunnel-hulls are over 170-MPH!

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself...!

I wrote over 70.

That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

[Extreme Drinks: Champagne]

It's 14% alcohol: I wouldn't take a dismissive stance on Champagne as an extreme drink among extreme boaters.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.

Yup. Every slower boater is the problem—and the drunks who do have the speed to kill?

Originally Posted by codeman671

The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) You may want to do some recalculating...

Not any more: it's four feet.

But every Floridian can drive to the ocean within 1½ hours: even on ocean waters, they recorded 80 fatalities recently.

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.

I know of one: at 4½ tons, it was too much boat for The Big Lake.

Originally Posted by Lake Geezer

"...Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50...If I have to wait for the trollers..."

Why am I reminded of tailgating by this?

Geesh—leave earlier.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread..."

Ae you saying that Mashugana's question wasn't totally motivated to improve the safety of bow-riding passengers—and that it wasn't an altruistic gesture to Winnipesaukee's boating public?

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today...Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer..."

We know how to pronounce "assume".

Pronounce after me: ass-u-me.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats..."

There's no question that high performance boats are increasing in numbers—so are the headlines of tragedy.

Nobody answered my speed limit question before—so here it is again:

What headline would cause you to change your mind?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits.

As to safety it is possible to flip a boat at high speed and kill the passengers. I don't mention the operator because that is his own responsibility. The State certainly has a duty to protect the children on board. Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

Consider also that a similar argument can be made about highways. If we all obeyed all the other laws why would we need speed limits on our highways? If we all obeyed all the other laws why do we need DWI laws? It's not easy for a drunk driver to kill someone, even himself, without violating some other law. It may be possible, but its hard to think of a scenario.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy. No, your answer is not the reason I am happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. (but WHY) I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits. Kayaks and campers are not as important as WHAT? Answer the question {snip}
Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, (No I'm not) that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! (in reality I don't favor ADDITIONAL limits like 45/25mp) If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. I have no credibility? really? But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

remarks in blue were added by Skipper of the Sea Que

I don't believe anti-speed limit advocates are arguing for absolutely "NO LIMITS". What I hear is, No additional speed limits". For me it means this speed limit bill is not an answer. Some have suggested higher speed limits but we are dealing with a 45/25mph issue here. Those are the limits I don't think will solve problems. There are speed limits already: 6 mph, headway speed, speed limits for passing within 150' of boats, land and people. We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

You (or any speed limit proponents) are not answering the question posed by mashugana and your weak reasons for not answering are that we still need speed limits so why answer the question. You claim the need for more speed limits are to address noise, congestion and erosion. I believe that at least 2 of those 3 are all covered by existing laws. Congestion is another topic. There are more people everywhere. Slowing them down means more people in the same area for a longer time.

Originally Posted by mashugana

Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about erosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?

I think his question raises a very good point which has yet to be properly answered. Carry on guys and gals.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?

Maybe I can enlighten to some other reasons people don't want speeds limits on Winni and to BE LIKE Squam.

1. Squam Lake Shore owners make every attempt to limit public access to THEIR LAKE.
2. Squam Lake owners have prohibited Jetskis.
I don't need to get into all the other Squam restrictions do I?

Tell me again about Give and Take. Please tell me and everyone here more about how you want Winni to be more like Squam. The more the merrier please!

According to the MP site on restrictions on public waters, how many restrict Kayak use? ......... Waiting..........
How many public waters have restrictions on motorized craft?........ Waiting.......

Tell me again about Give and Take.

Sounds more like Take and more Take, me and me. Regardless of any speed limit, period!!!

If you could get cabin cruisers off the lake, because kayakers could capsize, you would. This is not about a speed limit and you know it, its about who wants to win this battle and the ego that goes along with winning, from both sides. This, "I'm scared to kayak in the broads", may win your necessary votes, but its not the reason nor will it really solve your concerns. But its a battle and history shows life wouldn't interesting without them.

I'm not going to ask you to stop, it's entertaining. But in this case the truths are hidden.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
...

Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

[DoTheMath]

I posted this to another thread, but it seems to apply here as well...

So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience - not from watching them on TV, maybe - have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph everyone keeps referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.
All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

Where did I tell you to give up anything. I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force. The get out of my way attitude is not the sole possession of the high performance boat.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.
So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?
Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?


I never expect to change your mind but I just love how you can sling comments calling everyone narrow minded and how we "just don't get it" and thngs "go over our head." God forbid anyone else makes the same claim about you.

Finally, because I'm all done with you, here is some food for thought. You support a law that is based on legislating against could have and might haves. A law that targets a problem that doesn't exist. A law that targets a certain type of recreation, even though these people haven't done anything wrong. Your law is based on fear mongering and whether you like it or not is discriminatory. Whether or not you "take great offense to that" or not is really not my problem it is unfortunately the truth. Just because you do not like how someone else gets their kicks doesn't give you the right to stop them because it scares you. Stop acting as if every performance boater that gets behind the wheel of his or her boat is this uncaring demonic presence hell bent on ruining your good time.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

[Silver Duck]

BI

You asked "So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?"

