Life after speed limits - Page 3

VtSteve · 05-09-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Haselnut, the only question that you answered from my previous post was: "Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?"

Apparently the answer is "yes." (based on your reply, since it served no other purpose here).

#1) You insulted me by treating me like an idiot, just because I disagree with you - I was merely defending myself - but I was recruited by my university, and my tuition is mostly paid for by academic scholarships.

#2) My "unsmart" physical activities do keep me fit, and I'm a collegiate athlete. Both are true statements. How many on this forum are currently in good enough shape to compete on a collegiate team? My statement that "I’m probably in better shape that most of you" is likely an accurate accessment.

#3) I posted "SEA KAYAK" not kayak or canoe - "Have you even been in a sea kayak?"

#4) An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer. It's not magic - it's a fact that, all else being equal, going slower is safer.

#5) I don't hate powerboats - I just hate the attitudes of some powerboat owners.

#6) I'm a She

#7) I own my own home in Littleton. Just because I'm a full-time university student doesn't mean that I'm a kid.

That's it! I'm done defending myself. Go harrass someone else.

You're certainly not an idiot, and I'd hate to even begin to compare fitness levels, I bet you're a very fit babe

Nothing bad intended.

We definitely agree on the Attitudes of "some" boaters. When you combine the 'tudes with stupid you get an even worse outcome. Most of the idiots, no, make that ALL of the idiots, I encountered last year were doing 15mph to maybe 35 mph. Unfortunately, my VHF radio seems to attest to the lack of funds for our many law enforcement agencies here. Probably more devoted to smugglers and border jumpers than safe boating anymore.

I think one thing that would benefit ALL boaters, is to try to get more funding for the MP. It would be hard work, but five years has already been wasted on the current actions. I think everyone would be delighted to see how much support there is for that, and if successful, how much better the outcome would be.

SIKSUKR · 05-09-2008, 10:18 AM

Is it me or does anyone else see the wa wa wa,Im better than you,I know more than you,I'm an expert at everything posts by some of these members.Give it a rest and focus on the topic.Your style is getting very old and it's cost you your credibility.

EricP · 05-09-2008, 10:29 AM

I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

chipj29 · 05-09-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What compromises have power boat operators made? Name just one. You guys are just used to getting your own way, and don’t care if your actions are negatively affecting others. It’s the same old “I have more horsepower/money, so get out of my way” attitude again. You even want to ban us from using the main lake, or ban us from the entire lake, just so you can still have your own way.

Well, that’s not going to happen. We’ve already made enough compromises with this bill – it has been watered down with amendments for the benefit of powerboaters – it now will only applies to Winni (instead of to all NH lakes); and it now has a 2-year sunset clause. But that’s not good enough for you. I’m done compromising.

Good luck with the Class Action lawsuit. That would be like trying to sue the state for having highway speed limits.

I am only going to comment on the part in bold. There have been many, many, many compromises made by power boaters. How many bodies of water in the state have current speed limits, or horsepower limits? Squam Lake comes to mind. There are plenty more examples. Ask someone who owns a PWC about compromises and restrictions.

So, the kayakers can go on every single body of water in the state of NH. However the same cannot be said for the power boaters. Who is making the compromises?

VtSteve · 05-09-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am only going to comment on the part in bold. There have been many, many, many compromises made by power boaters. How many bodies of water in the state have current speed limits, or horsepower limits? Squam Lake comes to mind. There are plenty more examples. Ask someone who owns a PWC about compromises and restrictions.

So, the kayakers can go on every single body of water in the state of NH. However the same cannot be said for the power boaters. Who is making the compromises?

They can't even enforce a NWZ now, I think more laws would be ridiculous.

Don't forget about the big wake party if the speed limit does pass. I figure with all of the boats going 1omph to just under plane for an entire weekend, the erosion on the islands will be so great, it may just open up some more water

Mashugana · 05-09-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

What a great idea EdicP. A flag with it's base at least 3 feet above the kayak would be excellent. Evenstar would be seen from even further away with a flag like that. That certainly would help her feel safer. An excellent solution.

I wonder how they will toss out your idea. They will say that it won't work. Then they may call it or you idiotic and make HB847 appear to be the only solution.

I say good for you. EricP should get an award for such a great idea. A flag for kayaks so they can be seen from a longer distance.

By the way, does Evenstar represent the average kayaker on the big lake?

AC2717 · 05-09-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

What a great idea EdicP. A flag with it's base at least 3 feet above the kayak would be excellent. Evenstar would be seen from even further away with a flag like that. That certainly would help her feel safer. An excellent solution.

I wonder how they will toss out your idea. They will say that it won't work. Then they may call it or you idiotic and make HB847 appear to be the only solution.

I say good for you. EricP should get an award for such a great idea. A flag for kayaks so they can be seen from a longer distance.

By the way, does Evenstar represent the average kayaker on the big lake?

This should be proposed, it is a great idea and safe for eveyone, not trying to be a jerk here. They want to be seen and be safe and we want to know where they are and it will not cause any problems to the kayak, I might just do that to mine

codeman671 · 05-09-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

What a great idea EdicP. A flag with it's base at least 3 feet above the kayak would be excellent. Evenstar would be seen from even further away with a flag like that. That certainly would help her feel safer. An excellent solution.

I wonder how they will toss out your idea. They will say that it won't work. Then they may call it or you idiotic and make HB847 appear to be the only solution.

I say good for you. EricP should get an award for such a great idea. A flag for kayaks so they can be seen from a longer distance.

By the way, does Evenstar represent the average kayaker on the big lake?

It has been brought up a few times before and Evenstar was not a fan...

hazelnut · 05-09-2008, 12:08 PM

Evanstar read the title of YOUR post #189 posted just yesterday at 9:18am. It speaks volumes about your character. I have real problems with people like you and I have mentioned it before. You consider it perfectly fine to insult every opponent of your beliefs but as soon as somebody calls you out you whine like a crybaby. You are a girl great, represent yourself and be strong. Don't insult others unless you can take it right back.

Sea Kayak yes I've seen them and last time I checked the PROFILE of a sea kayak is no greater than that of a regular kayak. You are a sitting duck in the broads regardless of a speed limit. It is a fact that most boats aren't traveling over 45 even though you assume they are. Those boats will continue to violate your 150 foot zone unless there is better enforcement and education enacted. Don't take my word for it, just let me know in a couple of years if you "feel" safer. I highly doubt you will.

EricP · 05-09-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

It has been brought up a few times before and Evenstar was not a fan...

Yes, But I am.

codeman671 · 05-09-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

Yes, But I am.

I agree with it as well, no arguments here.

VtSteve · 05-09-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

Yes, But I am.

I'd have to say that I am as well. In this day and age of high premiums and boat congestion, we can't afford to have anything in the water that isn't easy to see.

I feel that lakes need more regulations for sure.

VtSteve · 05-09-2008, 12:56 PM

One thing has me worried. Would the speed limits have any impact on the NASWA Bikini Contest? I haven't even gotten over there yet.

codeman671 · 05-09-2008, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

One thing has me worried. Would the speed limits have any impact on the NASWA Bikini Contest? I haven't even gotten over there yet.

The one bonus I see is that at slower speeds it will be easier to be on bikini watch with passing boats

brk-lnt · 05-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I agree with it as well, no arguments here.

As do I. In fact, I haven't seen any opposition since it was recently proposed. It appears to have 100% support.

EricP · 05-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

The one bonus I see is that at slower speeds it will be easier to be on bikini watch with passing boats

Being that it's held at the Naswa smack dab in the middle of a NWZ the only ramifications of HB847 passing is that the Naswa will have fewer customers and possibly even participants in the contest because it will take longer for them to get there to be on time. I think the Naswa needs to speak up against HB847 or risk less people frequenting their place. As a red blooded male it really concerns me that we may possibly have less bikinis present during the contest!

Oh my goodness, now I sound like FLL

!!

brk-lnt · 05-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

Oh my goodness, now I sound like FLL

!!

No, your post is still readable without needing a decoder ring and a spellchecker.

Keep trying though.

Wolfeboro_Baja · 05-09-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

No, your post is still readable without needing a decoder ring and a spellchecker.

Keep trying though.

Too funny!!

Wolfeboro_Baja · 05-09-2008, 03:41 PM

If the state's looking for more revenue, perhaps it's time they started registering kayaks, canoes or any other non-motorized boat. A small fee, like the one charged to hikers heading out for a hike in the White Mtns. (it's essentially a parking fee but whatever......!) should generate some revenue for the state. Perhaps they can even direct the fees collected to the Marine Patrol since they are so under-funded.

I'm just thinking that if they want to use the lake like the power boaters do, perhaps they should share in the cost of funding the MP. It could even go hand-in-hand with EricP's flag idea; pay an annual fee, collect the sticker and affix it to the flag so not only would they be easier to see on the water, but the MP could easily determine if they have registered their kayak, canoe or what-have-you.

No flaming required, it's just an idea...............

Evenstar · 05-09-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

EricP, why do you keep bringing this up? You just posted this same thing two weeks ago in the "HB 847 Meeting ..." thread, where I thought that I had explained why this is not a good idea - but you neglected to even respond to my reply. Here's exactly what I posted earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How many times do I have to explain this? Why don’t you people stick to what you know?

A sea kayak is long and narrow. My kayak is only 22 inches wide! I control it with thigh braces . . . and by leaning (which is called “putting it on edge”). Paddling a sea kayak is a constant balancing act.
A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weather-vane.

My kayak is very visible – its upper hull is bright red and its lower hull is white. My friend’s kayak it bright yellow. My paddle blades are bright orange and my PFD is red.

We are extremely visible!

Yet some high speed boats have still violated our 150 foot zone – in the middle of a sunny afternoon – because they were going too fast and they didn’t see us in time. That is the problem.

In decent visibility I can spot most other kayaks up to a mile away – but I’m only going about 5 mph.This is not about me being unsafe or doing unsafe things - this is about high speed boat operators who will not slow down to a safe speed without the state enacting a speed limit.

I'll also add that a flag would make rolls, and self-rescues impossible to do. And I never go out on the main lake when visibility is not good. Oh, and my bikini is bright blue - maybe I need to get a fluorescent orange one, with strobe lights. (Sorry, but I just completed a 2-hour international law final, so I'm a bit giddy right now.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

What a great idea EdicP. . . . By the way, does Evenstar represent the average kayaker on the big lake?

Probably not, but there's no way of knowing, since most are not going to post on such a hostle forum. (read what I posted above, for why a flag isn't a "great idea"

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Evanstar read the title of YOUR post #189 posted just yesterday at 9:18am. It speaks volumes about your character.

No it doesn't - I was responding directly to three people who posted that kayaks should either be banned from the lake or prevented from venturing more than 150 from shore. In my opinion, their only reasoning was so that they could continue to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake - this is a pretty selfish reason to ban any type of boat (and before you jump all over me again - a speed limit doesn't ban any type of boat).

I have kayaked on a lake with an enforced speed limit - it's not perfect, because there are always people who violate laws, but there's a huge difference in the safety factor for paddlers.

I am not a selfish person, but I will stand up for my right to use the entire lake - since there is no reason that an experienced sea kayaker should not be able to do so. There are only a couple of lakes in this state where I can paddle for 20 miles without going around in circles.

hazelnut · 05-10-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am not a selfish person, but I will stand up for my right to use the entire lake - since there is no reason that an experienced sea kayaker should not be able to do so. There are only a couple of lakes in this state where I can paddle for 20 miles without going around in circles.

But you DO have the right to paddle anywhere on the lake. Nobody has told you that you can't. I've told you I think it isn't smart but neither is swimming across the broads. I equate the two activities as similar. This is a direct quote from YOU:

In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

So if you are sitting below the water line how can you compare that activity to power boating and not swimming. Don't you agree that swimming in the broads is stupid? If so, how is kayaking the broads ANY different??? It is an activity that has some risk associated with it. It will always have risk associated with it speed limit or no speed limit. I know that you will never see it that way so we can agree to disagree. Anyway using your activities as a REASON for a speed limit is ridiculous. Why should anyone have to alter their activities for somebody who wants to risk their life? This is even WITH a speed limit in place.

brk-lnt · 05-10-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I am not a selfish person, but I will stand up for my right to use the entire lake - since there is no reason that an experienced sea kayaker should not be able to do so. There are only a couple of lakes in this state where I can paddle for 20 miles without going around in circles.

I will stand up for the right for powerboats to use the lake without an enforced speed limit - since there is no reason than an experienced power boater should not be able to do so. There are only a couple of lakes in this state where a powerboat can travel at speeds greater than 40MPH without going around in circles.

Evenstar · 05-10-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

But you DO have the right to paddle anywhere on the lake.

Come on, you know very well what I meant! The key here is that I should be able to do this safely - without having high-speed power boats violating my 150 foot zone, because they were traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats.

Quote:

So if you are sitting below the water line how can you compare that activity to power boating and not swimming. Don't you agree that swimming in the broads is stupid? If so, how is kayaking the broads ANY different???

Now you're just being argumentive - trying to annoy me. If this is the best your side can do in trying to dispute the need for a lake speed limit, you're in real trouble.

There is NO comparison between paddling a kayak and swimming. It's not just me outhere alone - I'm in a BOAT!!! And I'm in a very visible boat - I can literally spot another kayak a mile a way - I cannot spot a swimmer a mile away. An inch or two of my butt might be below the waterline, but the rest of me isn't - including my RED PFD - and more than half of my 16-foot-long BRIGHT RED KAYAK is above the waterline. And the BRIGHT ORANGE blades of my paddles extend 4 to 5 feet above the waterline.

Quote:

It is an activity that has some risk associated with it. It will always have risk associated with it speed limit or no speed limit. I know that you will never see it that way so we can agree to disagree. Anyway using your activities as a REASON for a speed limit is ridiculous. Why should anyone have to alter their activities for somebody who wants to risk their life? This is even WITH a speed limit in place.

I agreed to disagree with you months ago, but you won't give it a rest and you keep tearing apart my replies to others - because you can't stand the fact that I and many others here disagree with your totally illogical reasoning.

There's a risk to almost any recreational activity, but allowing powerboats to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds create a totally unnecessarily high risk to paddlers. An enforced speed limit will greatly lower that risk.

I can reduce the risk of paddling on Winni by using a kayak that is designed for the conditions found on a large lake, by having a kayak that is very visible, by paddling with my best friend (who has an equally visible kayak), by being an excellent swimmer, by wearing a PFD, by knowing how to do self-rescues, by taking coursing in CPR, advanced paddling techniques, and coastal navigation, by wearing the proper clothing when the water is cold, by having extra gear with me, by being experienced in paddling in large waves, by paying attention to the weather, and by being in the best shape possible.

My only real risk comes from the power boats - and mostly from the ones that are traveling at speeds beyond their ability to see smaller boats. The only "risk to my life" out there on any part of the lake is from some of the powerboats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I will stand up for the right for powerboats to use the lake without an enforced speed limit - since there is no reason than an experienced power boater should not be able to do so. There are only a couple of lakes in this state where a powerboat can travel at speeds greater than 40MPH without going around in circles.

The reason is that you are putting others at risk - that's a pretty good reason. Winni is only 20 miles long, so if you are traveling at high speeds on it, you will be going in circles. And the faster you go, the more you'll be traveling in circles. Maybe you need to go to the ocean.

brk-lnt · 05-11-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The reason is that you are putting others at risk - that's a pretty good reason.

No, re-read my post. Experienced boaters operating safely are no different than experienced kayakers operating safely. The two can coexist easily.

If one or the other operates unsafely (and both groups are equally guilty of this), then all bets are off. You, quite obviously, feel that for reasons that are significant to you and your interests, that boaters should compromise to make you feel happier and safer.

You can wear the brightest colors imaginable, but height above waterline is a greater contributing factor to visibility than colors.

VtSteve · 05-11-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

No, re-read my post. Experienced boaters operating safely are no different than experienced kayakers operating safely. The two can coexist easily.

If one or the other operates unsafely (and both groups are equally guilty of this), then all bets are off. You, quite obviously, feel that for reasons that are significant to you and your interests, that boaters should compromise to make you feel happier and safer.

You can wear the brightest colors imaginable, but height above waterline is a greater contributing factor to visibility than colors.

It's already been stated that there are better places to do some paddling, without fear apparently. If I resided on a smaller lake, I'd be boating accordingly. On Champlain, my 22 footer is almost too small. I'd feel stupid in my old little bowrider asking for a law that prevented cruisers from making wakes. I'd also feel pretty stupid asking for speed limits so I could paddly the 13 miles or so across the lake, or the over 100 miles north to south.

When something seems inappropriate in a given situation, it probably is. As kids, we always knew that when in the canoe, we travelled along the shore, free of the main passageways. Even as kids, it made sense to us all.

On a congested body of water, common sense is the big thing that makes it all work. Unfortunately, common sense isn't in play for many. The current laws are not enforced, if they were, you'd not have as many issues with idiots that violate the distance law, the BWI laws, and kayakers in the middle of the lake living in fear. But common sense goes both ways. I'd no more take my boat to a little pond and tear things up as I would paddle my way over to NY state to see what's up.

We live in a day and age, a continuation from the 90's, where many of the new rules and regulations are worse than what they seek to limit.

Evenstar · 05-11-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

No, re-read my post. Experienced boaters operating safely are no different than experienced kayakers operating safely. The two can coexist easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

If one or the other operates unsafely (and both groups are equally guilty of this), then all bets are off. You, quite obviously, feel that for reasons that are significant to you and your interests, that boaters should compromise to make you feel happier and safer. You can wear the brightest colors imaginable, but height above waterline is a greater contributing factor to visibility than colors.

The problem is that not everyone who operates at high-speeds does so safely. And visibility becomes more of a problem at higher speeds.

Your idea of a compromise is to ban sea kayaks from using the main lake – others on this forum want to ban all paddlers from the lake completely. Those aren’t compromises – a speed limit is a compromise, because it will better allow all boaters to use the lake – without banning any type of vessel from the lake or from any part of the lake.

New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states: “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.”

I contend that a speed limit is needed to “provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.” All other factors being equal, slower speeds are proven to increase safety. Again – if I can see other kayaks as far as a mile away, why can’t some powerboat operators see me before they violate my 150 foot zone? My argument is that they are traveling at speeds that are faster than their abilities. A speed limit will force the fastest boats to slow down, which will give them more time to see smaller boats – and will give smaller boats more time to get out of their way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It's already been stated that there are better places to do some paddling, without fear apparently. … When something seems inappropriate in a given situation, it probably is. As kids, we always knew that when in the canoe, we travelled along the shore, free of the main passageways. Even as kids, it made sense to us all.

A sea kayak isn’t a canoe, and I’m not a kid. My sea kayak is designed for large bodies of water, not ponds. If I wanted to paddle on ponds I would have bought a small, much less expensive, recreational kayak. I’m using my boat for exactly what it was designed to be used for – and I am doing so responsibly. There is nothing inappropriate about taking a sea kayak out on the main lake. I have the skills and the proper equipment to do so and I could do so safely if power boats were required to slow down to reasonable speed (so that they would see me).

I live 3 miles from a 10 mile long lake, where I do most of my paddling, and yet it is safer to kayak on Squam (which is a larger lake) on weekends, because Squam has a speed limit. So going to smaller NH lakes is not the answer, unless that smaller lake has a speed limit. This bill was not supposed to be just about Winni – it was originally written to cover all NH lakes.

Chris Craft · 05-11-2008, 09:17 PM

Evenstar: my problem with your argument is this. Today you are looking to add a speed limit so that you can take your ocean kayak out on lake winni. Well to me the next step for you will be to look for the same speed limit so that you can take your ocean kayak in the ocean. Seems that it is OK for me to not be able to use the lake in a safe responsible manner but if that is put on you then..... Why are your rights more important then mine?

Lakegeezer · 05-12-2008, 05:31 AM

The first paragraph of the existing law is enough to satisfy the rights mentioned in RSA 270:1:II, the one Evenstar expresses concerns about. Safe and mutual enjoyment comes with speeds that are reasonable and prudent under existing conditions.

We are currently living under a good rule that we all should be able to agree on. It does not allow unlimited speed. The debate should be about enforcement of existing law, not extensions that create legitimate disrespect for the law.

From HB 0847: 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. <-- Good enough!

The reason there is a public outcry against the proposed law is that it defines what is not reasonable or prudent, removing the responsibility and freedom from certified boat pilots. To imply that going over 45 mph is unreasonable or not prudent when it is 7AM in the broads, on a Tuesday in May, with no boat in sight; is just plain wrong. Yet, that is what the law is implying.

(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.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 05-12-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

The first paragraph of the existing law is enough to satisfy the rights mentioned in RSA 270:1:II, the one Evenstar expresses concerns about. Safe and mutual enjoyment comes with speeds that are reasonable and prudent under existing conditions.

We are currently living under a good rule that we all should be able to agree on. It does not allow unlimited speed. The debate should be about enforcement of existing law, not extensions that create legitimate disrespect for the law.

From HB 0847: 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. <-- Good enough!

The reason there is a public outcry against the proposed law is that it defines what is not reasonable or prudent, removing the responsibility and freedom from certified boat pilots. To imply that going over 45 mph is unreasonable or not prudent when it is 7AM in the broads, on a Tuesday in May, with no boat in sight; is just plain wrong. Yet, that is what the law is implying.

(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.

This is one of the best posts on the subject that I have seen. I wish I could have said it like that LG but English Composition was not my best subject

.

If it make a difference to anyone I agree 100% with what Lakegeezer has said. BTW, as I've said before, the only way my boat can go as fast as 45 mph is DOWNHILL.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 05-12-2008, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The problem is that not everyone who operates at high-speeds does so safely. And visibility becomes more of a problem at higher speeds.

The same can be possible for ANY boaters regardless of speed. Not all boaters do so safely including boats going 45 mph or slower. Enforcing current laws is the answer here. The visibility factor is a relative issue (see below).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

if I can see other kayaks as far as a mile away, why can’t some powerboat operators see me before they violate my 150 foot zone? My argument is that they are traveling at speeds that are faster than their abilities. A speed limit will force the fastest boats to slow down, which will give them more time to see smaller boats – and will give smaller boats more time to get out of their way.

You, in your low to the water kayak, can see another low kayak, "As far away as a mile". It follows that boat operators who are up much higher than you are can see further than you can see from your low kayak. If you can see a kayak as far away as a mile then the power boater with a higher vantage point can see the same kayak from even further away than a mile. Pretty good visibility. So from a mile away a boater at 60 mph has 58 seconds (almost a full minute) to avoid your 150' safe passage zone. That is more than sufficient time to react to your kayak. If that is not enough time in your opinion then the boater must be violating other rules which can be enforced. Such illegal boating jeopardizes everyone, not just Evenstar's Kayak and should be addressed by stricter enforcement of existing rules. I picked 60 mph because it makes the numbers easier to understand. 60 mph = 1 mile per minute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There is nothing inappropriate about taking a sea kayak out on the main lake. I have the skills and the proper equipment to do so and I could do so safely if power boats were required to slow down to reasonable speed (so that they would see me).

We differ on this point. You would increase your visibility with a safety flag. You don't have ALL the proper equipment without a kayak flag. If you are truly concerned about being seen better than you are now, then get the proper equipment. Specifically a kayak flag. One made just for KAYAKS. You claim you can not kayak with these. I believe that with your skill you could handle a safety flag better than the average kayaker.

Here's a review of a kayak flag: "I have been looking for this for a long time! It sticks to the boat extremely well. It is very visible, yet doesn't get in the way. Easy to roll with too. I love it, especially with an after market pirate's flag addition. Thanks!" from This catalog.

Or this Kayakers safety visibility flag
The product description says: Be seen by power boaters & jet skis! The Paddler's Visibility Flag has a 4-foot pole topped with colorful streamers. This flag is suitable for use with sit-in-side kayaks and will not prevent Eskimo rolling. Flag is flexible enough for most rough landings and shallow water tip-overs. (Streamers can be substituted with a small flag. USCG suggests an American flag, but any flag, sports pennant, our your own "coat of arms" could be used.)

One of those "made for kayak" flags added to your bright colored kayak, with highly visible paddles, bikini and PFD, should make you even more visible from over a mile away regardless of reasonable (sometimes over 45mph) speed.

We all need to work together to make boating safe and fun for all. We do not need more speed related laws to do that.

Mashugana · 05-13-2008, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There's a risk to almost any recreational activity, but allowing powerboats to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds create a totally unnecessarily high risk to paddlers. An enforced speed limit will greatly lower that risk.

You know better than that Evenstar. All your concerns are covered by existing laws. Unsafe speeds are not allowed here. Enforced existing laws will lower your risk more than concentrating on an additional new law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My only real risk comes from the power boats - and mostly from the ones that are traveling at speeds beyond their ability to see smaller boats. The only "risk to my life" out there on any part of the lake is from some of the powerboats.

Elsewhere you claim that your kind of kayaking is risky in the first place. All you have is your observation that fast boats can not see you in enough time to avoid your 150 foot safe passage space. No other proof tangable or otherwise. You say that it is not safe for you. If you are boating unsafely then that might be considered illegal for you to do.

Think of it like anchoring in a No Rafting Zone. You get there and set your anchor and take a nap. An hour later boaters make a raft 30 feet from your boat. Your boat is now anchored illegally. It is not your fault but you are still illegal. So too is boating unsafely. Since youbelieve that you can not boat safely on the lake you are then breaking the law by knowingly boating unsafely.

Several of the messages above clearly respond to your situation. The made for kayaks safety flag sounds like what you need. You can reduce your feeling of risk with the proper kayak flag. That would make it safer for you. Your excuse for not using a kayak safety flag is invalid. They are made for kayaks. We do not need to adjust everyone to accommodate you. Be seen with a flag and let MP enforce the laws we already have in place.

Kayak safely.

codeman671 · 05-13-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evenstar

There's a risk to almost any recreational activity, but allowing powerboats to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds create a totally unnecessarily high risk to paddlers. An enforced speed limit will greatly lower that risk.

I am not sure what planet the lake you kayak is on, but boats are not traveling at "unlimited" speeds" per se. When I hear you say "unlimited" it makes Winnipesaukee sound like boats are traveling at 100mph+ recklessly wherever and whenever they go. This is simply not the case. The average boat on the lake IMHO travels below 55mph. Sure, there are exceptions but rarely do you see boats flying around at 80mph+. It takes an ungodly amount of HP and money to break the 80mph mark, even though money is not an issue in the lakes region the number of boats capable of going that fast is limited. Silver Sands for instance dropped Fountain and only has 1 used boat that will exceed 80mph on the lot. I pick 80mph as it is the top speed of the typical twin engine big block powered (but stock) GFBL sold on the lake without serious mods.

At this point almost all the performance boat lines are not even being sold on the lake.

VtSteve · 05-13-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

You know better than that Evenstar. All your concerns are covered by existing laws. Unsafe speeds are not allowed here. Enforced existing laws will lower your risk more than concentrating on an additional new law.

Elsewhere you claim that your kind of kayaking is risky in the first place. All you have is your observation that fast boats can not see you in enough time to avoid your 150 foot safe passage space. No other proof tangable or otherwise. You say that it is not safe for you. If you are boating unsafely then that might be considered illegal for you to do.

Think of it like anchoring in a No Rafting Zone. You get there and set your anchor and take a nap. An hour later boaters make a raft 30 feet from your boat. Your boat is now anchored illegally. It is not your fault but you are still illegal. So too is boating unsafely. Since youbelieve that you can not boat safely on the lake you are then breaking the law by knowingly boating unsafely.

Several of the messages above clearly respond to your situation. The made for kayaks safety flag sounds like what you need. You can reduce your feeling of risk with the proper kayak flag. That would make it safer for you. Your excuse for not using a kayak safety flag is invalid. They are made for kayaks. We do not need to adjust everyone to accommodate you. Be seen with a flag and let MP enforce the laws we already have in place.

Kayak safely.

Good post. Worth noting that the word "Enforcement" is vital to these discussions. It's pretty much the same problem all over, people want new laws so they can feel good about their efforts, but never properly address the enforcement of existing laws. Some people love to have a cause. Maintaining proper distance from other boaters and the shoreline has always been of paramount importance on the water. So is keeping a watch.

But there are several concerns going on at once on these threads.

1) Many want the GFBL boats to go away sooner rather than later, regardless of their speeds.

2) Some feel that they will never be safe unless boats are forced to slow down, regardless of existing laws.

3) Many feel that if existing laws were enforced, the lake would be safer, and would address many of the issues that brought the speed limit to the foreground.