My response is H**L No!!!

So far as I'm concerned, any operator of any type of boat that recklessly endangers a child, in whatever way, deserves no mercy. At a minimum, confiscate his boat and take away his privilege to operate a boat in NH forever. Tar and feathers might be good, too. You knock 'em down and I'll stomp on 'em! My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.

But, as I've said all along, to get my buy-in you need to go after the specific bone heads that are doing the endangering rather than punishing the many for the sins of the few.

I also feel that Camp Directors need to exercise due dilligence in protecting their campers, though. For instance, on swims that go outside marked areas there need to be plenty of highly visible safety boats, and I wouldn't let a kid get more than a few feet from shore in a canoe - period. (IMHO, the darned things are death traps. Stock up on decent kayaks for paddle sports, and tradition be danged.)

I'll let you in on a well kept secret. I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by APS:

That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.

I guess I wasn’t clear in my post. Yes I know that you wrote there is no reason to wear an off the shelf PFD above a certain speed, which I took to mean you saying there is no reason to wear one at all, apologies if I misinterpreted your point.

Since I am not privy to the details I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not.

BTW, where was the Smoke on the Waters 2005 Poker Run held?

If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire! Now I direct your attention, and that of BI and Evenstar to post #409. Please respond.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

...

But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

Bear Islander...I am confused. You wrote to me;

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.

Yet now you again imply that summer camps (at least one) belives it's too dangerous because of speeding boats? It is a camp director's JOB to be protective of his/her children. I would prosecute any camp director that did not, however their concern in this case is not valid even according to you.

Originally posted by Bear Islander:

...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

While NH has not adopted the USGC Navigation Rules, something I think should be done then improved upon as the state sees fit, 270:29-a and Rule 6 are similar enough that 270:29-a can, and should, be used by the Marine Patrol in instances where the officer believes the operator of a boat was traveling at a speed in excess of conditions that would endanger the lives and safety of the public.

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Now I have to credit you that you have admitted, unlike most of your speed limit advocates, that safety is not the issue. You are trying to eliminate a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

You wrote something I liked. "A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup".
The only problem with that analogy is that Lake Winnipesaukee is not YOUR soup, it's OUR soup.

[Bear Islander]

I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

That should about do it! Solves the kayak and camp problems by defining safe, rather than having it based on fear. Maybe our law-makers should take a new look at this, rather than the mess they are creating.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander"
I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever

Now there is this:

I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps.

So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

BTW, you still haven’t answered the specific question I put to you, neither has Evenstar.

What question havent' I answered?

Nope, sorry you knew you were quoting a CWO from Florida and that he was writing based on his experiences as the CO of a CG Station in Florida. . . . But it’s interesting that you admit comparing Florida boating to Winni is comparing Apples and Oranges in your statement directly above the one in which you deny bringing up Florida

Quoting a Coast Guard commander who was stationed in Florida is not "bringing up Florida." No where is his entire article is Florida even mentioned. The article is not about Forida - so get off my case. You brought Florida into this conversation not me.

So which is it? Quote a Coast Guard official speaking about ocean boating (USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH) and say he’s really speaking about Winnipesaukee, or that the ocean and Winnipesaukee are completely different?

The Commander's article is about boater safety, on ALL bodies of water - and about the rules of navigation. All states' (including NH) boating rules are based on the USCG's Rules of Navigation.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.

I wrote “You really don’t get do you,” not as an insult or anything, but because I believe that you really aren’t seeing the problem that I and others are seeing and have experienced. This is not about “enlightenment”, but many speed limit opponents on this forum have been very narrow-minded in the way that they have treated anyone who has had different experiences from them. Just because you have not had a negative encounter with a high-speed boat does not mean that this hasn’t happen to others.

There are all sorts of legislation that is based on fear. Most of the USA Patriot Act is legislation that is based on fear. There are 27 NH RSAs that include the word “fear” and 219 with the word “danger.” There are hundreds of NH laws that were passed to protect the public from unsafe conditions. Many speed limit supporters feel that it is very unsafe to allow power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes. It has been my experience that the 150 foot rule doesn’t work very well at protecting paddlers when power boats are traveling at high speeds.

Paddlers and other small boat owners’ rights have been taken away from them. When you give up the use of a NH lake, due to the fear of being run over by high speed boats, that is losing your rights. You may claim that their fear is irrational, but all the people that I know who will no longer paddle on Winni seem like very rational people who have had to choose between their own safety and being able to use a NH lake. That is just not right, no matter how you try to spin it.

I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force.

I’ve explained this numerous times, yet “you still don’t get it” (sorry, but apparently that’s true). Faster boats have less time to see me, and I have less time to get out of their way. That’s why it is the faster boats that have been the one’s that have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone. “Careless and inattentive boaters” become a much greater danger at higher speeds.

No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?

If Squam did not have a 40mph speed limit, many boats would be going way faster than 40mph on Squam, and I've seen plenty of boats on Squam that are capable of exceeding 45mph. Why is it that you completely ignored what I posted about Lake Champlainlace? So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

Now there is this:


So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

Are you deliberately not understanding something that is so simple?