From my perspective, I obviously agree with 3. But my opinion is also based on enforcement, which obviously isn't happening now. Nobody has been petitioning their representatives for more funding for the MP, and I've heard scant few comments about funding in general. Interestingly enough, enforcement of the speed limit would require, at least initially, a larger presence and more dedication from the underfunded MP. If they can't enforce the 150' rule, nor the NWZ rules, what the heck are they going to do with a speed limit law? (Note: For those that hate the GFBL boats on the lake, I understand your underlying motives).

Without funding, your laws are of no consequence.

As for the dreaded night time boating experience. Same as in daytime, only the nut cases are even easier to spot. The two primary accidents mentioned over and over again, would not have been impacted by a speed limit law. They most likely would have occurred regardless of the MP presence or funding in place. They were both pretty low speed accidents, and both involved negligence.

You can't legislate common sense and courtesy, but you can enforce both if that's what you want. Those that choose to pass additional laws and try to legislate bad behavior, do all boaters a disservice, and it's a direct insult to our intelligence. You can also expend all of your brainpower and free time communicating and being all political, but in the end, it gets nothing accomplished.

brk-lnt · 05-13-2008, 08:19 AM

[QUOTE=Evenstar;70181]
The problem is that not everyone who operates at high-speeds does so safely. And visibility becomes more of a problem at higher speeds.

The problem is that not everyone who kayaks on the lake does so safely. For example, no kayakers seem to use a kayak flag to promote their visibility. And visibility becomes more of a problem when you have a low-height craft paddling in an area with high waves.

Every argument you make about speed limits and powerboat operators can be turned back around on you. You have failed to present any arguments that are truly compelling (other than in your own little world) .

SIKSUKR · 05-13-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I'll also add that a flag would make rolls, and self-rescues impossible to do. .

So after Evenstar has endlessly told us how safe and skilled a kayaker she is and has stated repeatedly how she cannot do a self rescue roll with a flag,we read this from catalogs.Which is it?OK now, I'm sure I'll be accussed of "picking" on her again by questioning her posts so fire away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper

Here's a review of a kayak flag: "I have been looking for this for a long time! It sticks to the boat extremely well. It is very visible, yet doesn't get in the way. Easy to roll with too. I love it, especially with an after market pirate's flag addition. Thanks!" from This catalog.

Or this Kayakers safety visibility flag
The product description says: Be seen by power boaters & jet skis! The Paddler's Visibility Flag has a 4-foot pole topped with colorful streamers. This flag is suitable for use with sit-in-side kayaks and will not prevent Eskimo rolling. Flag is flexible enough for most rough landings and shallow water tip-overs. (Streamers can be substituted with a small flag. USCG suggests an American flag, but any flag, sports pennant, our your own "coat of arms" could be used.)

Pricestavern · 05-13-2008, 10:24 AM

A kayaker needs to understand that they are inherently difficult to see and should take all precautions as if they were invisible. A speed limit will not make a kayaker safer and it should not be relied on to do so. I have been kayaking for quite some time now in a 16' sea kayak (bright red) and have come close to being run down by sailboats!

Island Lover · 05-13-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I am not sure what planet the lake you kayak is on, but boats are not traveling at "unlimited" speeds" per se. When I hear you say "unlimited" it makes Winnipesaukee sound like boats are traveling at 100mph+ recklessly wherever and whenever they go. This is simply not the case. The average boat on the lake IMHO travels below 55mph. Sure, there are exceptions but rarely do you see boats flying around at 80mph+. It takes an ungodly amount of HP and money to break the 80mph mark, even though money is not an issue in the lakes region the number of boats capable of going that fast is limited. Silver Sands for instance dropped Fountain and only has 1 used boat that will exceed 80mph on the lot. I pick 80mph as it is the top speed of the typical twin engine big block powered (but stock) GFBL sold on the lake without serious mods.

At this point almost all the performance boat lines are not even being sold on the lake.

Some of the opposition arguments are getting ludicrous. Why do you keep pretending there is some kind of speed limit already? Who are you trying to convince? There is no speed limit on Winnipesaukee! This is a fact. When you start talking about no wake zones and reckless operation regulations as if they were speed limits you make yourself look silly. And, in truth, very desperate.

ApS · 05-13-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

"...You have failed to present any arguments that are truly compelling other than in your own little world...."

Besides kayaking, there is "the little world" of fallen windsurfers, capsized sailboats, kids on floats, people on land within 130' of the water's edge, ejected passengers, sunk/wrecked survivors, divers, canoes, swimmers and fallen skiers. (In addition to sailboats run over while sailing upright).

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Without funding, your laws are of no consequence..."

The NHMP already has trained radar officers AND radar tools have been provided—for free! How do you think the Speed Survey was accomplished?

Yes, I know...Woodsy cheers the Speed Survey at the same time touting THE FACT that radar doesn't work on water.

Quote:

"How would you enforce the new law? You cannot shoot a handheld radar gun at a speeding boat and get an accurate reading unless you are close to the same bearing."
—Woodsy

But Woodsy has previously vouched, "there are no records of kayaks being run over on Winnipesaukee".

Say, doesn't a run-over kayak need to be worth $2000 for a report to be legally required?

Yes...Let's give the MPs the means to spot extreme speeders more readily. Existing "Unsafe Passage" regulations are NH-only and clearly neither being observed nor enforced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...You can also expend all of your brainpower and free time communicating and being all political, but in the end, it gets nothing accomplished..."

Because we don't know how aggressive the NHMP will be, we don't know how effective the outcome will be. I suspect that Bear Islander is correct, and that fewer Winnipesaukee cowboys will frequent the lake—even if radar isn't used at all!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...Unsafe speeds are not allowed here..."

It happens every hour: the wrong people refuse to see any unsafe speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...Be seen with a flag and let MP enforce the laws we already have in place..."

1) Why put the burden on the kayaker minding his own business? Capsized kayaks, windsurfers, canoes or sailboats will be displaying zero flags.

2) While Dave R and I are on different sides of this law, both of us are on record here as saying "the invisible kayak" isn't the problem on the lake; but any capsized boat could be a problem. (Think of a certain sunken Cobalt—but at night).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...We all need to work together to make boating safe and fun for all. We do not need more speed related laws to do that..."

As we saw, Littlefield's boat rocketed through a giant loophole: that prompted Concord to make new laws in 2002—and we continue to need new laws.

Law enforcement continues to need every possible tool: why tie their hands?

Excalibur · 05-13-2008, 12:02 PM

I will find it funny to see all the small pleasure boats being pulled over around and after sunset for going over the 25 mph speed limit.

Then there will be the 30 foot plus boats not being able to plane and making a huge wake..

We may even see a few boats with out running lights going along with night vision goggles. My spot light has pissed a few off in the past...

Woodsy · 05-13-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Some of the opposition arguments are getting ludicrous. Why do you keep pretending there is some kind of speed limit already? Who are you trying to convince? There is no speed limit on Winnipesaukee! This is a fact. When you start talking about no wake zones and reckless operation regulations as if they were speed limits you make yourself look silly. And, in truth, very desperate.

Island Lover...

Your ignorance of the rules & regulations is absolutely astounding!!

There are numerous rules and regulations pertaining to EXACTLY how fast a boat is ALLOWED to travel during CERTAIN situations! A NWZ is a SPEED LIMIT! The 150' Safe Passage Rule is a SPEED LIMIT! In fact the very definition of both of those rules SPECIFICALLY STATE a MAXIMUM SPEED OF 6 MILES PER HOUR. Sounds like a speed limit to me!

RECKLESS OPERATION laws are there to protect you from a Capt. Bonehead. It is an INTENTIONALLY BROAD STATUTE designed to cover a myriad of bad behavior.... For example, the MP witness a boat traveling at 45 MPH that violates your 150' bubble by a small margin, lets say they come within 100' of you. Thats a no brainer, they get pulled over and get a warning on the 150' rule...

Same Bonehead, same scenario but instead he violates your bubble by a big margin, lets say he is 15' away from you traveling at 45MPH... this is where the Reckless Operation Statute comes into play! Now he could possibly be arrested and punished in a far more severe manner!

Woodsy

parrothead · 05-13-2008, 12:47 PM

Couldn't agree more, that the concerns that caused this speed limit to be proposed can be covered by existing laws. Everyone on both sides of this argument agrees that enforcement is an issue on Winni. But the pro-speed limit crowd keeps repeating that enforcement is a dream because it costs money. I'm tired of hearing that as an excuse for why enforcement can't be increased. If we as a community had pushed for better enforcement of our waterways, instead of a temporary fix, then perhaps things could be better. The speed limit is a way for the government can say that something was done, when in fact it is not going to make much of a difference. Sure there may be a few weeks of boats slowing down, but when you can go most of a day and not see an MP boat, then the speeds will go back up. The law has no teeth without enforcement, and we don't have enough of an MP presence on the lake to enforce the current laws as well as new ones. Also I think that better enforcement of current laws would actually cut down on the congestion. As the pro-speed crowd keeps saying that the speed limit will cause high speed boaters from coming to lake, so will an increased enforcement presence. If you want to come to Winni and party it up and drive like a bonehead, you are going to be stopped and fined. This is going to be more of a deterrent than a speed limit. Winni could get the reputation of being a place that you have to drive carefully, because otherwise you will get stopped. I just feel that we lost a chance to actually make a difference to our waterways. The speed limit is nothing more than a band-aid fix for a bigger problem.

codeman671 · 05-13-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Some of the opposition arguments are getting ludicrous. Why do you keep pretending there is some kind of speed limit already? Who are you trying to convince? There is no speed limit on Winnipesaukee! This is a fact. When you start talking about no wake zones and reckless operation regulations as if they were speed limits you make yourself look silly. And, in truth, very desperate.

Desperate? I think not. I have no stake in this fight. It won't affect me a bit. I could personally care less at this point however think that enacting a speed limit is wrong and will not solve anything.

I am sick and tired of people making false claims that a speed limit IS necessary. The accident "data" does not support it, the speed limit survey did not support it, the survey here did not support it, the only thing that supports it is the campaign of lies and deceit that the supporters have put together to influence people that do not know better...

Skipper of the Sea Que · 05-13-2008, 03:27 PM

Island Lover. Reasonable and safe speed is covered in the regulations. As for the lack of any speed limits on the Lake I'll let Bear Islander answer that one for you

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Some of the opposition arguments are getting ludicrous. Why do you keep pretending there is some kind of speed limit already? Who are you trying to convince? There is no speed limit on Winnipesaukee! This is a fact. When you start talking about no wake zones and reckless operation regulations as if they were speed limits you make yourself look silly. And, in truth, very desperate.

Now let's look at Bear Islander message 134 above responding to chipj29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, perhaps you are not aware there is a speed limit in front of my cabin.

That's Bear Islander's cabin on Bear Island near the NWZ.

BTW, this is an interesting part but I don't have time to follow it all the way back. chipj29 and BI were talking about BI's observation that when an MP boat is around, boaters seem to behave. And in the above message BI quotes,
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
Gilligan stated that now (according to BI) , even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. (from that Gilligan concludes) Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

Better enforcement of the current laws just makes sense.

Evenstar · 05-13-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

The same can be possible for ANY boaters regardless of speed. Not all boaters do so safely including boats going 45 mph or slower. Enforcing current laws is the answer here. The visibility factor is a relative issue (see below).

Well, it could just be me – but this is one of the most confusing posts I have read on the forum. Here’s my interpretation of what you wrote:

1.) You agree that I can see another kayak up to a mile away in good visibility.

2.) You claim that powerboat operators can see further than me, which means that all powerboat owners can plainly see my kayak.

3.) Then you say that I need to increase my visibility (because being visible from a mile away isn’t good enough???) – by installing some silly little flag!!!????

And when that doesn’t help (which it won’t) then what?

Strobe lights?

Balloons?

Radar reflectors?

A fleet of MP to protect me???

The problem is not my lack of visibility – the problem is that some powerboat owners are traveling at speeds that are greater than their ability to see. And it has been my experience, that the number that do so is significant enough to create a real danger to people like me, who use smaller boats on the lake.

Here are the facts:
1.) Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see. So I’m almost certain that a 45mph speed limit on Winni with have a similar effect (although, personally I think that 40 mph is a better limit).

2.) Those little flags are nothing but gimics. They are not large enough to increase visibility to an significant amount. Go to the site and look at the actual photo of that little streamer mounted on a kayak – it is barely visible. The surface area of one of my bright orange paddle blades is greater then any of those flags you linked to – and my moving paddle blade extends higher above the water! Yet when I stated that the most visible part of a kayak is the moving paddles, people here jumped all over me. The problem is most of you haven’t even been in a sea kayak, yet you and others have all sorts of “good” advice for me.

3.) Almost everything sold on the internet has glowing reviews posted about how good it is. Don’t believe everything that you read on the Internet, because not everyone is being totally honest. If this flag is so good, where are the endorsements from major kayak and paddling organizations? Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag” and all you’ll find is info on attaching a flag on your long sea kayak when you transport it on the roof of your car. Paddling.net is the largest paddling site – go there and check for yourself if you don’t believe me. No serious paddler uses these little flags because they are useless – and they do hinder rescue procedures – like rolling and self rescues – especially on windy days.

4.) Up in post #220 I wrote: “A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weather-vane.” That is the truth. In order to increase my visibility to any meaningful degree, a flag would have to have a significantly larger surface area than my paddle blade and it would have to extend above the water higher than my paddle – such a flag would make my kayak totally unstable in any wind.

Stop trying to blame the dangerous conditions on us paddlers, when it doesn’t take a whole lot of common sense to see that high-speed powerboats are the ones putting us in danger.

ApS · 05-13-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...For example, the MP witness a boat traveling at 45 MPH that violates your 150' bubble by a small margin, lets say they come within 100' of you. Thats a no brainer, they get pulled over and get a warning on the 150' rule..."

Even I, acting as an MP officer, wouldn't attempt a stop (to give a warning) to an estimated 50' error. That's 'way too subjective a call.

VtSteve · 05-13-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Island Lover. Reasonable and safe speed is covered in the regulations. As for the lack of any speed limits on the Lake I'll let Bear Islander answer that one for you

:

Now let's look at Bear Islander message 134 above responding to chipj29
That's Bear Islander's cabin on Bear Island near the NWZ.

BTW, this is an interesting part but I don't have time to follow it all the way back. chipj29 and BI were talking about BI's observation that when an MP boat is around, boaters seem to behave. And in the above message BI quotes,
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
Gilligan stated that now (according to BI) , even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. (from that Gilligan concludes) Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

Better enforcement of the current laws just makes sense.

It's been the Obvious answer for some time. BI wants the boats gone because they tick him off. Fine. I can't look back through hundreds of posts to see how many times he's complained about the NWZ violation. If it were me, it would be daily.

But the fact that it's there, and not enforced, speaks volumes to those that actually care about the issue. Unfortunately, it will take a major accident someday to awaken them as to the stupidity of their ways, and their wasted time and effort trying to feel good by pushing a cause. It has nothing to do with results.

In the end, Enforcement and funding will become their next cause. It should have been their first. Same old crap. Enjoy the BIG Waves.

Airwaves · 05-13-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VtSteve
In the end, Enforcement and funding will become their next cause. It should have been their first. Same old crap.

Unfortunately because of all the misdirections, lies and down right fear mongering that has been completely unjustified and not backed up with any fact it will be like the little boy who cried wolf as far as Concord is concerned!

Skipper of the Sea Que · 05-14-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Well, it could just be me – but this is one of the most confusing posts I have read on the forum. Here’s my interpretation of what you wrote:

1.) You agree that I can see another kayak up to a mile away in good visibility.

2.) You claim that powerboat operators can see further than me, which means that all powerboat owners can plainly see my kayak.

3.) Then you say that I need to increase my visibility (because being visible from a mile away isn’t good enough???) – by installing some silly little flag!!!????

I'm sorry you are so confused by my post Evenstar. On the other hand, the reason I talk to myself is because I'm the only one that always understands me (and then I'm not always sure

)

It's been around 30 years since I taught courses as adjunct faculty in Boston (an original Forum person "could" have been a student of mine

). Maybe I'm out of practice but I'll try to answer so you are able to grasp what I am saying. I'm growing weary of this subject.

Your items # 1 and #2 above are correct. I assume that you agree. From your kayak you can see other kayaks over a mile away. It follows that boaters can see at least as far away as you can (probably further) because their vantage point is much higher above the water than you are. I think you follow that so far.

Your conclusion in item #3 is faulty, illogical and somewhat typical of someone not paying attention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

3.) Then you say that I need to increase my visibility (because being visible from a mile away isn’t good enough???) – by installing some silly little flag!!!????

Your kayak being visible from a mile or more away sure is enough - that's my point. We agree that you can be seen from a mile or more but you still claim some boaters" do NOT see you because they are going over 45 mph causing you to fear for your safety. I disagree with that conclusion. Speed is not the issue. Boaters do see you quite well. You admit you can be seen over a mile away.

Your lament is that boaters going faster than 45 mph can not see you soon enough because of their SPEED. That is a faulty conclusion. However, to be helpful, I suggest trying to be more visible than you are currently. To help you feel more secure. If you are afraid that you can not be seen with your current visibility I suggested using a kayak "safety flag" (you called it a silly little flag) to help you be seen better than you are now. I was trying to be helpful lady.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The problem is not my lack of visibility – the problem is that some powerboat owners are traveling at speeds that are greater than their ability to see.

We disagree. If you can be seen from a mile or more it does not matter how fast (within reason) the viewer is going - they will also see you from a mile or more away. (Speed of light and somewhat slower excepted

- of course I mean those speeds that are safe for the conditions).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Here are the facts:
1.) Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see. So I’m almost certain that a 45mph speed limit on Winni with have a similar effect (although, personally I think that 40 mph is a better limit).

Facts do not usually include words like "apparently" and "I'm almost certain". Those are not facts as far as I can tell. There could be other circumstances that cause you to believe that you have no visibility problem on Squam Lake not just speed. It is a different territory from Lake Winnipesaukee. Your conclusion that SPEED of other boats changes their visibility so it is unsafe for you is not justified. Again, 60 mph allows almost a full minute for a boater to react to you from a mile away. Your visibility does not change if the boater is going 30 mph, 45 mph or 60 mph. Your situation is the same. You are just as easily seen. A minute is more than enough time to react. 2 minutes is more time of course but one minute is more than adequate.

I hope I have made that clear enough for you to understand my meaning and motivation.

Other brief

comments:
You have explained your prowess, athletic ability, great physical shape and strength. All the sporting activities you do to keep you in above average condition. You are on paddling teams and do other sporting. We know you have much more experience as a kayaker than normal paddlers. You've told us how sensitive your sea kayak is - how it may be hard for most of us to even sit in one. You go out for a long hard 20 mile kayak workout.

You ask for someone to go with you to see you not being seen by fast boaters. You wonder why no one wants to volunteer to go with you? Who the heck could keep up with you? I know you have a friend you kayak with, I mean us regular (and even irregular

) forum members. You tell us we have to rent/borrow a kayak to go with you although I first thought you might have a spare or a 2 person kayak.

Mee-n-Mac mentioned going out with you but you claim it was a joke. I missed where the offer was recanted. I do wish you well even though I believe you are misguided regarding the 45/25 speed limit issue. Enforce current laws and regulations. We don't need new ones.

This is too long and I have no more time to edit. I also am getting too frustrated. I hope you are able to understand what I've said.

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water - Boaters love people

SIKSUKR · 05-14-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

[/B]Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag” and all you’ll find is info on attaching a flag on your long sea kayak when you transport it on the roof of your car. Paddling.net is the largest paddling site – go there and check for yourself if you don’t believe me.
[/B]

OK,I took YOUR advice and went and googled flags and got these:
From Austin canoe and kayak:
http://www.austinkayak.com/products/...fety-Flag.html

Another one with the description:
Be Seen! When out on your kayak, you are very low to the water. Add to that any wave or swell action and you are often hidden from other boaters view. The 4' tall safety flag will help other boaters see you. Very important in areas with mixed boating traffic!
http://www.austinkayak.com/products/...fety-Flag.html

One more:
http://kayakfishingstuff.com/Merchan...Code=FAC-sflag

Here's another:
Rispy Kayak Safety Flag

"Possiby the most important piece of equipment beyond your pfd and paddle."
The Rispy on the Water -- Photos from Our Tours * Be Seen With A RISPY™® Today
Kayaks and canoes have an extremely low profile – typically 2 ft or less above water - making them hard to be seen in even the best water conditions. This is clearly a major safety problem for everyone on the water, including operators of powerboats, sailboats, fisherman, sea planes, and even other kayaks and canoes.
http://www.touringkayaks.com/gear.htm

How about one more:

Be Seen Flags are designed for one thing, to help you be seen!. And no where is this more important than in water sport recreation. Kayaking, especially kayak fishing is one of the fastest growing outdoor activities today. Kayakers know that being seen by other boaters is difficult at best. Be Seen Safety Flags are here to help.
http://item.express.ebay.com/Sportin...mdZExpressItem

So I didn't believe you and guess what?You were wrong again.There appears to be many safety flags for visibility ON the water when you said all we'll find is flags for transporting kayaks.This was only the first half of the first page.I'm sure there is plenty more.OK now.tell me how I'm picking on you again by following YOUR challenge?Come on now,spin it up.

Seeker · 05-14-2008, 08:57 AM

I can't wait for the reply.

hazelnut · 05-14-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Here are the facts:
1.) Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see. So I’m almost certain that a 45mph speed limit on Winni with have a similar effect (although, personally I think that 40 mph is a better limit).[/B]

OK SO... Evanstar please clear something up fo me because I am VERY interested in your response here. Is this or isn't this a direct quote from YOUR experience on SQUAM:

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Go ahead and tell us that this was years ago and it doesn't matter. Explain this away, I am dying to hear the answer.

FYI-This quote was taken from this post http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...0&postcount=36

This is from an incident 4 years ago. This is more recent than what proponents dig up supporting their claims for a need for speed limits.

ApS · 05-14-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Would the speed limits have any impact on the NASWA Bikini Contest...?"

It could, depending...

How many boozed-up ocean-racers will be absent from Winnipesaukee's waters in 2009?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...The debate should be about enforcement of existing law..."

...plus...

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...Everyone on both sides of this argument agrees that enforcement is an issue on Winni...I'm tired of hearing that as an excuse for why enforcement can't be increased...If we as a community had pushed for better enforcement of our waterways...The law has no teeth without enforcement , and we don't have enough of an MP presence on the lake to enforce the current laws as well as new ones...the speed limit will cause high speed boaters from coming to lake, so will an increased enforcement presence.

...plus...

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...But the fact that it's there, and not enforced, speaks volumes to those that actually care about the issue...In the end, enforcement and funding will become their next cause..."

...and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckypete

"...And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe.

...and the last quote on enforcement ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...Such illegal boating jeopardizes everyone, not just Evenstar's Kayak and should be addressed by stricter enforcement of existing rules...Enforcing current laws is the answer here...

...and...

We all need to work together to make boating safe and fun for all..."

Like, maybe...ten years ago?

We didn't have enforcement, yet boating was safe and fun just ten years ago.

Evenstar · 05-14-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

If you are afraid that you can not be seen with your current visibility I suggested using a kayak "safety flag" (you called it a silly little flag) to help you be seen better than you are now. I was trying to be helpful lady.

I'm not saying that you weren't tryng to be helpful - my point is that I'm plenty visible and I tried to explain yet again why adding a flag is not helpful advice - if it would really increase my visibility without negatively affecting my paddling, than I would add a flag in a heartbeat.

Quote:

Facts do not usually include words like "apparently" and "I'm almost certain". Those are not facts as far as I can tell. There could be other circumstances that cause you to believe that you have no visibility problem on Squam Lake not just speed. It is a different territory from Lake Winnipesaukee. Your conclusion that SPEED of other boats changes their visibility so it is unsafe for you is not justified.

I used the word "apparently" because I have no proof - only that I can't explain it any other way, so it is the apparent reason. Please explain why the "different territory" would make me any more visible.

I used the words "I'm almost certain", because we are talking about two different speed limits. If the bill was for a 40 mph maximum speed on Winni, than I could be much more certain. At some point speed impacts the ablility of powerboat operators to see me - I don't what the exact speed is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

So I didn't believe you and guess what?You were wrong again.There appears to be many safety flags for visibility ON the water when you said all we'll find is flags for transporting kayaks.This was only the on the first half of the first page.I'm sure there is plenty more.OK now.tell me how I'm picking on you again by following YOUR challenge?Come on now,spin it up.

What I posted was: Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag”. So you do a google search and post some links, and then accuse me of being wrong again. (BTW: show me one time that I have been proven wrong on this forum). Most of your links were the exact same ones that Skipper posted - and all of your links (including the one on ebay) were people or companies who are trying to sell the same litle gimic flags. Where are the endorsements from major kayak and paddling organizations? There aren't any. I posted that "Paddling.net is the largest paddling site – go there and check for yourself if you don’t believe me" - did you go there? No serious paddler uses these little flags because they are useless – and they do hinder rescue procedures – like rolling and self rescues – especially on windy days.

So, next time before you accuse me of being wrong, make sure that you actually understand what I posted.

SIKSUKR · 05-14-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I posted was: Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag”. So you do a google search and post some links, and then accuse me of being wrong again. (BTW: show me one time that I have been proven wrong on this forum).
So, next time before you accuse me of being wrong, make sure that you actually understand what I posted.

Again,since YOU asked let me make this simple for even a self professed highly educated person.Go to austinkayak.com and search for safety flag and up will appear the page I linked to in my last post with a,yup you guessed it,a safety flag.So this should put to rest your claim of no flag being found on a kayak website and your last one on NEVER being wrong on this forum.

Bear Islander · 05-14-2008, 12:49 PM

That pop up flag listed first looks great!

I ordered two.

Evenstar · 05-14-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

OK SO... Evanstar please clear something up fo me because I am VERY interested in your response here. Is this or isn't this a direct quote from YOUR experience on SQUAM:

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Go ahead and tell us that this was years ago and it doesn't matter. Explain this away, I am dying to hear the answer.

This one isn't even worth my time, because now you're just trying to find fault with anything that I have ever posted here - and that is just being argumentive.

But here's the factual explanation, which I've already explained at least one in the last month: I made this post more than 3 years ago - before I had ever kayaked on Winni - which was before high-speed powerboat operators on Winni had violate my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast to see me in time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Again,since YOU asked let me make this simple for even a self professed highly educated person.Go to austinkayak.com and search for safety flag and up will appear the page I linked to in my last post with a,yup you guessed it,a safety flag.So this should put to rest your claim of no flag being found on a kayak website and your last one on NEVER being wrong on this forum.

Austinkayak.com is a store! It is not a major kayak or paddling organization! Retailers sell gimics as well as good gear - promomiting something to make a sale is not a professional endorcement.

My challenge was: "If this flag is so good, where are the endorsements from major kayak and paddling organizations?"

So where are the endorsements from major kayak and paddling organizations? I still don't see any.

chmeeee · 05-14-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

We didn't have enforcement, yet boating was safe and fun just ten years ago.

Thank you once again for your colorful posting APS. Could you please provide the statistics which indicate that boating in 1997 on Lake Winnipesaukee was safer than in 2007?

Evenstar · 05-14-2008, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

OK SO... Evanstar please clear something up fo me because I am VERY interested in your response here. Is this or isn't this a direct quote from YOUR experience on SQUAM:

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

Go ahead and tell us that this was years ago and it doesn't matter. Explain this away, I am dying to hear the answer.

This is still 100% true "Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see."

The guy on Squam back in the summer of 2004 clearly saw us and was just being a jerk. I made that clear in that old thread, but you neglected to include that part. So that was clearly not a case of someone who was traveling too fast to see me. So go try to find something else to use against me - because you failed again. And personally I'm really getting tired of defending myself here all the time.

parrothead · 05-14-2008, 01:35 PM

No one has posted the statistics so they can't be quoted and a some little comment made about them.

brk-lnt · 05-14-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is still 100% true "Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see."

You seem to have come to this irrefutable conclusion that YOUR visibility is based solely on the actions of others, and that you are all but completely removed from any responsibility here. You arrive at your own conclusion that your visibility is somehow directly related to other vessels speed.

This is an extremely weak argument. There are all kinds of power boaters on the lake, and while there are a sufficient number of boneheads, I would still say that the majority are responsible aware boaters. The only commonality seems to be YOU, as you have apparently had an excessive number of close calls where (by your logic) the reason was because other boats were traveling too fast to see you. This reminds me of a statement I've heard in the past that applies to you in this case: "Who **** my pants???"

Whether you want to admit it or not, the majority of boats on the lake don't travel very fast, and a speed limit will not suddenly make you safer and more visible. You're welcome to hold on to that fantasy as long as you like, but no matter what happens with HB847 your 2009 kayak season won't be any different than your 2007 or 2008 kayak season on Winni. Unless of course YOU take some actions to make yourself more visible when you choose to operate in areas frequented by power boats.