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

[Airwaves]

Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389

When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".

Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409

So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?

And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389

Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409


And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429

Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

You are taking quotes out of context and attempting to link things that are NOT LINKED.

One of the things you can't seem to get strait is the word "Violations". Boat congestion and speed can be a problem even though there are no violations. As we have discussed many times some people are intimidated by conditions on the lake. This can be true even without any "violations".

I do not believe you are interested in fair discussion, you are only looking for what you think may be an inconsistency so you can use it to attack me. I will no longer respond to these types of posts by you.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

We certainly agree that the congestion and lack of boater "intelligence" is a problem particularly on weekends. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have. I personally think they have no place on the lake for several reasons, but that is in many ways a separate argument from speed.

The congestion and lack of intelligence is growing. Already there are days, other than weekends, when camp boating must be limited. My biggest concern is where the lake is headed. If things get worse camp activities may have to be limited even more.

One thing we can do is enact a speed limit. It will not solve the lakes problems but will improve things. A speed limit is a tool the MP can use to limit some of the worst situations.

Continuing to NOT have a speed limit will attract even more idiots to this lake. Especially when other lakes continue to enact speed limits.

Other lakes that have passed speed limits claim they have worked to slow the pace and reduce congestion.

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. With all do respect, as they say, I think that group has a better handle than you on current conditions and what is needed to improve them.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experince on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly un-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."

Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."

Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..

Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

It would be up to the individual whether to exceed 45-MPH or not—irrespective of boat design.

(After dark: 25-MPH).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."

We're even? ,,,I never got an answer to:

"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"

(Those NH Senators in opposition? Please include the word "children" in your answer.)

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum...."

Civil law doesn't protect children as well as it protects retirees. But with all the creative penalties around, why did a judge use up a perfectly good jail cell to punish Lake Winnipesaukee's most experienced performance boater?

I'd have sentenced him to weekends sitting in a kayak, anchored off the lake's most talked-about flashing light, day and night, every June through September—for five years. A diary would be required proof of compliance to record NHMP passings, and scheduled calls to a Probation Officer. (He would be permitted only two D-cells for his light). Like you, I'd ban him from the lake forever after completing his sentence.

Oh yeah...I'd also mandate that he carry the whistle that meets NH boating laws.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

...So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats...!?"

When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now.

[Seeker]

Just when is the Senate expecting to vote on the speed limit bill? Is it still in committee?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experience on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly UN-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have.

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush

[Airwaves]

Quote: by APS:

Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow).

Yea, I would say a Great Lake is different. They are Federal/International waterways, patroled by the US and Canadian Coast Guard and they even have tides! There are no Ocean-racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, donchaknow

Quote by APS:

Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!

Actually if you look back he was quoting my post on that one.

As far as the night-time "Kayak Cut In Half" collision, that wouldn't be the kayak that was on the water in the middle of the night with no lights would it? You remember, the one that was abandonded unlighted in the path of an oncoming power boat traveling at barely headway speed because a spot light was in use and he didn't want to be seen naked? That one?

Quote: by APS

We're even? ,,,I never got an answer to:


Quote:
"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"

The difference is, my question was not a hypothetical like yours is.

I came into this debate not having an opinion on speed limits one way or the other. If your side had been able to show me that speed is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee I would help you lead the charge. You have only been able to show me that the 150' rule is routinely violated.

[wehatetoquitit]

I'm confused, as I often am ( one living brain cell,which I hope divides soon), when it comes to what everybody describes as a "go-fast boat". What is the defination of this type of craft. I have an old 20 foot Penn Yan that is capable, under the right conditions, of exceeding the proposed speed limit. I notice that probably most boats on the lake, Whalers, Grady Whites, C-Dorys, Bass boats, Sea Doos and others regardless of length and outfitted with modern engines are probably capable of exceeding the proposed limit. Are all of these go fast boats?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush:EM:

There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false.

[KonaChick]

From what I can gather, BI is for speed limits AND restricting a certain kind of boat on the lake (having to do with hp). I'm sure if I'm wrong in these assumptions I'll be corrected.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

From what I can gather, BI is for speed limits AND restricting a certain kind of boat on the lake (having to do with hp). I'm sure if I'm wrong in these assumptions I'll be corrected.

You are correct. I support the speed limit legislation HB847 endorsed by WinnFABS. This is only a speed limit and does not target any kind of boat. A great number of boats can go more than 45 mph, not just GFBL's. And a huge number of boats can go over 25 mph, the nighttime limit.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

I though I was making this distinction clear, but it seems I was wrong.

[JDeere]

I have to thank BI for keeping a level head and keeping to the facts without getting personal!!

[Silver Duck]

Today, Islander posted:

"There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false."

But, back on 1/16/05, at 3:26 PM, Islander posted the following:

"This law does not require ANY enforcement!

When owners of boats that can go 90mph are looking for a lake to visit or dock their boat at they will NOT choose a lake with a 45mph speed limit. So no new fast boats will come to lake winni.