GWC... · 05-14-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It could, depending...

How many boozed-up ocean-racers will be absent from Winnipesaukee's waters in 2009?

...plus...

...plus...

...and...

...and the last quote on enforcement ...

Like, maybe...ten years ago?

We didn't have enforcement, yet boating was safe and fun just ten years ago.

You forgot one incident from four years ago:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

hazelnut · 05-14-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is still 100% true "Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see."

The guy on Squam back in the summer of 2004 clearly saw us and was just being a jerk. I made that clear in that old thread, but you neglected to include that part. So that was clearly not a case of someone who was traveling too fast to see me. So go try to find something else to use against me - because you failed again. And personally I'm really getting tired of defending myself here all the time.

So you spoke to him afterwards? He told you he clearly saw you? He told you he was just being a jerk to intimidate you? Oh ok. Wow and all this time I thought Squam was the paradise of considerate boaters. I guess you ran into the one jerk on the lake.

EricP · 05-14-2008, 03:31 PM

I am really confused by the statement "traveling faster than their ability to see". The broads is ~5.5 miles across at it's narrowest point. I can see all the way across at just about any point. Granted smaller objects are dots but they get larger as you approach and you can pretty much see any object larger than a football from over 300' away. I know from the nosebleeds at Gilette I can see the football at the other end of the field. And can even see a bird sitting on the water when I am cruising @ ~50MPH on my SeaDoo and have plenty of time to drive around it, and I do. It just doesn't make sense to me to make an unfounded statement like that and keep repeating it, there's no merit to it. Again, the problem is stupid people, and speed limit or not they will still be stupid. If we end up with a speed limit absolutely nothing will change, except a few people here will gloat and that's easily ignored, but the lake itself will be no different this Summer. Didn't Ron White say "You can't fix stupid"? I agree.

Evenstar · 05-14-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

I am really confused by the statement "traveling faster than their ability to see". . . . It just doesn't make sense to me to make an unfounded statement like that and keep repeating it, there's no merit to it.

My statement, when taken in context, is that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are greater than their ability to see small, slow moving boats in time to stay out of their 150 foot zone.

The key word here is “some”. I never stated that all powerboat owners travel faster than their ability to see. But I’ve also stated that this number is great enough to make the lake dangerous for paddlers.

You might have 20/20 vision – but many powerboat operators have less than perfect vision.

How well can you see when you are heading directly into the sun?

Can you see around islands? Because not all my close encounters has been out on the main lake – some have happened when high-speed boats have come zipping around an island way too fast, and suddenly realized that I was on the other side.

Seeker · 05-14-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That pop up flag listed first looks great!

I ordered two.

If you're not kidding I think you made a good decision. If my wife went out more than a few hundred feet from shore in her Dirigo I would get her a flag also.

VtSteve · 05-14-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That pop up flag listed first looks great!

I ordered two.

They should definitely be Mandatory. It's getting dangerous out there with all of these boats you cannot see.

codeman671 · 05-14-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I'm not saying that you weren't tryng to be helpful - my point is that I'm plenty visible and I tried to explain yet again why adding a flag is not helpful advice - if it would really increase my visibility without negatively affecting my paddling, than I would add a flag in a heartbeat.

So a flag is an inconvience to you? Are you kidding me? An item that makes you more visible and is meant to keep you safe? Geez, sorry to put you out.

A speed limit which makes YOU feel safe is an inconvenience to many that already feel safe but not to you... I think that if a speed limit does passes maybe some of the opponents should get together and come up with a list of ideas for legislation that will ACTUALLY make a difference in safety, such as mandating flags for kayaks more than 150' from shore, or instituting camp zones, or registrations for non-powered vessels in order to provide extra funding for marine patrol for enforcement of laws to keep everyone safe.

hazelnut · 05-14-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

So a flag is an inconvience to you? Are you kidding me? An item that makes you more visible and is meant to keep you safe? Geez, sorry to put you out.

A speed limit which makes YOU feel safe is an inconvenience to many that already feel safe but not to you... I think that if a speed limit does passes maybe some of the opponents should get together and come up with a list of ideas for legislation that will ACTUALLY make a difference in safety, such as mandating flags for kayaks more than 150' from shore, or instituting camp zones, or registrations for non-powered vessels in order to provide extra funding for marine patrol for enforcement of laws to keep everyone safe.

Codeman SO WELL SAID!!!!! I love this sentiment. God forbid we ask Evanstar to increase her visibility for our safety. It might "inconvenience" her. We wouldn't want to do that now would we?

GWC... · 05-14-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think that if a speed limit does passes maybe some of the opponents should get together and come up with a list of ideas for legislation that will ACTUALLY make a difference in safety, such as mandating flags for kayaks more than 150' from shore, or instituting camp zones, or registrations for non-powered vessels in order to provide extra funding for marine patrol for enforcement of laws to keep everyone safe.

Let's give this venture a name...

The Evenstar Law for Safe Boating

P.S.- No smiles because this is a serious post...

Skipper of the Sea Que · 05-15-2008, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pricestavern

A kayaker needs to understand that they are inherently difficult to see and should take all precautions as if they were invisible. A speed limit will not make a kayaker safer and it should not be relied on to do so. I have been kayaking for quite some time now in a 16' sea kayak (bright red) and have come close to being run down by sailboats!

Pricestavern: Thanks. Nice to see input from a sea kayaker other than Evenstar (please don't take offense Evenstar, I often get a 2nd opinion from experienced people - doctors and mechanics for example) .

Do you Pricestavern have any comments about using a safety flag on a sea kayak?

The sailboats that almost run you down in your sea kayak - are they going close to or over the proposed new speed limits?

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

SIKSUKR · 05-15-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Austinkayak.com is a store! It is not a major kayak or paddling organization! Retailers sell gimics as well as good gear - promomiting something to make a sale is not a professional endorcement.
.

Nice try.Here's what you posted: Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag”.
Austin kayak is a kayak website and of course they are a store,where else would you buy a flag?So now it has to be an orginization?

Evenstar · 05-15-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

So a flag is an inconvience to you? Are you kidding me? An item that makes you more visible and is meant to keep you safe? Geez, sorry to put you out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Codeman SO WELL SAID!!!!! I love this sentiment. God forbid we ask Evanstar to increase her visibility for our safety. It might "inconvenience" her. We wouldn't want to do that now would we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

Let's give this venture a name...

The Evenstar Law for Safe Boating

P.S.- No smiles because this is a serious post...

From the Forum Rules:

“No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!”

If these above 3 posts are not examples of trolling I don’t know what is.

This is not a matter of inconvenience – and you all know it, because I clearly explained my reasons for not using a flag several times. Yet you ignore my actual reasons and just continue to attack me and misrepresent my replies in lame attempts to discredit me and to make fun of me yet again. You are obviously trying to force me off these forums, because you can’t stand anyone who doesn’t agree with your narrow views. I have no idea why these types of posts are being allowed, since they are clearly against the forum rules.

The problem is not my lack of visibility, because I am very visible – the problem is that some powerboat owners are traveling at speeds that are greater than their ability to see smaller boats in time to stay out of their 150 foot zone. And this happens regularly enough to create a real danger to people like me, who use smaller boats on the lake.

Here are the facts:
1.) Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see. So I’m almost certain that a 45mph speed limit on Winni with have a similar effect (although, personally I think that 40 mph is a better limit).

2.) Those little flags are nothing but gimics. They are not large enough to increase visibility to an significant amount. Go to the site and look at the actual photo of that little streamer mounted on a kayak – it is barely visible. The surface area of one of my bright orange paddle blades is greater then any of those flags you linked to – and my moving paddle blade extends higher above the water! Yet when I stated that the most visible part of a kayak is the moving paddles, people here jumped all over me. The problem is most of you haven’t even been in a sea kayak, yet you and others have all sorts of “good” advice for me.

3.) Almost everything sold on the internet has glowing reviews posted about how good it is. Don’t believe everything that you read on the Internet, because not everyone is being totally honest. If this flag is so good, where are the endorsements from major kayak and paddling organizations? Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag” and all you’ll find is info on attaching a flag on your long sea kayak when you transport it on the roof of your car. Paddling.net is the largest paddling site – go there and check for yourself if you don’t believe me. No serious paddler uses these little flags because they are useless – and they do hinder rescue procedures – like rolling and self rescues – especially on windy days.

4.) Up in post #220 I wrote: “A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weather-vane.” That is the truth. In order to increase my visibility to any meaningful degree, a flag would have to have a significantly larger surface area than my paddle blade and it would have to extend above the water higher than my paddle – such a flag would make my kayak totally unstable in any wind.

Stop trying to blame the dangerous conditions on us paddlers, when it doesn’t take a whole lot of common sense to see that high-speed powerboats are the ones putting us in danger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Nice try.Here's what you posted: Go to any sea kayak or paddling website and do a search on “flag”.
Austin kayak is a kayak website and of course they are a store,where else would you buy a flag?So now it has to be an orginization?

I clearly stated that in my original post, yet you keep ignoring that part. See #3 above: that’s exactly what I posted earlier - Did you go to Paddling.net and check for yourself, like I posted? "Where are the endorsements from major kayak and paddling organizations?" And a store that has an internet site is not a kayak or paddling website – it’s a retail store! So get off my case!!!

Bear Islander · 05-15-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker

If you're not kidding I think you made a good decision. If my wife went out more than a few hundred feet from shore in her Dirigo I would get her a flag also.

Why would I be kidding?

A fixed flag will get in the way and slow down a recovery. This pop up is a great idea. I hope they work.

Pricestavern · 05-15-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Pricestavern: Thanks. Nice to see input from a sea kayaker other than Evenstar (please don't take offense Evenstar, I often get a 2nd opinion from experienced people - doctors and mechanics for example) .

Do you Pricestavern have any comments about using a safety flag on a sea kayak?

The sailboats that almost run you down in your sea kayak - are they going close to or over the proposed new speed limits?

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

As a paddler who frequently is kayaking on the busy waters of Long Island Sound, I am definitely going to be purchasing a flag for those times I'm in areas where I could be in hazard's way. It's exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for. I've considered crossing the Broads in my kayak but the lack of visibility issue has kept me on the sides. That being said, even with a flag I'm going to assume no one sees me and be on my guard.

As for the boats with those big sails; they're overpowered so what do you expect?

hazelnut · 05-15-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How well can you see when you are heading directly into the sun?

Can you see around islands? Because not all my close encounters has been out on the main lake – some have happened when high-speed boats have come zipping around an island way too fast, and suddenly realized that I was on the other side.

So who's fault is that? These examples could be at any speed including 30MPH. What are YOU doing to avoid these situations? Are you paddling during twilight in the middle of a channel. I'm just not seeing how 30MPH is going to "save you" in these situations.

This is precisely why I am careful to kayak in coves along shores and if I venture across open channels I do so judiciously. I do it for my safety and the safety of the power-boaters. Enough with the "it's everybody else's fault but mine attitude."

fatlazyless · 05-15-2008, 07:53 PM

How nice to see a local Meredith business adding kayaks to their line-up. Directly across from Lovering Volvo, the Sunseeker Hottub biz just added about a half dozen kayaks which are prominently seen from the road, as you cruise up or down the 30mph, Daniel Webster Hgwy.

It just shows to go, that Winni speed limit hasn't even been passed into law yet, but already we is a-seeing more kayaks in the area.

Big horsepower is for people who are too lazy to paddle a 'yak!

EricP · 05-16-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So who's fault is that? These examples could be at any speed including 30MPH. What are YOU doing to avoid these situations? Are you paddling during twilight in the middle of a channel. I'm just not seeing how 30MPH is going to "save you" in these situations.

This is precisely why I am careful to kayak in coves along shores and if I venture across open channels I do so judiciously. I do it for my safety and the safety of the power-boaters. Enough with the "it's everybody else's fault but mine attitude."

Evenstar's entire arguement frames exactly what is wrong with our country today on so many levels. 1 person doesn't like something and grandstands for a law. I am not picking on her, but her unwillingness to take any responsibility on making sure she does what is needed to be safe is exactly the point. I won't change so we must make a law, get out of my way...

Kids in sports all get trophies, which reduces the meaning of what sports and competition is all about.

I hear the word hero so much is has no meaning anymore.

And on, and on, and on....

The good news is shortly my interest in the speed limit bill will be over, I will write to the Govenor expressing my desire to have him veto the bill. Whatever he does, he does. My life will not change, and neither will my boating habits. Kids will still get trophies for being in 422nd place, and useless laws will still get written. 100 years from now I'll be gone, but I'll have spent many great years on the lake and we'll all have that.

alsadad · 05-16-2008, 06:01 PM

I've been thinking about this visibility issue. As painful as it was, I thought back to trigonometry in high school (the best 6 years of my life). Now, I may have this wrong, but I think that if a boater travelling at 60 mph (or any speed actually) spots an object one mile dead ahead and makes an immediate course change of 5 degrees, a mere flick of the wrist, the boater will pass approximately 460 feet to one side or the other of the object (or at least from the spot where the object was when first seen).

Or if you, like me, lack the visual acuity, mental sharpness and reflexes of a varsity athlete, and it takes your muddled brain another 20 seconds to process the information and transmit the command to your wrist, then you will still pass more than 300 feet to one side or the other of that spot.

Five degrees is all it takes to avoid that spot on the water by well more than 150 feet. In the tradition of seafaring ditties and other pnemonic devices handed down through the years(red sky at morning, right red return - except on Winni, etc), I have composed a rhyme to help all you lawless cowboys out there remember this rule of thumb:

When you spy a lonely kayak,
While on your high speed run,
You know that you'll be tempted to
Swing close and have some "fun."
But please resist temptation,
Be nice don't be a turd.
Five degrees is all you need,
Flick your wrist, and not the bird.

Skipper of the Sea Que · 05-16-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alsadad

When you spy a lonely kayak,
While on your high speed run,
You know that you'll be tempted to
Swing close and have some "fun."
But please resist temptation,
Be nice don't be a turd.
Five degrees is all you need,
Flick your wrist, and not the bird.

That made me laugh

alsadad - Thanks, we need more laughter.

Interesting math - Now I'll have to get a compass to figure out what 5 degrees really is. It would take me too long to dig out my Boy Scout compass

.