Some die hard owners of fast boats on the lake may stay. But year by year there will be fewer and fewer fast boats on the lake. All this without the Marine Patrol writing even one ticket.

There will be people that go 50 or 60 on the lake and get away with it. Just like people go 75 or 85 on RT93 and usually get away with it. But nobody goes 130 on RT 93 and nobody will be going 90 on the lake anymore.

If you read the article about the people that came up with this legislation you will find that they are already talking about horse power limits."

And on 1/18/05, at 4:44 PM, Islander posted the following:

"This is where these people are coming from! They want to blast by Eagle Island at 200 mph.

Notice that the generic name for these boats is "Offshore". Winni doesn't have anyplace that is offshore."

On a different note, on 1/14/05 at 3:27 PM Bear Lover posted the following:

"ITD

Your missing the point. A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake.

If you really think it can't happen read the list of NH lakes with speed and or horsepower limits. It's about 1 in 3."

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Today, Islander posted:

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents?
Silver Duck

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by JDeere

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny, being that the list of opponents published (and posted on this site) is larger than the list of proponents... DUH!!!!!!!!!!! And honestly, how do you know that the intent ISN'T to ban performance boats? Seems rather odd to me that this originated from Bear Island, the sample place that a certain individual lived that passed away at the hands of a DRUNK, NON SPEEDING (sorry, and estimated 3mph variance is not excessive) GFBL/driver?


DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????? Even my eight year old uses more witty remarks than that...

Let the speed limit come. Next time someone dies at the hands of a boater doing less than the speed limit what will the argument be then?? Ban them all? For the record, more people have died in non-powered accidents in the last few years on the lake than at the hands of any boater. Multiple drownings and someone falling off the Mount. Let's ban swimming off boats to start. Wasn't it two in the same weekend???

You can't fix stupid...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

I was not involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation. I know Bear Lover wasn't either. There goes that argument.

I guess your theory is we are lying about the real reason for speed limits. Can you please explain why. Why do we lie, if it were true why would we not say so? We have no reason to lie.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by JDeere

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks.

You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is
A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof.


And JDeere , being the owner of a "performance boat" I consider this and attack from BI.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"I" am targeting performance boats

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is
A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof.


And JDeere , being the owner of a "performance boat" I consider this and attack from BI.

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

From Coast Guard statistics http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2006.pdf

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.


Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

What good theory is that? Excessive speed means what? Surely not some number!

I was guilty of excessive speed last time I dinged my prop on a rock. Had I been going 20 rather than 25 MPH, I might have stopped in time once I saw the rock. On our lake, we have a lot more accidents involving alcohol abuse than speeds over 45. Excessive speed is a relative issue, based on boat type, weather, sea and traffic. Encouraging the MP to stop people for traveling over 45 when conditions would allow it, threating them with fines and suspended licenses is what we're fighting.

[Silver Duck]

Islander

What part of "A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it" is so unclear that I could possibly misunderstand it?

Whether or not you and/or Bear Lover were involved with creating the speed limit legislation, you are both, as I stated, "proponents" of that legislation. With proponents singing that tune, I must, in good conscience, oppose it!

In addition, I strongly feel that a "one size fits all" speed limit of 45 mph is far too fast in certain areas of the lake (e.g., the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island, the stretch between Eagle Island and the Weirs) at busy times! Since other proponents have opined that operating in a reckless manner is not a tool that the MP can use to curb excessive speed, my feeling is that the speed limit, as curently written, will only serve to legitimize going through those kinds of areas during crowded times at what to me seems an excessive rate of speed.

Silver Duck

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Islander
Whether or not you and/or Bear Lover were involved with creating the speed limit legislation, you are both, as I stated, "proponents" of that legislation. With proponents singing that tune, I must, in good conscience, oppose it!

I have also been accused on this forum of supporting the speed limit because my goat is to rid the lake of a certain type of boat - which is not at all true.

Is it possible that this may in fact be the goal of some speed limit supporter? Yes, of course that is possible. But I seriously doubt that many have this as a goal.

I don't support that goal, but that doesn't mean that I should give up my support of a bill that I believe in. I was at the State House long enough to see that many bills are supported (and opposed) for both good and bad reasons.

In addition, I strongly feel that a "one size fits all" speed limit of 45 mph is far too fast in certain areas of the lake (e.g., the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island, the stretch between Eagle Island and the Weirs) at busy times! Since other proponents have opined that operating in a reckless manner is not a tool that the MP can use to curb excessive speed, my feeling is that the speed limit, as currently written, will only serve to legitimize going through those kinds of areas during crowded times at what to me seems an excessive rate of speed.

Now that's just silly, and the writing in the bill is clear about what it permits. A speed limit is the maximum speed that a boat may travel- not the permissible speed for all conditions. Here's text from HB 847:

"(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:

(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and

(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time."

Seems pretty clear to me. A speed limit is an addition tool for safer boating - it does not replace all the other boating laws.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Gee, Islander, I wonder why some of us formed a theory that "speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat"? Could it possibly have been based upon postings by some of the speed limit proponents? I'm sure that, if you would like additional evidence supporting the above theory, I could retrieve and paste dozens of similar posts.....