Speaking of math. There seems to some height at which it becomes harder to see low objects like kayaks. I think it was oil tanker pilots and that type/size of vessel that were so high up that they could not see canoes and kayaks that well. Fortunately we don't have such large vessels on the lake.

overlook · 05-16-2008, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

How nice to see a local Meredith business adding kayaks to their line-up. Directly across from Lovering Volvo, the Sunseeker Hottub biz just added about a half dozen kayaks which are prominently seen from the road, as you cruise up or down the 30mph, Daniel Webster Hgwy.

It just shows to go, that Winni speed limit hasn't even been passed into law yet, but already we is a-seeing more kayaks in the area.

Big horsepower is for people who are too lazy to paddle a 'yak!

Any time any water , lets go!!!

Now

Evenstar · 05-16-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

Evenstar's entire arguement frames exactly what is wrong with our country today on so many levels. 1 person doesn't like something and grandstands for a law. I am not picking on her, but her unwillingness to take any responsibility on making sure she does what is needed to be safe is exactly the point. I won't change so we must make a law, get out of my way...

My "entire argument" is that paddlers should be able to use the lake without worrying about high-speed powerboats running us over.

I'm far from the only person who feels this way - my best friend is worse than me (as far as fearing being run over. I'm just more vocal (and just be glad that you don't have to deal with me in real life). According to polls, the majority of the residents of NH want a lake speedlimit. And I heard a bunch of other people testify in the State House for it.

And I take a great deal of responsibility on making sure that I'm as safe as I can be (and please don't bring up those silly little flags again - because I've already explained why they are not a good idea). I bought the brightest colored kayak available, I bought paddles that are extremely visible. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water - which is where I use it. I've taken courses on navigation, advanced paddling, and first-aid, I had lessons, and I have learned how to do self rescues. I even carry an extra paddle, a bilge pump, and a tow line, as well as extra clothing. Plus I have a compass and a chart of the lake - and I have cold water gear, including both a wetsuit and a drysuit. And I wear a PFD, use a spray skirt in rough conditions. I paddle hundreds of miles each summer and have never needed any kind of help from anyone. How much responsibility do you want!!!

There is nothing wrong with standing up for something that you believe in - and I happen to believe in supporting things that I believe in. I've stood up for my beliefs on this forum, when I knew I was in the minority, and when I knew that people here with find fault with everything that I post, just because my view is different. If you think that is so wrong, than I feel sorry for you. I'm my opinion, the biggest thing that is wrong with this country is that to many people are apathetic - and would rather complain about things, instead of putting in the effort to improve things.

Mashugana · 05-19-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My "entire argument" is that paddlers should be able to use the lake without worrying about high-speed powerboats running us over.

That is much simpler than all the above kayak math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enenstar

And I take a great deal of responsibility on making sure that I'm as safe as I can be (and please don't bring up those silly little flags again - because I've already explained why they are not a good idea). I bought the brightest colored kayak available, I bought paddles that are extremely visible. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water - which is where I use it. I've taken courses on navigation, advanced paddling, and first-aid, I had lessons, and I have learned how to do self rescues. I even carry an extra paddle, a bilge pump, and a tow line, as well as extra clothing. Plus I have a compass and a chart of the lake - and I have cold water gear, including both a wetsuit and a drysuit. And I wear a PFD, use a spray skirt in rough conditions. I paddle hundreds of miles each summer and have never needed any kind of help from anyone. How much responsibility do you want!!!

You sound like you have too much boat for our lake. Over equipped and overqualified to be paddling around Winnie. The vacationers I see with kayaks don't have anywhere near all that equipment you take along. PFDs, paddles, sunblock, maybe a chart and a cooler but not much else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There is nothing wrong with standing up for something that you believe in - and I happen to believe in supporting things that I believe in.

You have every right to stand up for yourself however how you support yourself is important. Some ways are better than others.

EricP · 05-19-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My "entire argument" is that paddlers should be able to use the lake without worrying about high-speed powerboats running us over.

I'm far from the only person who feels this way - my best friend is worse than me (as far as fearing being run over. I'm just more vocal (and just be glad that you don't have to deal with me in real life). According to polls, the majority of the residents of NH want a lake speedlimit. And I heard a bunch of other people testify in the State House for it.

And I take a great deal of responsibility on making sure that I'm as safe as I can be (and please don't bring up those silly little flags again - because I've already explained why they are not a good idea). I bought the brightest colored kayak available, I bought paddles that are extremely visible. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water - which is where I use it. I've taken courses on navigation, advanced paddling, and first-aid, I had lessons, and I have learned how to do self rescues. I even carry an extra paddle, a bilge pump, and a tow line, as well as extra clothing. Plus I have a compass and a chart of the lake - and I have cold water gear, including both a wetsuit and a drysuit. And I wear a PFD, use a spray skirt in rough conditions. I paddle hundreds of miles each summer and have never needed any kind of help from anyone. How much responsibility do you want!!!

There is nothing wrong with standing up for something that you believe in - and I happen to believe in supporting things that I believe in. I've stood up for my beliefs on this forum, when I knew I was in the minority, and when I knew that people here with find fault with everything that I post, just because my view is different. If you think that is so wrong, than I feel sorry for you. I'm my opinion, the biggest thing that is wrong with this country is that to many people are apathetic - and would rather complain about things, instead of putting in the effort to improve things.

I'd bet money that if the speed limit passes you and your friend will not feel any safer next year or the year after before the law is up for expiration. I mean if after everything you've done you don't feel safe, you never will. I kayak on the lake quite a bit and I don't feel unsafe. I also don't put myself in harms way, you apparently like to and continue to do so. Why should I be glad I don't have to deal you in real life? You're being silly there.

Ryan · 05-19-2008, 03:18 PM

This could happen to you!!!!

Taz · 05-19-2008, 07:10 PM

I assume that since Evenstar paddles a sea kayak then she has used the kayak on the ocean. If Evenstar feels unsave on Winni without a speed limit then I have to assume she would also feel unsafe on the ocean with out a speed limit.

So my question to Evenstar is: Are you advocating for a speed limit on the ocean? And if not, why not? is't that where the speed limit proponents believe ocean racers or high performance boats belong

It has been said before in many previous posts that ocean racers or high performance boats belong on the ocean. Maybe sea kayaks belong on the ocean also. Leave the lake to us mere mortals in our lake kayaks to muddle around in.

codeman671 · 05-19-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

This could happen to you!!!!

Maybe at over 145mph...

Evenstar · 05-20-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

That is much simpler than all the above kayak math.

The "kayak math" insult was from another thread. And I was asked to show why I thought the speed study was invalid - which I thought that I did a pretty good job of proving. What many of the critical, insulting forum members didn't seem to understand was that their was nothing wrong with my math - the problem was in the data that the report produced - which I tried to explain. But some were too busy insulting me to notice.

Quote:

You sound like you have too much boat for our lake. Over equipped and overqualified to be paddling around Winnie. The vacationers I see with kayaks don't have anywhere near all that equipment you take along. PFDs, paddles, sunblock, maybe a chart and a cooler but not much else.

Now you are actually trying to twist being prepared, experienced, and trained into something negative. Give me a break!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

I'd bet money that if the speed limit passes you and your friend will not feel any safer next year or the year after before the law is up for expiration. I mean if after everything you've done you don't feel safe, you never will. I kayak on the lake quite a bit and I don't feel unsafe. I also don't put myself in harms way, you apparently like to and continue to do so.

So why do I feel safer on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit?

I am not a person who is easily afraid - but having a high-speed powerboat bearing down on me and swerving at the last second would probably frighten any normal person. No matter how prepared I am, I cannot control the unsafe actions of others - that's where laws come in.

I do not "put myself in harms way" - I put myself on a lake that is supposed to be protected as a place for all users. Allowing powerboats to travel on the lake at unlimitted speeds is what puts me "in harms way."

Quote:

Why should I be glad I don't have to deal you in real life? You're being silly there.

I was just trying to make a joke. Don't be such a grouch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

I assume that since Evenstar paddles a sea kayak then she has used the kayak on the ocean. If Evenstar feels unsave on Winni without a speed limit then I have to assume she would also feel unsafe on the ocean with out a speed limit.

I have stated many times on this forum that I have kayaked on the ocean. I also have sailed on the ocean a great deal, since I'm a member of my university's varsity sailing team and my school is located on the ocean. But I have never felt unsafe on the ocean due to high-speed powerboats. Perhaps that is because the ocean is so much larger then Winni.

Quote:

So my question to Evenstar is: Are you advocating for a speed limit on the ocean? And if not, why not? is't that where the speed limit proponents believe ocean racers or high performance boats belong

There are bays and inland waterways that are part of the ocean when there are speed limits. But there is no speed limit on the open ocean, and I am not advocating for one.

Quote:

It has been said before in many previous posts that ocean racers or high performance boats belong on the ocean. Maybe sea kayaks belong on the ocean also. Leave the lake to us mere mortals in our lake kayaks to muddle around in.

First of all, there is no such thing as a lake kayak catagory - there are recreational kayaks and there are sea/touring kayaks.

How does a sea kayak have any negative impact on others on the lake? Since you're suggesting that they be banned from the lake, you really should have a better reason than just their name. A sea kayak is designed for large bodies of water - such as large lakes - and is much safer in large waves than any recreational kayak.

And my sea kayak has less of an impact on the environment than any powerboat, so it would make way more sense environmentally to ban powerboat than to ban sea kayaks.

EricP · 05-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So why do I feel safer on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit?

I am not a person who is easily afraid - but having a high-speed powerboat bearing down on me and swerving at the last second would probably frighten any normal person. No matter how prepared I am, I cannot control the unsafe actions of others - that's where laws come in.

I do not "put myself in harms way" - I put myself on a lake that is supposed to be protected as a place for all users. Allowing powerboats to travel on the lake at unlimited speeds is what puts me "in harms way."

I was just trying to make a joke. Don't be such a grouch.

Squam Lake is not the same as Winni, I don't care how many times you lump it in, that doesn't make it true. You feel safer because there's less boats? No Broads? Smaller lake? I could go on all day.

Clinging to the false illusion that "I put myself on a lake that is supposed to be protected as a place for all users" is the same as "I should be able to drive through East LA any time I want because the streets are supposed to be safe" You won't see me doing it and you won't see me kayaking the Broads on the weekend. Period. That's why you put yourself in harm's way.

I'm not being grouchy, and didn't see the joke.

VtSteve · 05-20-2008, 02:05 PM

I've had a few times where another boat was on a course that made me rethink my current course. Evasive action is not something any skipper should have to take if a proper lookout was in place. All, repeat All, of those encounters were at speeds between 20 and 30 mph.

Evenstar, in virtually all of the cases where you've felt "frightened", the other boat operator was either not paying attention, and/or was already in violation of at least one, probably two laws already on the books.

We've been through this before, I contend that the MP is not enforcing the laws already on the books. You seem to believe that the new law will somehow change this. I disagree. If a boat is heading towards me at 20 mph, invades my 150' space, the operator is already in violation. If they had enforced these rules, and made it well known that they were, perhaps the infractions would be limited to those that really deserve to be booted out.

BTW, your continued use of the term "high-speed powerboat" makes it abundantly clear, to me at least, that you have a very one-sided agenda that is in no way helpful in solving the problems on Winni, or any other body of water. Again, if all of this energy could have been put to good use, many more people would have been drawn in to support a single, unified bill. That bill could have addressed any issues the MP was having in covering the lake and enforcing it's existing laws.

chipj29 · 05-20-2008, 02:07 PM

Why do your rights as a kayaker trump my rights as a boater? What makes you so special? You stated it yourself, you feel perfectly safe on Squam. Why don't you paddle on Squam, and leave the largest lake in the state available for those who want to travel faster?

Ryan · 05-20-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So why do I feel safer on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit?
I am not a person who is easily afraid - but having a high-speed powerboat bearing down on me and swerving at the last second would probably frighten any normal person. No matter how prepared I am, I cannot control the unsafe actions of others - that's where laws come in.

"Safer on Squam" is relative and opinion based, like most of the rhetoric used to get the bill to pass. As mentioned above, there are many other factors that distinguish Squam from Winni. Apples and oranges.

As far as high speed powerboats violating the 150' zone, this is still very subjective. I'm not saying it is not 100% true, but chew on this....

1 - Is your Kayak equipped with a radar gun? Are you? Can you tell the difference between somebody approacing your sea kayak at 44mph? 38mph? 33mph? I cannot. I ALSO have a college degree.
2 - My first time ever being pulled over on Winni, the MP asked me if I knew how close 150' was. Since I am certified to operate a boat in NH, I knew that it was roughly close enough to make out the boat registration on the hull. With that being said - Why don't you write down registrations of all of these boats that are constantly violating your 150' rule and contact the MP?

It would really validate your arguements if you could provide some concrete proof, instead of fiction (as far as we can tell) to back up some claims?

I'm sure in 2009, there will be ample MP staffing to field calls such calls

Cal · 05-20-2008, 05:59 PM

What still amazes me is that a "Sea Kayak" is designed for big water and big waves , yet is so unstable that a "safety flag" makes it unstable

.
Sounds like some people are talking out of both sides of their faces.
Seems to me it's a little boat "on the edge" so to speak and being in the Broads alone is more of a safety hazzard than being hit by a real boat.

Evenstar · 05-20-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricP

Squam Lake is not the same as Winni, I don't care how many times you lump it in, that doesn't make it true. You feel safer because there's less boats? No Broads? Smaller lake? I could go on all day.

You guys love using this argument. No, the two lakes are not exactly the same - because no two lakes are exactly the same. But Squam is the second largest lake in NH, so it is as close as any lake in NH to Winni - and the two lakes are just over 2 miles apart. There are not "less boats" on Squam" - at least not by square acre of water.

Quote:

Clinging to the false illusion that "I put myself on a lake that is supposed to be protected as a place for all users" is the same as "I should be able to drive through East LA any time I want because the streets are supposed to be safe" You won't see me doing it and you won't see me kayaking the Broads on the weekend. Period. That's why you put yourself in harm's way.

It is not the same thing. A NH law guarantees me the right - RSA 270:1 states in part: "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."

You won't accept Squam as a comparison between the two largest lakes in NH; then you try to compare kayaking on the main lake with driving through East LA!!!???

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

We've been through this before, I contend that the MP is not enforcing the laws already on the books. You seem to believe that the new law will somehow change this. I disagree. If a boat is heading towards me at 20 mph, invades my 150' space, the operator is already in violation. If they had enforced these rules, and made it well known that they were, perhaps the infractions would be limited to those that really deserve to be booted out.