Silver Duck

Silver Duck

Please post a reason why we would lie about the origins of speed limits, or stop making the accusation!

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by codeman671

You can't fix stupid...

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Islander

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olypics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I have no problem with your opinion regarding my comments. Freedom of speech is part of the Bill-of-Rights.

I react to what I read and I could care less that I have never met BI. I absolutely respect everyone who has served this country, but as one who spent significant time in Viet Nam, I do not think that gives me any special treatment or special rights. I also spend significant time in my retirement with the Special Olympics and Make a Wish Foundation. Again, I expect no special treatment from that either. I do not know why you seem to think BI should be treated special for what he has done of the country or for those less fortunate. I thank BI for his contribution, but I see no need for special treatment.

I have a huge problem with someone, in this case BI, who openly admits they are out to remove certain kinds of boats from the lake. Go and support your cause for whatever your reason, but when someone tells everyone on the forum that he is out to remove a certain kind of boat from the lake, then it is time to speak up in support of freedom. There is far too much "spin" that the speed limit proponents continue to place on this subject. I am sure it is a designed tactic.

Islander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

R2B

I am sorry but I think you are confused. I never suggested any "special treatment" You posted this in your bash against BI.

"I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom."

You see it was you that brought up the subject of service. Does only YOUR service apply?

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Why is it Un-American to want a horsepower limit anyway. If a citizen truly believes that is the answer what should they do? Hide their beliefs? Freedom is the right to voice what you believe in even if other people don't like it.

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

Your posts are, in my opinion, a personal bash that are against the rules of this forum.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

IIslander, please refrain from sending me negative personal messages in the future. If you have something to say to me or about others be it positive or negative, say it where everyone can read it. You are the one making things personal through your use of this site's personal message feature. All future personal messages from you will now go directly to my junk mail folder.

R2B

Please post it for us all to enjoy

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you follow this link you will find a very long list of New Hampshire lakes and ponds that have speed limits, horsepower limits or ban powerboats altogether. There is nothing new, unusual or Un-American about horsepower limits.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

I have covered this one many times before, I'd be happy to direct you to the links if you'd like. The bulk of the bodies of water in NH are limited due to their sheer size! Try putting a 25 foot boat in Milton 3 Ponds for instance... 110 acres of water. Winnipesaukee is over 6 times the size of the second largest lake and considerably deeper. From there, there is only a few that are 3000+ acres and below that it drops even faster.

How many other lakes in NH could accomodate the Mount? The Sophie C? the Doris E? You don't anything like those on Squam...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

As a separate matter I personally believe a horsepower limit is necessary and will come about someday (many years at a minimum). This certainly targets GFBL's as well as large cruisers.

Originally Posted by bear islander

"I" am targeting performance boats, the speed limit movement is not.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Alcohol abuse is already against the law. Excessive speed is not.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

From Coast Guard statistics http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2006.pdf

More accidents are attributed to excessive speed than alcohol. It is also interesting to note that the only major factor not already addressed by law is excessive speed.

Sorry if the facts from the US Coast Guard mess up a good theory.

BS. You know darn well the EXCESS SPEED can also be 10mph while docking or 25 mph in bad conditions but DON"T mention that. You keep digging yourself into a pit of deception with your statements. Keep up the good work

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by JDeere

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

JD, I think you are missing the point of the argument. Are you calling going 60 MPH in a bass boat, on a calm uncrowded day absurd? This rule attempts to define what is proper for the whole lake, all the time and under all conditions. Yes, let the captain do what they want, within the limits conditions define. That is called freedom. Existing laws can deal with the captain bonehead who gets it wrong. How is that absurd?

Those who use the lake on the weekend, should not dictate rules that impact others when they are not around. That is absurd. Nobody is claiming its their right to do what ever they want, only their right to safely enjoy speed when the conditions are right.

[JDeere]

LG,

I use to spend a lot of time fishing on the lake. I grew tired of getting buzzed by some of the speedier boats on the lake. I hvae had too many close calls or maybe to close for comfort situations with boats going IMHO too fast. Again IMHO if those boats were traveling SLOWER thier Captain would still be a bone head BUT at least I will have more time to react.

So, yes I think a bass boat going 60 MPH is too fast.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cal

"...You get a grip and you will probably find the common denomintor is A L C O H O L regardless of speed and/or speed limit or lack thereof...."

Though speed has claimed as many as 6 unrelated boaters at once—inside a cruiser, btw—I find the ocean-racer crash that claimed three brothers off your NJ coast especially disturbing.

1) Was it A L C O H O L that claimed those brothers?

2) If they could, what would those brothers advise us today about keeping the thrills of excess speed "in the family"?

"...Clouds are nice...brothers together...harp tunes getting old...send three MP3s..."

??? ???

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by JDeere

If that really was the number one agenda don't you think that they would have started with horsepower? This is such a stupid argument.