What you are leaving out is my statement that, when the operator of a high-speed powerboat invades my 150 foot zone, it is because he does not see me, and not because he intentionally came too close to me. And the reason that he didn't see me is because he was traveling faster than his ability to see small boats. Not because our brightly colored kayaks are difficult to see.

Quote:

BTW, your continued use of the term "high-speed powerboat" makes it abundantly clear, to me at least, that you have a very one-sided agenda that is in no way helpful in solving the problems on Winni, or any other body of water.

I have no agenda, other than my belief that all boats should be able to use NH lakes without the fear of being run over. My use of "high-speed powerboat" is just a short way of saying any boat that is going over 45 mph - which is the maximum speed allowed in this Bill. I meant nothing more than that. As I have stated over and over again: I have nothing against powerboats of any kind - and my intent is not to ban any type of boat from using the lake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Why do your rights as a kayaker trump my rights as a boater? What makes you so special? You stated it yourself, you feel perfectly safe on Squam. Why don't you paddle on Squam, and leave the largest lake in the state available for those who want to travel faster?

My rights don't trump your rights - but yours don't trump mine either. I do paddle on Squam, but I also have the right,under the NH law, to paddle on Winni as well - and I have the right to be safe while doing this. There is no NH law that gives you the right to travel at high-speeds on any NH lake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

1 - Is your Kayak equipped with a radar gun? Are you? Can you tell the difference between somebody approaching your sea kayak at 44mph? 38mph? 33mph? I cannot. I ALSO have a college degree.

I've also explained this before - but no one believes me, so why bother. The fact is that my spatial awareness is much better than average - due to the fact that the right side of my brain is overdeveloped (to compensate for the damage to my left side. And I'm not talking about boats going 46 mph - I'm talking about boats going more like 60mph. And I do have a pretty good idea what 40-45mph looks like from boating 100's of hours on Squam, where there is a 40mph speed limit.

Quote:

2 - My first time ever being pulled over on Winni, the MP asked me if I knew how close 150' was. Since I am certified to operate a boat in NH, I knew that it was roughly close enough to make out the boat registration on the hull. With that being said - Why don't you write down registrations of all of these boats that are constantly violating your 150' rule and contact the MP?

My kayak is about 16 feet long - if a powerboat is within 3 or 4 of my boat lengths, they are way closer than 150 feet. And I don't exactly have time to try to see the registration - since I'm doing everything I can to keep myself from being run over.

Quote:

It would really validate your arguements if you could provide some concrete proof, instead of fiction (as far as we can tell) to back up some claims?

I never lie. And I'm not exaggerating. And many other paddlers have stated that they have has very similar close calls on the lake. I'm just one of the few who is willing to post on this forum - where powerboat owners are allowed to verbally attack and insult paddlers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

What still amazes me is that a "Sea Kayak" is designed for big water and big waves , yet is so unstable that a "safety flag" makes it unstable. Sounds like some people are talking out of both sides of their faces. Seems to me it's a little boat "on the edge" so to speak and being in the Broads alone is more of a safety hazzard than being hit by a real boat.

And it amazes me that you are still making negative comments about a type of boat that you know nothing about and have never even even been in.

Taz · 05-20-2008, 07:11 PM

Evenstar, this is where I lose you. There are bays and inlets on Winni just as there are are on the ocean and there are large wide open areas on Winni just like the ocean. So you are free to paddle those bays and inlets on Winni just like the ocean. Why would it be any different facing an off shore power boat a mile off shore in an open area of the ocean just like in the broads on Winni?

I think you meet resistance on this forum because your posts appear arrogant and you come off as a know it all who does not want to be questioned and what ever you say is gospel. Did it really matter that I called a recreational kayak a lake kayak? You are participating in these debates and you should expect to be questioned and asked to support your opinions. It takes two to tango as they say. You have questioned and attacked others on this forum. You should stop complaining about it.

The comment about the name sea kayak was tongue in cheek because previously on this forum speed limit proponents said the name off shore powerboat indicates they belong on the ocean. I was simply applying the same principle (it was a joke). So no, I am not advocating banning them from the lake. You twisted what I said just as you have accused others of doing to your posts.

In your last comment you seem to be advocating for banning power boats. Why don't you advocate banning automobiles from the road? Oh, wait, you would not be able to get your kayak to the lake. Seriously though, the new 2and 4 stroke engines are very efficient and clean. you should not worry too much about the impact on the environment.

hazelnut · 05-20-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

Evenstar, this is where I lose you. There are bays and inlets on Winni just as there are are on the ocean and there are large wide open areas on Winni just like the ocean. So you are free to paddle those bays and inlets on Winni just like the ocean. Why would it be any different facing an off shore power boat a mile off shore in an open area of the ocean just like in the broads on Winni?

I think you meet resistance on this forum because your posts appear arrogant and you come off as a know it all who does not want to be questioned and what ever you say is gospel. Did it really matter that I called a recreational kayak a lake kayak? You are participating in these debates and you should expect to be questioned and asked to support your opinions. It takes two to tango as they say. You have questioned and attacked others on this forum. You should stop complaining about it.

The comment about the name sea kayak was tongue in cheek because previously on this forum speed limit proponents said the name off shore powerboat indicates they belong on the ocean. I was simply applying the same principle (it was a joke). So no, I am not advocating banning them from the lake. You twisted what I said just as you have accused others of doing to your posts.

In your last comment you seem to be advocating for banning power boats. Why don't you advocate banning automobiles from the road? Oh, wait, you would not be able to get your kayak to the lake. Seriously though, the new 2and 4 stroke engines are very efficient and clean. you should not worry too much about the impact on the environment.

Taz, I applaud this post and I was nodding my head in approval while reading it. This post so eloquently states exactly what I feel when reading this particular members posts. Thank you for putting into words what so many of us feel.

Evenstar · 05-20-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

Evenstar, this is where I lose you. There are bays and inlets on Winni just as there are are on the ocean and there are large wide open areas on Winni just like the ocean. So you are free to paddle those bays and inlets on Winni just like the ocean. Why would it be any different facing an off shore power boat a mile off shore in an open area of the ocean just like in the broads on Winni?

Because of the size factor! Winni is not "just like the ocean." I have been on ocean bays that are much larger than the entire lake. A bay on Winni is nothing like the ocean bays that I have kayaked and sailed on. I have spent more time boating on ocean bays than I have on Winni – and I have never once had a close encounter, while on ocean waters, with a high-speed powerboat. Like I said earlier, there’s a LOT more room there. I would kayak on the ocean more except for the fact that my home is 2-½ hours away from the ocean.

Quote:

I think you meet resistance on this forum because your posts appear arrogant and you come off as a know it all who does not want to be questioned and what ever you say is gospel. Did it really matter that I called a recreational kayak a lake kayak? You are participating in these debates and you should expect to be questioned and asked to support your opinions. It takes two to tango as they say. You have questioned and attacked others on this forum. You should stop complaining about it.

I have never attacked another member, except in my own defense. Show me just one instance where I have done otherwise.

Yet I have been personally attacked – often in very personal and hateful ways, and made fun of since my first week on this forum. I don’t mind being questioned – but I do mind constantly being misquoted and having my words taken out of context and used against me. That is wrong. It is also not fair that my explanations are usually either totally ignored or are ridiculed. It is not fair that I constantly have to defend myself, and that I have to constantly repeat myself – that I am repeatedly questioned (sometimes by the same person) about something that I have already explained numerous times.

It is also not fair that I make one post and 5 or 6 other members attack me – and pick apart everything that I write. It is also not fair that my ability, knowledge, age, and experience are constantly under attack and that I have to provide “credentials” for everything. I’ll continue to complain as long as the forum rules are being broken by others – if the rules of these forums were enforced, I would not have to complain.

Quote:

The comment about the name sea kayak was tongue in cheek because previously on this forum speed limit proponents said the name off shore powerboat indicates they belong on the ocean. I was simply applying the same principle (it was a joke). So no, I am not advocating banning them from the lake. You twisted what I said just as you have accused others of doing to your posts.

I have posted numerous times on this forum that I have language issues – due to brain damage. I am extremely literal, am a very open person, and don't really know how to be anything but honest and direct - that's the only way that I can communicate. Your post did not seem like a joke to me – and others here have been serious when they wrote that kayaks should be banned from Winni. When a person is joking, they generally let others know by adding a smilie – since you didn’t, how was I to know that you were joking.

I twisted no part of your post, but responded literally to exactly what you wrote. That is not twisting anything. Others have twisted my words completely.

Quote:

In your last comment you seem to be advocating for banning power boats. Why don't you advocate banning automobiles from the road? Oh, wait, you would not be able to get your kayak to the lake. Seriously though, the new 2and 4 stroke engines are very efficient and clean. you should not worry too much about the impact on the environment.

Now who’s twisting things? I was only talking about environmental reasons, and merely stated that, since “my sea kayak has less of an impact on the environment than any powerboat, so it would make way more sense environmentally to ban powerboat than to ban sea kayaks.” I have stated many times on this forum, including at least once earlier today, that I am not advocating for the banning of any type of boat.

Taz · 05-20-2008, 11:00 PM

Evenstar, if a off shore power boat or power boat, it does not matter what kind is 50 feet , 100 feet, 150 feet away from you or what ever the distance away from you that makes you feel unsafe, then its irrelevant whether it is in the ocean or the lake. The space around you is not what counts, what counts is the distance between you and the power boat. So the point of my original question is why are you targeting the lake as the only place speed limits should implemented? The very same situation could happen on the ocean. It just so happens you were fortunate when paddling on the ocean that you did not encounter any off shore power boats or boats that made you feel unsafe.

Look at all the posts you have entered, some, one right after another on the very same thread. Look at the length of many of your posts. Its clear you are fixated on this issue. It looks like you are looking to pick a fight. You called one poster silly when he mentioned the flag. Thats not a personal attack? Thats just one example. You made light of my calling a recreational kayak a lake kayak. If it were reversed you would call that a personal attack. Thats called hypocrisy.

You continue to ask why your posts are attacked, picked apart and questioned. Thats why I posted what I felt would be helpful hints to let you know why. However, based on your history I did expect you to respond as you did and I did not expect you to heed the advise. Your not required to defend yourself you know. Maybe just once you could let it go and not respond, but I know you won't and there will be a long response with all kinds of highlighted quotes.

You don't think you twisted what I said about sea kayaks? Show me where I used the word ban or where I said kayaks should be banned? If you were reading and paying attention to all of the speed limit proponents posts, specifically where they reference off shore power boats, and I believe you have since this issue arose 2-3 years ago you would understand the tongue in cheek joke I reference. I don't use smilies, sorry, you'll have to THINK to figure out the jokes.

You are very melodramatic, attacked "personally" and in "hateful" ways. Stop playing the victim card. Its very tiresome.

When was environmental issues brought up in my post? I do not see the word environmental in my post. If you are not advocating banning any boats then why would you reference banning powerboats for environmental reasons? This is why posters sometimes don't understand your posts. They can be confusing.

Don't take this personally, I'm just trying to be helpful.

GWC... · 05-20-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have never attacked another member, except in my own defense. Show me just one instance where I have done otherwise.

Perhaps you misspoke, misremembered, or simply forgot your attack of the Webmaster...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=131

Here's a fact for you to contemplate:

Opponents were being moderated long before you were.

VtSteve · 05-21-2008, 05:34 AM

"if the rules of these forums were enforced, I would not have to complain."

If the rules on Winni were enforced, we'd not be having this discussion.

brk-lnt · 05-21-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What you are leaving out is my statement that, when the operator of a high-speed powerboat invades my 150 foot zone, it is because he does not see me, and not because he intentionally came too close to me. And the reason that he didn't see me is because he was traveling faster than his ability to see small boats. Not because our brightly colored kayaks are difficult to see.

This is a recurring theme in your posts, often emphasized in bold, and repeated quite frequently. The problem is that as far as I can tell, your conclusion here about people traveling too fast to see you in time seems to have no evidence to support it, it's just your own assumption.

And while your assumption MAY be true, until you provide some sort of data to back up your claims, I think most people are dismissing this argument of yours.

While your position may or may not be true, it is no more valid than the position that your kayak is too difficult to spot at any speed, and that you are intentionally putting yourself in harms way.

What the NH law doesn't say about mutual use of the lake is that people should apply a reasonable level of common sense, so as all users of the lake can enjoy portions of it simultaneously. I guess the problem with common sense is that it is not so common.

There are many many places on the lake that are difficult or impossible for powerboats to operate. These would seem to make excellent places to enjoy sports such as yours. There are also many many coves, bays, and other areas where you can kayak "alongside" other users of the lake (powerboats, etc.)

If you are having repeated infractions with powerboats, or any other user of the lake, YOU are most likely putting yourself in that position needlessly. It is reasonable to expect that you have a right to enjoy the lake in your kayak. It is unreasonable to expect that the entire boating population on the lake should somehow route around you to allow you to kayak wherever you please.

As an example of my statement above, which you will surely take issue with... The Mount travels a known path on its tours of the lake. By your logic, should you be able to paddle around in its path, while it adjusts course to avoid you?

Or, the area around most town docks can become quite congested on busy summer weekends as boats jockey for a slip. Would you expect that you should be able to paddle around in these areas "safely" (by your definition), while the boats maintain a course to avoid you?

05-09-2008, 10:18 AM	#202
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Is it me or does anyone else see the wa wa wa,Im better than you,I know more than you,I'm an expert at everything posts by some of these members.Give it a rest and focus on the topic.Your style is getting very old and it's cost you your credibility. __________________ SIKSUKR

05-09-2008, 10:29 AM	#203
EricP Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 329 Thanks: 28 Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts	I'd like to propose a bill I'd like a law that states if you're going to kayak across the broads, or other large congested areas of the lake, you must have a flag that sticks up 3' from either the bow or stern of your kayak so you can be seen from further than 150' away by other recrerational users of Lake Winnipesaukee.

05-09-2008, 03:41 PM	#219
Wolfeboro_Baja Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Hopkinton NH Posts: 395 Thanks: 88 Thanked 80 Times in 46 Posts	New revenue source? If the state's looking for more revenue, perhaps it's time they started registering kayaks, canoes or any other non-motorized boat. A small fee, like the one charged to hikers heading out for a hike in the White Mtns. (it's essentially a parking fee but whatever......!) should generate some revenue for the state. Perhaps they can even direct the fees collected to the Marine Patrol since they are so under-funded. I'm just thinking that if they want to use the lake like the power boaters do, perhaps they should share in the cost of funding the MP. It could even go hand-in-hand with EricP's flag idea; pay an annual fee, collect the sticker and affix it to the flag so not only would they be easier to see on the water, but the MP could easily determine if they have registered their kayak, canoe or what-have-you. No flaming required, it's just an idea............... __________________ Cancer SUCKS!