If 22 people were killed on the lake next year by boats going faster than 60 MPH you folks would still argue that it was not the speed that did it. Get a grip on reality folks. Slower is safer and the MAJORITY want it! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But 22 people have NOT been killed on the lake. Not last year, and not any year before that. The last time someone was killed by a boat going faster than 60 was...when??
I know what you will say next...a speed limit will prevent 22 people from being killed by boats faster than 60. Of course it will. Riiiight.
Fear mongering at its finest. Let's solve a problem that does NOT exist.

Originally Posted by JDeere

You are correct but at least you can slow them down! How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

Ya, how dare us try to fight for what we believe in. We are horrible, horrible people.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Originally Posted by Islander

He is not trying to remove any boat or type of boat from the lake. Another mistake you have made. His idea was to prohibit boats of a certain horsepower made after a future date. That would allow all current boats to stay on the lake and only limit bringing in new ones.

Seems pretty clear to me that you are incorrect on that one Islander. BI made it pretty obvious of his stand there.

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are wrong codeman. That quote is totally accurate. I have been posting my position on this for a long time. Obviously I don't post the entire proposal every time I refer to it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5784#post55784

Your post was right after mine, you must have read it back then.

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I posted YOUR OWN quote from yesterday where you clearly stated "I am targeting performance boats". You wrote it yourself. How is that wrong? Seems quite clear to me. You don't have to go that far back to see.

I was arguing Islanders post, not yours. Islander stated that you were not targeting any particular type of boat.

Again, tell me how my post was wrong???

You were wrong because you know my belief very well. Take a look at these past posts of yours. You are even telling other people about my proposal.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2008#post62728

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...2008#post67118

My quote that "I" am targeting high performance boats was to explain that the speed limit movement is not targeting them, just me.

I am only targeting ones manufactured after 2008. Sorry if that was not clear. I have not changed my views or tried to hide them.

[codeman671]

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now.

Yeah - Brewster - and I have an MBA from Wharton - ok, so now we've got the edu. background out of the way... So - let me ask, was your tunnel-hull racer bigger than 1/12th scale? I'm not talking models - I'm talking the real deal. And if it was a "tunnel-hull racer" as you refer to it, I'm also not referring to the ones with a 15hp. outboard on it that's 10' long. I'm talking a full sized, I'm-really-all-grown-up-now performance boat, Skater, Cigarette, Outerlimits... that kind of performance boat. Your past posts read a bit differently than if you had real experience with what I am referring to and what you are so freely bashing. Come on - let's get it out there and see what you've got to offer in the way of REAL experience that can support your stance.

Oh, and how about Poker Runs, how many have you participated in!? Rough numbers will be fine )

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Rather than continue to quibble, argue about peoples intentions, etc let's try to put some fixes in place ourselves.

If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem? This could be solved at the MP level.

Coming past Cattle Landing and turning towards Mark the channel between Mark and Bear is very narrow, probably more so than between others that are already NWZ's. The bay between Mark and Camp Lawrence is a heavily traveled area for watersports, especially by the camps. Putting a NWZ in at the end of Mark, just a short one on such a bad corner, would slow people down, cut down on wake damage, and make it a safer area for all?

I think a short NWZ coupled with a warning marker near the end of Bear warning of a reduced speed or caution zone would help. I would not want to see the whole area go NWZ as many people enjoy it for watersports, but just slowing the traffic or possibly diverting it elsewhere may help.

Sure, I do live in that area and it would help us as well, but if safety near the Camps is one of the true issues, lets work together to try to fix it on a local level.

Any thoughts?

Interesting idea. There could be "camp zones" similar to the school zones we have on our roads. I would certainly be in favor.

There would be resistance in some areas. There are a lot of camps that would like protection. Then what about public beaches, association beaches etc.

Some camps may be in areas that are high traffic, difficult to set up a zone without impeding navigation.

[hazelnut]

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I would be in favor of a "Camp Zone" just like a school zone.

Monday - Friday 8am-7pm or something to that effect, put up a 500-1000 foot zone no wake/no travel zone? I don't know it aint a perfect idea but it is a start. As for associations and town beaches they would not fall into the same category in my opinion. Special regard for schools and camps yes.

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I would think weekends should be included if safety is the issue, this is when the bulk of the traffic is present. There is not that many camps on the lake so I don't think it would impede on many spots.

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

My thoughts on that were that camps could have more area maybe even 1000 feet plus strictly enforced during the week. On the weekends camps could curtail open water activities in favor of activities within the immediate vicinity of the shore/beach area.

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Will the camp be paying the MP to sit there in his boat and enforce this? Some thoughts??

Nope, look at it just like a cop might stake out a school zone.

As far as notifying boaters perhaps the marine patrol could give the camps rights to put out temporary No Wake buoys each day as needed?

[Silver Duck]

I think that Camp Zones are a fine idea, whether or not the speed limit is enacted!

Could this be done by the MP administratively, or would legislation be needed to create a new category of zone?

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Evenstar

I, for one, have never numbered you among the "run 'em off the lake" set.

However, I think that you're a bit optimistic about Captain Bonehead's idea of "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions" being anything less than the posted maximum.

For instance, over the last six seasons, I've spent many nights sitting in the cockpit of my cruiser (inside the enclosure, of course) on pitch dark and rainy nights, with visibility maybe 100 ft, at best. (The only reason I'd have left my slip on some of those nights was if the dock was on fire!)

Yet, I can't even begin to count the number of times I've seen boats leave the public docks and come up on plane before they even reach the no wake markers. Definitely not reasonable and prudent behavior by my standards.

The 60 year old cynic in me keeps telling me that "reasonable and prudent" seems to be in short supply with some folks. I don't much like it, but I suspect that Captain B is going to adopt 45 mph as reasonable and prudent by definition (until he hits something or somebody, and the MP can hang a violation of subparagraph A on him.)

But, I do hope that you're right, and I'm being too pessimistic. Time will tell.

Silver Duck

[Silver Duck]

Islander

Since, as you say (and I'll accept your word on it) neither you nor Bear Lover were "involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation", why should I accept your theory on the reasons behind the legislation over my own (which is shared by a number of other forum members)?

I'm not calling you a liar, I merely feel that my view of the reasons behind the speed limit is correct and your isn't. I rather doubt that either of us has any possibility of convincing the other.

By the way, excellent pun!

Silver Duck

[jrc]

Originally Posted by JDeere

... How you folks argue that it is your right to do whatever you want is just outright absurd.

Absurd? Are you sure you are in the right country?

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
...
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
...
synonyms see freedom
...

Now of course "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" acording to Holmes. But you want us to stop even when there are no noses.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Codeman671
If safety around the camps on the lake is one of the true concerns that people have that are driving a speed limit, why not push for a safety zone around the camps? I don't mean this as an attempt at a speed limit compromise as I don't see any chance of that, but why not put a sincere effort towards fixing this portion of the problem?

A very good idea but as you point out it probably wouldn't be offered as a compromise on the speed limit issue, although it might sway some in the NH Senate if it were offered to them.

I would think that if a violation of the 150' law is a problem around these camps they could probably petition the Dept of Safety to get the no wake/no boat zone increased administratively just as waterfront property owners can petition for no rafting zones.

The slippery slope here is if a couple of camps can do it more will follow, then various 'associations' etc etc.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Though speed has claimed as many as 6 unrelated boaters at once—inside a cruiser, btw—I find the ocean-racer crash that claimed three brothers off your NJ coast especially disturbing.

1) Was it A L C O H O L that claimed those brothers?

2) If they could, what would those brothers advise us today about keeping the thrills of excess speed "in the family"?



??? ???

1. Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question.

2.Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense. Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power.

Their autobody shop is still 2 miles from my house but under a different name.
Didn't know them personally but have heard a lot of local scuttlebutt that never gets to the newspapers.

[TiltonBB]

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.
B. A boat bigger than mine went by my house, made some noise, and left a wake.
C. I tried to row my 12 foot aluninum row boat (with 3 kids and the dog aboard) accross Meredith Bay on July 4th and some boats went by and scared me.

What will the end game be?

Safer lake? No, there is no factual evidence that it will make the lake even a little safer.
Quieter? No, this has nothing to do with the existing noise laws.
No more 150 foot violations? No, those will still happen.
Smarter Captains? Nope, doesn't address that.
More Marine Patrol Officers? Nope, not mentioned.
Smaller Wakes? No, slower boats leave larger wakes.

Wow! A lot of noise and effort to take away your rights and acomplish nothing.

When the horsepower and speed laws are eventually established what happens if: I get a 40 foot Marine Trader displacement hull with a single 120 HP diesel engine and cruise the lake at 6 knots. Will the speed fairies cry about the wake? Will they try to establish a size limit? If I paint the boat pink will they want covenants in place to establish appearance standards?

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it!

What happened to live free or die?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.

First of all there is a problem - apparently you’re not reading what I have posted. Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles.

My contention is that allowing power boat to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds is just not a safe practice – and many others agree with me, including the US Coast Guard. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” (http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm)

I can only comment on “A”, since the other two don’t apply to me. I own a 16 foot sea kayak, which is designed to be used on large bodies of water – and I am an experienced kayaker. So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater.

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it! What happened to live free or die?

If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws.

NH RSA 270:1, Section II. “In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. ...

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Islander

Since, as you say (and I'll accept your word on it) neither you nor Bear Lover were "involved in any way with creating the speed limit legislation", why should I accept your theory on the reasons behind the legislation over my own (which is shared by a number of other forum members)?

I'm not calling you a liar, I merely feel that my view of the reasons behind the speed limit is correct and your isn't. I rather doubt that either of us has any possibility of convincing the other.

By the way, excellent pun!

Silver Duck

Although I was not involved with creating the legislation, I know some people that were. And I have been involved with support meetings. I have read the communications. There is no secret agenda. How could such a wide based loosely organized group hide its true purpose? Would that many people keep the real purpose secret? We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't make sense.

And if GFBL's were the target why not just say so. You can make a good argument (as some have) that the lake is to small and fragile for these boats.

Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is more likely to be true.

[TiltonBB]

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.

Could you support a minimum daytime speed of, say, 44 MPH? That way no boat will ever overtake another slower boat and with everyone going the same speed it will eliminate the unsafe passing of other boats.