05-12-2008, 05:31 AM	#228
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Let's look at the law again The first paragraph of the existing law is enough to satisfy the rights mentioned in RSA 270:1:II, the one Evenstar expresses concerns about. Safe and mutual enjoyment comes with speeds that are reasonable and prudent under existing conditions. We are currently living under a good rule that we all should be able to agree on. It does not allow unlimited speed. The debate should be about enforcement of existing law, not extensions that create legitimate disrespect for the law. From HB 0847: 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. <-- Good enough! The reason there is a public outcry against the proposed law is that it defines what is not reasonable or prudent, removing the responsibility and freedom from certified boat pilots. To imply that going over 45 mph is unreasonable or not prudent when it is 7AM in the broads, on a Tuesday in May, with no boat in sight; is just plain wrong. Yet, that is what the law is implying. (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. __________________ -lg

05-13-2008, 10:24 AM	#236
Pricestavern Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Valencia, Spain (formerly Rattlesnake Isle) Posts: 388 Thanks: 125 Thanked 142 Times in 82 Posts	Kayak Safety A kayaker needs to understand that they are inherently difficult to see and should take all precautions as if they were invisible. A speed limit will not make a kayaker safer and it should not be relied on to do so. I have been kayaking for quite some time now in a 16' sea kayak (bright red) and have come close to being run down by sailboats!

05-09-2008, 12:08 PM	#209
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Evanstar read the title of YOUR post #189 posted just yesterday at 9:18am. It speaks volumes about your character. I have real problems with people like you and I have mentioned it before. You consider it perfectly fine to insult every opponent of your beliefs but as soon as somebody calls you out you whine like a crybaby. You are a girl great, represent yourself and be strong. Don't insult others unless you can take it right back. Sea Kayak yes I've seen them and last time I checked the PROFILE of a sea kayak is no greater than that of a regular kayak. You are a sitting duck in the broads regardless of a speed limit. It is a fact that most boats aren't traveling over 45 even though you assume they are. Those boats will continue to violate your 150 foot zone unless there is better enforcement and education enacted. Don't take my word for it, just let me know in a couple of years if you "feel" safer. I highly doubt you will.

05-09-2008, 12:56 PM	#213
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	One thing has me worried. Would the speed limits have any impact on the NASWA Bikini Contest? I haven't even gotten over there yet.

05-11-2008, 09:17 PM	#227
Chris Craft Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 120 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Evenstar: my problem with your argument is this. Today you are looking to add a speed limit so that you can take your ocean kayak out on lake winni. Well to me the next step for you will be to look for the same speed limit so that you can take your ocean kayak in the ocean. Seems that it is OK for me to not be able to use the lake in a safe responsible manner but if that is put on you then..... Why are your rights more important then mine?

05-13-2008, 08:19 AM	#234
brk-lnt Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: South Down Shores Posts: 1,937 Thanks: 532 Thanked 568 Times in 334 Posts	[QUOTE=Evenstar;70181] The problem is that not everyone who operates at high-speeds does so safely. And visibility becomes more of a problem at higher speeds. The problem is that not everyone who kayaks on the lake does so safely. For example, no kayakers seem to use a kayak flag to promote their visibility. And visibility becomes more of a problem when you have a low-height craft paddling in an area with high waves. Every argument you make about speed limits and powerboat operators can be turned back around on you. You have failed to present any arguments that are truly compelling (other than in your own little world) .

05-13-2008, 12:02 PM	#239
Excalibur Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Gilford,NH is where I would like to be and Southborough, MA is where I have to be Posts: 85 Thanks: 14 Thanked 10 Times in 3 Posts	It should be funny I will find it funny to see all the small pleasure boats being pulled over around and after sunset for going over the 25 mph speed limit. Then there will be the 30 foot plus boats not being able to plane and making a huge wake.. We may even see a few boats with out running lights going along with night vision goggles. My spot light has pissed a few off in the past...

05-13-2008, 12:47 PM	#241
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Good post Woodsy Couldn't agree more, that the concerns that caused this speed limit to be proposed can be covered by existing laws. Everyone on both sides of this argument agrees that enforcement is an issue on Winni. But the pro-speed limit crowd keeps repeating that enforcement is a dream because it costs money. I'm tired of hearing that as an excuse for why enforcement can't be increased. If we as a community had pushed for better enforcement of our waterways, instead of a temporary fix, then perhaps things could be better. The speed limit is a way for the government can say that something was done, when in fact it is not going to make much of a difference. Sure there may be a few weeks of boats slowing down, but when you can go most of a day and not see an MP boat, then the speeds will go back up. The law has no teeth without enforcement, and we don't have enough of an MP presence on the lake to enforce the current laws as well as new ones. Also I think that better enforcement of current laws would actually cut down on the congestion. As the pro-speed crowd keeps saying that the speed limit will cause high speed boaters from coming to lake, so will an increased enforcement presence. If you want to come to Winni and party it up and drive like a bonehead, you are going to be stopped and fined. This is going to be more of a deterrent than a speed limit. Winni could get the reputation of being a place that you have to drive carefully, because otherwise you will get stopped. I just feel that we lost a chance to actually make a difference to our waterways. The speed limit is nothing more than a band-aid fix for a bigger problem. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane Last edited by parrothead; 05-13-2008 at 12:50 PM. Reason: misspelling

05-14-2008, 08:57 AM	#250
Seeker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Effingham Posts: 408 Thanks: 37 Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts	I can't wait for the reply.

05-14-2008, 12:49 PM	#255
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	That pop up flag listed first looks great! I ordered two.

05-14-2008, 01:35 PM	#259
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	No he can't No one has posted the statistics so they can't be quoted and a some little comment made about them. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

05-14-2008, 03:31 PM	#263
EricP Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 329 Thanks: 28 Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts	I am really confused by the statement "traveling faster than their ability to see". The broads is ~5.5 miles across at it's narrowest point. I can see all the way across at just about any point. Granted smaller objects are dots but they get larger as you approach and you can pretty much see any object larger than a football from over 300' away. I know from the nosebleeds at Gilette I can see the football at the other end of the field. And can even see a bird sitting on the water when I am cruising @ ~50MPH on my SeaDoo and have plenty of time to drive around it, and I do. It just doesn't make sense to me to make an unfounded statement like that and keep repeating it, there's no merit to it. Again, the problem is stupid people, and speed limit or not they will still be stupid. If we end up with a speed limit absolutely nothing will change, except a few people here will gloat and that's easily ignored, but the lake itself will be no different this Summer. Didn't Ron White say "You can't fix stupid"? I agree.

05-15-2008, 07:53 PM	#276
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	...new Meredith kayak biz! How nice to see a local Meredith business adding kayaks to their line-up. Directly across from Lovering Volvo, the Sunseeker Hottub biz just added about a half dozen kayaks which are prominently seen from the road, as you cruise up or down the 30mph, Daniel Webster Hgwy. It just shows to go, that Winni speed limit hasn't even been passed into law yet, but already we is a-seeing more kayaks in the area. Big horsepower is for people who are too lazy to paddle a 'yak! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

05-16-2008, 06:01 PM	#278
alsadad Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 45 Thanks: 8 Thanked 41 Times in 10 Posts	Visibility I've been thinking about this visibility issue. As painful as it was, I thought back to trigonometry in high school (the best 6 years of my life). Now, I may have this wrong, but I think that if a boater travelling at 60 mph (or any speed actually) spots an object one mile dead ahead and makes an immediate course change of 5 degrees, a mere flick of the wrist, the boater will pass approximately 460 feet to one side or the other of the object (or at least from the spot where the object was when first seen). Or if you, like me, lack the visual acuity, mental sharpness and reflexes of a varsity athlete, and it takes your muddled brain another 20 seconds to process the information and transmit the command to your wrist, then you will still pass more than 300 feet to one side or the other of that spot. Five degrees is all it takes to avoid that spot on the water by well more than 150 feet. In the tradition of seafaring ditties and other pnemonic devices handed down through the years(red sky at morning, right red return - except on Winni, etc), I have composed a rhyme to help all you lawless cowboys out there remember this rule of thumb: When you spy a lonely kayak, While on your high speed run, You know that you'll be tempted to Swing close and have some "fun." But please resist temptation, Be nice don't be a turd. Five degrees is all you need, Flick your wrist, and not the bird.

05-19-2008, 03:18 PM	#284
Ryan Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Mass/Gilford Posts: 247 Thanks: 216 Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts	If you go over 45mph.... This could happen to you!!!!

05-19-2008, 07:10 PM	#285
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Thanked 68 Times in 46 Posts	Sea Kayak I assume that since Evenstar paddles a sea kayak then she has used the kayak on the ocean. If Evenstar feels unsave on Winni without a speed limit then I have to assume she would also feel unsafe on the ocean with out a speed limit. So my question to Evenstar is: Are you advocating for a speed limit on the ocean? And if not, why not? is't that where the speed limit proponents believe ocean racers or high performance boats belong It has been said before in many previous posts that ocean racers or high performance boats belong on the ocean. Maybe sea kayaks belong on the ocean also. Leave the lake to us mere mortals in our lake kayaks to muddle around in.

05-20-2008, 02:05 PM	#289
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I've had a few times where another boat was on a course that made me rethink my current course. Evasive action is not something any skipper should have to take if a proper lookout was in place. All, repeat All, of those encounters were at speeds between 20 and 30 mph. Evenstar, in virtually all of the cases where you've felt "frightened", the other boat operator was either not paying attention, and/or was already in violation of at least one, probably two laws already on the books. We've been through this before, I contend that the MP is not enforcing the laws already on the books. You seem to believe that the new law will somehow change this. I disagree. If a boat is heading towards me at 20 mph, invades my 150' space, the operator is already in violation. If they had enforced these rules, and made it well known that they were, perhaps the infractions would be limited to those that really deserve to be booted out. BTW, your continued use of the term "high-speed powerboat" makes it abundantly clear, to me at least, that you have a very one-sided agenda that is in no way helpful in solving the problems on Winni, or any other body of water. Again, if all of this energy could have been put to good use, many more people would have been drawn in to support a single, unified bill. That bill could have addressed any issues the MP was having in covering the lake and enforcing it's existing laws.

05-20-2008, 02:07 PM	#290
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	Why do your rights as a kayaker trump my rights as a boater? What makes you so special? You stated it yourself, you feel perfectly safe on Squam. Why don't you paddle on Squam, and leave the largest lake in the state available for those who want to travel faster?

05-20-2008, 05:59 PM	#292
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	What still amazes me is that a "Sea Kayak" is designed for big water and big waves , yet is so unstable that a "safety flag" makes it unstable. Sounds like some people are talking out of both sides of their faces. Seems to me it's a little boat "on the edge" so to speak and being in the Broads alone is more of a safety hazzard than being hit by a real boat. __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

05-20-2008, 07:11 PM	#294
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Thanked 68 Times in 46 Posts	Evenstar, this is where I lose you. There are bays and inlets on Winni just as there are are on the ocean and there are large wide open areas on Winni just like the ocean. So you are free to paddle those bays and inlets on Winni just like the ocean. Why would it be any different facing an off shore power boat a mile off shore in an open area of the ocean just like in the broads on Winni? I think you meet resistance on this forum because your posts appear arrogant and you come off as a know it all who does not want to be questioned and what ever you say is gospel. Did it really matter that I called a recreational kayak a lake kayak? You are participating in these debates and you should expect to be questioned and asked to support your opinions. It takes two to tango as they say. You have questioned and attacked others on this forum. You should stop complaining about it. The comment about the name sea kayak was tongue in cheek because previously on this forum speed limit proponents said the name off shore powerboat indicates they belong on the ocean. I was simply applying the same principle (it was a joke). So no, I am not advocating banning them from the lake. You twisted what I said just as you have accused others of doing to your posts. In your last comment you seem to be advocating for banning power boats. Why don't you advocate banning automobiles from the road? Oh, wait, you would not be able to get your kayak to the lake. Seriously though, the new 2and 4 stroke engines are very efficient and clean. you should not worry too much about the impact on the environment.

05-20-2008, 11:00 PM	#297
Taz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 345 Thanks: 3 Thanked 68 Times in 46 Posts	Evenstar, if a off shore power boat or power boat, it does not matter what kind is 50 feet , 100 feet, 150 feet away from you or what ever the distance away from you that makes you feel unsafe, then its irrelevant whether it is in the ocean or the lake. The space around you is not what counts, what counts is the distance between you and the power boat. So the point of my original question is why are you targeting the lake as the only place speed limits should implemented? The very same situation could happen on the ocean. It just so happens you were fortunate when paddling on the ocean that you did not encounter any off shore power boats or boats that made you feel unsafe. Look at all the posts you have entered, some, one right after another on the very same thread. Look at the length of many of your posts. Its clear you are fixated on this issue. It looks like you are looking to pick a fight. You called one poster silly when he mentioned the flag. Thats not a personal attack? Thats just one example. You made light of my calling a recreational kayak a lake kayak. If it were reversed you would call that a personal attack. Thats called hypocrisy. You continue to ask why your posts are attacked, picked apart and questioned. Thats why I posted what I felt would be helpful hints to let you know why. However, based on your history I did expect you to respond as you did and I did not expect you to heed the advise. Your not required to defend yourself you know. Maybe just once you could let it go and not respond, but I know you won't and there will be a long response with all kinds of highlighted quotes. You don't think you twisted what I said about sea kayaks? Show me where I used the word ban or where I said kayaks should be banned? If you were reading and paying attention to all of the speed limit proponents posts, specifically where they reference off shore power boats, and I believe you have since this issue arose 2-3 years ago you would understand the tongue in cheek joke I reference. I don't use smilies, sorry, you'll have to THINK to figure out the jokes. You are very melodramatic, attacked "personally" and in "hateful" ways. Stop playing the victim card. Its very tiresome. When was environmental issues brought up in my post? I do not see the word environmental in my post. If you are not advocating banning any boats then why would you reference banning powerboats for environmental reasons? This is why posters sometimes don't understand your posts. They can be confusing. Don't take this personally, I'm just trying to be helpful.

05-21-2008, 05:34 AM	#299
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	"if the rules of these forums were enforced, I would not have to complain." If the rules on Winni were enforced, we'd not be having this discussion.