I've been boating and swimming on the lake for many, many years. I used to love looking at the mountians and trees. Is there any way to include in the speed legislation that people shouldn't develop their mountainside land. The view is changing and I don't enjoy the lake as much because I have to see those big houses that rich people own.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by jrc

Absurd? Are you sure you are in the right country?

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: lib·er·ty
...
1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice
...
synonyms see freedom
...

Now of course "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" acording to Holmes. But you want us to stop even when there are no noses.

I think your freedom ends at the bow of my boat. I too have the right to liberty. The difference between you and me is that see your version of liberty (to go as fast you want) infringing on my liberty to enjoy the lake with out people traveling at high speeds.

I boat and have boated in many places. Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

It think she nailed it in this reply although I would say "we know" it is an unsafe policy.

Slower is safer.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by JDeere

Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.

Re-read ad the posts about speed limits and the logic should become apparent to you. Speeds above 45 scares people into fighting for limits, but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. So, its a battle between those that are afraid of something they can't control or understand and freedom fighters. Here, the fight is to retain the existing right to persue happiness by going fast under appropriate conditions. Speed limit proponents are entitled to push for laws that restrict others, so they can feel safer. It should make sense to you that others will not accept what they feel are ineffective restrictions of freedom without a fight.

The right to not be scared is indeed one that has emerged into our culture over the past 8 years, but not everyone buys into the new agenda of fear based politics. If that doesn't make sense, go read the documents that founded this country - and see if you find anything about freedom from fear in there.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles. .

Ok I'll bite,How about the ultra light planes and similar craft which fly right over the lake or with hang gliders?Hey you asked.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater. .

Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws..

What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?

This is what NH LAW states” “. . . it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights.

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.

Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.

I paddle a sea kayak, which is made to handle large waves. I happen to enjoy waves – and I often surf on large wakes.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!

I have kayaked and sailed on the ocean – I cross shipping lanes all the time. Commercial vessels are not going all that fast, so it is no problem to stay out of their way.

What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?

Excuse me? What have I ever made up? Look back at my previous post – I referenced and quoted that NH law.

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.

How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater?
Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Cal

BS. You know darn well the EXCESS SPEED can also be 10mph while docking or 25 mph in bad conditions but DON"T mention that. You keep digging yourself into a pit of deception with your statements. Keep up the good work

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is what NH LAW states” “. . . it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights..

Variety of uses doesn't mean all. Some kayaks won't want to be out with boats going between 20 and 45. Those above 45 are just more of the same. I think the lake meets the requirements of variety of uses.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.

Define speeding? I sure see a lot of complaints that about speeding, yet not at speeds above 45. A speed limit of 45 won't solve the problem. Few of the "to fast for conditions" accidents are above 45. I suggest that those going above 45 are better drivers, and there are fewer of them. You're point of speeding is well taken, but the speed limit won't address it.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.

Common thinking is that boats going above 45 make less wake, so the issue of legislating wake and speed limits are totally different issues - as you seem to acknowledge.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater? Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.

Its not. Boats that want to speed need to stay clear of you and when you get in the way, the boats have to deal with it. Now if you'd only stop trying to restrict them when you aren't around.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

In the context of the statistics that you posted, what is the definition of excessive speed?
A. More than 45 mph at day?
B. More than 25 mph at night?
C. Travelling too fast for the conditions?
D. Travelling faster than someone else thinks he should have?
E. Exceeding an existing speed limit?

How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed?

[jrc]

Evenstar
How can you find the ability to ban certain boats and certain operations in the phrase "the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses" ?

Unless a boat or operation can be shown to be unsafe, it would seem that this phrase would require that it be encouraged. So show me direct un-biased evidence that traveling over 45 MPH is always or at least usually unsafe on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can't because there isn't any. All we have is fear, derived from estimates of speeds in anecdotal close calls.

Bear Islander

Show me in the Coast Guard safe speed rule where sets a numerical speed limit? From a USCG point of view excess speed means breaking this rule, it has nothing to do with speed limits. You know this, stop pretending.

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Bear Islander

Show me in the Coast Guard safe speed rule where sets a numerical speed limit? From a USCG point of view excess speed means breaking this rule, it has nothing to do with speed limits. You know this, stop pretending.

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

If you crash your boat while attempting to dock at 10 mph, then USCG will label speed as a factor. If you run aground at 30 mph in thick fog, then USCG will label speed as a factor. Given that, how many of those 464 speed related accidents do you suppose were similar to my examples? How many were above the proposed speed limits? 10%? 50%? 90%?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

If you crash your boat while attempting to dock at 10 mph, then USCG will label speed as a factor. If you run aground at 30 mph in thick fog, then USCG will label speed as a factor. Given that, how many of those 464 speed related accidents do you suppose were similar to my examples? How many were above the proposed speed limits? 10%? 50%? 90%?

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

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

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

NWZ speed is the safest speed possible. I think the whole lake should be NWZ.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by jrc

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.
Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

See above in bold. You are being silly.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....

All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that.

What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe.