House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age

[Woodsy]

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age


CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House.

Currently, children age 5 and under must wear protection. Boats with a 3-foot-high enclosed side rail would be exempt.

Opponents argued that the requirement was intrusive because no children in the age range had drowned in boating-related accidents in the past eight years.

The 204-135 vote sent the bill to the Senate.

[codeman671]

Sounds great to me. My daughter is 7 and is not allowed on the boat without a PFD. Who would argue this???

[Merrymeeting]

Shhhuuussshh! We've been telling our kids that it's 12 for years!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Shhhuuussshh! We've been telling our kids that it's 12 for years!

I was telling my cousin's son that it was Sixteen.... and got away with it for a few years.... then he looked it up online and the game was up... Of course he still doesn't swim well so I don't allow him in my boat with out one.... so now he doesn't bug me for rides anymore, he goes with his grandfather who lets him get away with out it.... No matter what the legal age is the captains house rule always apply on my boat, until they are 18 they have to prove to me that they can swim well enough on thier own....

All the kids that ride in my boat know this rule and I have never had an arguement.... and it keeps them working on thier swiming and water treading abilities....

Now back to the law.... it is about time.... not often as most people are responsible, but on occasion I see young kids in boats with out them.... and it scares me..... people seem to forget how quickly accidents happen.... The last time I saw this I almost yelled at the guy.... they had a baby (1 or 2 years old) being held in moms arms..and I was helping them dock.. the excuse.... was "well he cries when he is in it"..... my thoughts kept in my head " you think he cries with that lifejacket, that nothing compared to your crying when he drownds"..... I just shook my head and didn't reply...

[Resident 2B]

I have an 11 year old son and I believe it makes good sense to have those 12 and under to wear PFDs while on boats.

Safety first!

You never know what can happen out there. This is not a fear of other boaters. It is just common sense.

FYI: I am also against the speed limit, but I fully support the speed limit test in limited ares of the lake this summer. Again, this is just common sense.

R2B

[Phantom]

As a Mass resident & boater in both States -the 12 year old Rule has been the norm for us. Mass has had the age limit at 12 for as long as I can remember and for the many weeks we spend on the Big Lake each year it is- Our boat Rule. With 4 grandchildren, we accumulated & always have numerous size PFD's (and not those orange ones) stowed away for visitors of all ages - including infants.

It was always one of those little quirky differences in the "rules book" between the states that I never could understand -- another is the classification of a "Ski boat" -- I think of Malibu & Mastercraft when I hear that term -- not a little 2 seater.

[chipj29]

Although I strongly agree that it is wise for a child under 12 (or a person of any age for that matter) to wear a pfd, why do we need to legislate it? The article states that there have been no issues without the law, so why do we need the law?

For the record, I always wear my pfd when on my PWC, even though I am not required to by law...and I am well, well, well over the age of 12!

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

... Now back to the law.... it is about time.... not often as most people are responsible, but on occasion I see young kids in boats with out them.... and it scares me..... people seem to forget how quickly accidents happen.... The last time I saw this I almost yelled at the guy.... they had a baby (1 or 2 years old) being held in moms arms..and I was helping them dock.. the excuse.... was "well he cries when he is in it"..... my thoughts kept in my head " you think he cries with that lifejacket, that nothing compared to your crying when he drownds"..... I just shook my head and didn't reply...

Although I lament the need to legislate what I consider common sense I accept the value of this law for these types of reasons. Just when I think I can't be surprised by parents doing dumb and dangerous things for or to their kids, some story comes out or I personally witness something that just leaves me shaking my head and in some tragic cases, very sad. Unfortunately it's considered "bad taste" in society today to criticize a parent for being stupid. At least now the Marine Patrol or people with common sense like LIforrelaxin can say "It's the law!" and maybe a tragedy can be averted.

[Aquadeziac]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Although I strongly agree that it is wise for a child under 12 (or a person of any age for that matter) to wear a pfd, why do we need to legislate it? The article states that there have been no issues without the law, so why do we need the law?

For the record, I always wear my pfd when on my PWC, even though I am not required to by law...and I am well, well, well over the age of 12!

For the record, you ARE required by law to to wear a pfd on a PWC no matter how old you are. Have we passed our Boater Safety course lately??

[abay]

I believe the pfd requirement also extends to kayaks and canoes. It always amazes me the number of people going without. (Seat cushions don't count in this case.)

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

For the record, you ARE required by law to to wear a pfd on a PWC no matter how old you are. Have we passed our Boater Safety course lately??

Sorry, for the record, you are required to wear a a PFD on a Jet Ski or a vessel that falls under the definition of a Jet Ski;

Under 13 ft long as manufactured
Can exceed 20mph
Can carry no more than the operator and 1 passenger

All Jet Skis are PWCs, but not all PWCs are Jet Skis

A PWC can be a 3 seater or longer than 13 feet and is considered and registered as a boat and subject to boating laws. Therefore, PFDs must be carried but are not required to be worn. However, wearing them is a sensible choice.

[Aquadeziac]

And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

For the record, you ARE required by law to to wear a pfd on a PWC no matter how old you are. Have we passed our Boater Safety course lately??

MY PWC is a 3-seater, therefore is considered to be a boat rather than a ski craft in New Hampshire.
Have YOU passed your boating safety course lately?
I think the part that you may be missing is the definition of a ski craft in NH. A ski craft is a 1 or 2 seater. A pwc with 3 or more seats is considered to be a boat.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by abay

I believe the pfd requirement also extends to kayaks and canoes. It always amazes me the number of people going without. (Seat cushions don't count in this case.)

Wearable PFDs are required to be carried in canoes and kayaks, but not required to be worn.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.

No, the key is not 13 ft and under. All 3 conditions have to be met in order to be considered a ski craft. If the 3 elements could be selectively judged, then ANY vessel capable of exceeding 20mph would be a ski craft and ANY vessel that could only carry 2 persons would be a ski craft.

Again, all 3 conditions have to be met in order to be considered a jet ski or ski craft, and only then will the ski craft regulations apply. This may help:

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Ski Craft
Section 270:73
270:73 Definitions. – In this subdivision:
I. ""Bureau'' means the department of safety, bureau of hearings, established pursuant to RSA 21-P:13.
II. ""Department'' means the department of safety.
III. ""Operator'' means a person who operates or who has charge of the navigation or use of a ski craft.
IV. ""Private boat'' means a boat as defined in RSA 270:2, V, including a ski craft.
V. ""Ski craft'' means any motorized watercraft or private boat which is less than 13 feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of 20 miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person while in operation. The term includes a jet ski, surf ski, fun ski, or other similar device.
VI. ""Watercraft'' means a motorized ski craft, capable of being used as a means of transportation on or in the water, except a seaplane.

Source. 1988, 283:1, eff. Oct. 1, 1988.

[SIKSUKR]

Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.

Nightwing is correct. If you were told that PFDs were mandatory for a three (or four) up PWC then the officer was/is wrong.

I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH.

Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied.

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Skip

Nightwing is correct. If you were told that PFDs were mandatory for a three (or four) up PWC then the officer was/is wrong.

I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH.

Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied.

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-A
USE OF HOUSEBOATS
Section 270-A:3
270-A:3 Where Overnight Mooring Prohibited. – No houseboat shall be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period, except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency. No houseboat shall be anchored on any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency.

Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

[Skip]

Good one Nightwing.

Now here's the rub. Below I post the statutory definition of a houseboat. Now, there is only the banning overnight of HOUSEBOATS, but no general statute banning other boats!

Some say that the "temporary" covers the seat cushions on your boat and a toilet could be your bailing bucket. However, many of today's 20 footers and up come with porta-potties and obviously seat cushions. So, if these options make these bow-riders/cuddies "houseboats", why are they then not banned on the lakes & ponds in New Hampshire that do have specific bans on "houseboats"? Because they really are not "houseboats" and are found in abundnace on inland water bodies where true "houseboats" are banned!

Aha, what we have here is a classic legal loophole!

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-A
USE OF HOUSEBOATS
Section 270-A:1
270-A:1 Definitions. – The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
I. ""Person'' means any individual, firm, co-partnership, company, association or joint-stock association, including any trustee, administrator, executor, receiver, assignee or other personal representative thereof.
II. ""Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature.
III. ""Overnight period'' means the period of time between the termination of daylight in the evening to the earliest dawn in the next morning.
IV. ""Mooring'' means beaching, grounding, or tying of a houseboat to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state, and the anchoring of a houseboat on any of the inland surface waters of the state.
Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

Here is an example of where HOUSEBOATS are specifically prohibited by law:

270:77 Squam and Conway Lakes and Silver Lake in Madison. – No person shall at any time place in or upon, or use, or operate upon, Squam Lake or Conway Lake or Silver Lake in Madison any houseboat. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a violation. Boards of health and health officers of towns abutting said lakes shall have power and authority to enforce the provisions of this section.

[jrc]

How is this enforced? On Winnipesaukee, overnight anchoring is clearly enforced against all cruiser type boat. (I have seen people get away with it after Labor Day) These boat have permanent sleeping and toilet facilities, so they are houseboats, right?

Do MP enforce the overnight anchoring rules against bowriders or pontoons? Can I anchor my bowrider at the sandbar overnight? Can I sleep on it? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag.

Can I take a cruiser on Squam? Can I take a bowrider or pontoon? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag?

I guess the rules are unclear, but how are they enforced?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jrc

How is this enforced? On Winnipesaukee, overnight anchoring is clearly enforced against all cruiser type boat. (I have seen people get away with it after Labor Day) These boat have permanent sleeping and toilet facilities, so they are houseboats, right?

Do MP enforce the overnight anchoring rules against bowriders or pontoons? Can I anchor my bowrider at the sandbar overnight? Can I sleep on it? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag.

Can I take a cruiser on Squam? Can I take a bowrider or pontoon? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag?

I guess the rules are unclear, but how are they enforced?

I point this out to let people know just how vague some of our regulations are and how they contradict each other.

It also points out the danger of making blanket statements when it comes to our local, state and federal laws. No wonder there is so many lawyers out there.

Take IslandLovers blanket statement that bicycles must abide by speed laws. There is an RSA that says generally bicyclists must follow motor vehicle laws. However, there is a separate RSA that states that speed laws only apply to (mechanized) vehicles. One contradicts the other. Many of you may remember the bicyclist arrested for DWI several years ago. Because the bicycle & motor vehicle code were contradictory the case was headed to the Supreme Court to determine the legality of applying those laws. Of course both sides were afraid of the outcome and the case was settled.

The point here is the blanket statement in the boating guide that overnight anchoring is illegal in New Hampshire is not supported in totality by a New Hampshire RSA or the Administrative Code. It is quite clear that houseboats cannot anchor overnight. Houseboats also have a fairly clear definition. What I am pointing out here is, in my opinon, a common perception held by many about staying out overnight in a boat that is not a houseboat. And remember, the overnight prohibition appears in a specific chapter devoted exclusively to houseboats.

Anyway, I bring this diversion up as an interesting point of discussion. Let me rephrase the question, can anyone show me a RSA or an Administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring for any vessel other than a houseboat?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Skip

{snip} Anyway, I bring this diversion up as an interesting point of discussion. Let me rephrase the question, can anyone show me a RSA or an Administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring for any vessel other than a houseboat?

I can't and to revive another related question ... is it legal to anchor for the fireworks displays ? Note the aforementioned RSA, particularly the portion that says "or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency." I guess it's OK in a skiff but not in a cruiser.


Back to PFDs ....

I assume everyone knows that the USCG was floating the idea that all people should wear PFDs, all the time. There was some talk (a couple of years ago) about making it a regulation for boats under 21'. I wonder what people would say about this, should it come to pass and the States follow the lead for their inland waters.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

...Back to PFDs ....

I assume everyone knows that the USCG was floating the idea that all people should wear PFDs, all the time. There was some talk (a couple of years ago) about making it a regulation for boats under 21'. I wonder what people would say about this, should it come to pass and the States follow the lead for their inland waters.

I apologize for hijacking the thread....Don has full permission to whip me with a wet Winnipesaukee map the next time we bump in to each other!

Back to point, I would be opposed to the possible regulation you cite.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.

As stated above, I don't agree that it is a requirement to wear one.
However, I have never gone out on my pwc without wearing mine. Never have and never will. And I certainly would never allow either of my children (currently 11 and 16) to go without one. At any age. Period.

[Nauset]

Not only do our kids wear PFDs (they are over 5 years old) on our boat. My wife also started wearing one full time incase someone falls overboard she can jump in after them without having to worry about herself (smart idea).
I don't set a good example but I keep a PFD on the seat next to me. If I go out alone I put it on. They make some fairly comfortable PFDs these days.

From the NH boating safety course:
Approximately 70% of all boating fatalities are drownings, and most of those fatalities could have been avoided. Ninety percent of drowning victims are not wearing a life jacket.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Skip

Nightwing is correct. If you were told that PFDs were mandatory for a three (or four) up PWC then the officer was/is wrong.

I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH.

Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied.

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

Wow Skip,that's a new one to me.But I definately yield to you on knowledge of the laws.I'm still have to look further into that one though.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Nauset

...They make some fairly comfortable PFDs these days....

Maybe one of these?

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by jrc

Maybe one of these?

Those are type V and must be worn in order to count toward the "wearable for everyone on board."

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age

Opponents argued that the requirement was intrusive because no children in the age range had drowned in boating-related accidents in the past eight years.

The 204-135 vote sent the bill to the Senate.

For some reason, the the same argument re: speeding fatalities works against speed limits. Plus, it would appear MP is not objecting to being overly stressed with the requirement to police life vest wearing while they couldn't handle the monitoring of speed.

It really doen't take a great stretch of the imagination to understand why speed didn't make it to the House and life vests for older kids did. Go figure.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by jrc

Maybe one of these?

These are great and comfortable.... However last summer while sailing with my uncle I thought of a incident which could happen where they wouldn't be any better then not having one at all.... I thought to myself if I get hit by the boom and knocked out.... How am I going to pull the inflation cord if I end up in the water..............

[gwood]

In alot of states, inflatable PFDs are not considered PFDs as far as the state boating regulations go. You must have type III which do not inflate.

[Mink Islander]

GWood, I think the issue is that for it to count as a PFD, you must be wearing it. Which states don't consider an inflatable PFD (properly worn) to meet flotation device requirements??? I don't think you can use a manually inflatable device (like a snorkeling vest) but they are not marked as PFDs anyway. It certainly is ok in NH -- and that's what matters here. The MPs wear them too.

As to the earlier point about needing to pull the inflation cord to inflate the vest, many (mine included) have a pill wedged into a release device that will quickly dissolve when wet, triggering the release and causing the vest to auto-inflate. I haven't tested it (those cartridges are expensive!) but have thought about it....

I always wear a PFD when fishing on my Whaler. Too easy to get knocked overboard by a wave or boat wake in a small boat with very low railings. Besides, I'm often alone fishing very early in the morning. Common sense.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

These are great and comfortable.... However last summer while sailing with my uncle I thought of a incident which could happen where they wouldn't be any better then not having one at all.... I thought to myself if I get hit by the boom and knocked out.... How am I going to pull the inflation cord if I end up in the water..............

These PFDs come in 2 types; those that require manual activation and those that automagically inflate. The real reason you might not want one with a cord is your stupid cousin Bubba. You know Bubba, he's the one who will ask "What's this cord fur ?" 1.2 seconds after he pulls on it.

[jrc]

Inflatable are by no means perfect, but what's safer, a type 3 that you don't wear or an inflatable that you do?

Nauset said he felt like he wasn't setting a good example, this is just one possible solution.

Just for the record, I don't own or wear an inflatable, and I don't wear my PFD.

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Skip

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

In the 2005-2006 Edition of "Boater's Guide of NH", page 44, is the rule/statement that: "It is illegal to anchor overnight on any inland body of water."

I believe this derives from RSA Title XXII, Section 270-A:1.

I have considerable respect for your knowledge, Skip. Did you really not know this is a rule?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by snowbird

In the 2005-2006 Edition of "Boater's Guide of NH", page 44, is the rule/statement that: "It is illegal to anchor overnight on any inland body of water."

I believe this derives from RSA Title XXII, Section 270-A:1.

I have considerable respect for your knowledge, Skip. Did you really not know this is a rule?

Hi Snowbird.....hope you enjoyed your winter and are ready to bring the good weather north to all of us!

RSA 270-A:1 specifically and only addresses Houseboats. You average bowrider, pontoon and skiff do not fall under this definition or they would be banned from a number of lakes & great ponds that have specific restricitions against Houseboats but currently (and legally) are chock full of bowriders, pontoons and skiffs!

The only RSA or Administrative rule banning overnight anchoring specifically and only addresses Houseboats.

The purpose of my pointing this out is just give an excellent example of just one of the numerous recreational and motor vehicle laws that are in contradiction with other regulations, outdated or simply misapplied.

And that is why you have so many lawyers out there!

But as always, the aforementioned is only my personal opinion. Please feel free to call NHMP HQ at 1-603-293-2037 and ask the on duty supervisor to kindly provide you with the statute or administrative rule that prohibits vessels not classified as houseboats from anchoring overnight on New Hampshire's inland waters!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

These PFDs come in 2 types; those that require manual activation and those that automagically inflate. The real reason you might not want one with a cord is your stupid cousin Bubba. You know Bubba, he's the one who will ask "What's this cord fur ?" 1.2 seconds after he pulls on it.

I read this replie and thought about a Chris Farley movie where he does that exact thing..... Funny stuff although you have to see it and how he reacts to understand..... of course Bubba is never funny just aggrivating....

As for the auto inflation I never looked into that but I will now.... the life jacket was my uncles and I put it on knowing I had to wear it and never gave it a second thought.... until as mentioned the boom and my head had a close call.....

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Skip

RSA 270-A:1 specifically and only addresses Houseboats. You average bowrider, pontoon and skiff do not fall under this definition or they would be banned from a number of lakes & great ponds that have specific restricitions against Houseboats but currently (and legally) are chock full of bowriders, pontoons and skiffs!

The only RSA or Administrative rule banning overnight anchoring specifically and only addresses Houseboats. [/I]

Skip, you asked for the RSA OR Administrative rule, then proceeded to question the definition of houseboat. Yes, that question arises from the wording of the RSA. But-----

Are you also saying the rule given on page 44 is NOT a rule? If not, what is it? I think it is MP's interpretation of an RSA, as many others are. We all know that RSAs are not the full story, hence the rule-making authority of MP [and other agencies]. I suspect that Judge Smuckler, when faced with the houseboat defense, might just ask if the accused needs neither sleep nor bladder relief during the overnight hours------before he assesses the fine.

Legal eagles will always seek to find ways to evade the intent of the law. If you insist, I could ask a member of the General Court who is also a property owner on the lake to craft a clarifying RSA.

You raise an interesting and frustrating example, to be sure. Perhaps you can tell me why lawyers do not craft wording that everyone can understand?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by snowbird

....Skip, you asked for the RSA OR Administrative rule, then proceeded to question the definition of houseboat. Yes, that question arises from the wording of the RSA. But-----

Are you also saying the rule given on page 44 is NOT a rule? If not, what is it? I think it is MP's interpretation of an RSA, as many others are. ...You raise an interesting and frustrating example, to be sure. Perhaps you can tell me why lawyers do not craft wording that everyone can understand?
...

A few final thoughts, and I will happily continue the discussion off-line.

There is no administrative rule nor RSA that has a blanket effect of banning boats form anchoring on inland waters in New Hampshire. There is a specific RSA that bans a narrowly defined specific craft, that being a houseboat. The guide you mention as well as the on-line course are documents generated by a third party company on their interpretation of law as provided by the NHMP. Neither source has a force of law.

Your final point would make sense, if only the folks that pass the laws would heed the advice of the attorneys hired by them. In many cases the citizen lawmakers take it upon themselves to push forward or ammend legislation against the advice of the attorneys we pay to prevent them from the mistakes that emotionally charged legislation usually invokes.

In closing, I firmly believe that the powers to be at NHMP are fully aware of the loophole in the RSA, and have not brought it forward because if folks actually realized what the RSA covers, they may not be so inclined to ban boats that are not houseboats. Plus, how do you explain to the General Court that you either never realized the problem, or realized it and chose to ignore it all these years?

Finally, the danger in ammending or proposing new legislation is not knowing where it will lead.

Case in point?

The fiasco that has encompassed the helium ballon bill! But that's a whole 'nother thread!

[fatlazyless]

Anyone remember those old waterski belts from 30-40 years ago. Overton's has them in updated design with a nylon belt, plastic clip(s) and closed cell vinyl foam flotation. No one has mentioned the flotation belt. While they do not qualify as an approved device they facilitate swimming better than an approved pfd because they are worn around one's waist. Costing about fifteen or twenty dollars and available in single or double strap models in either white or bright yellow, they are much less bulky than a flotation vest, more comfortable and could be considered.

When sailing alone on a windy day, it's possible to comfortably wear both a pfd and a ski belt below the pfd, especially if you are a natural sinker.

For extra padding from getting boomed-on-the-brain by a flying aluminum jibe while avoiding a 47'-12000lb-1680hp-gfbl that zips safely past, a legal 150' away, I like to wear the waist belt around my head (smiley face ha-ha) !

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Skip

... Take IslandLovers blanket statement that bicycles must abide by speed laws. There is an RSA that says generally bicyclists must follow motor vehicle laws. However, there is a separate RSA that states that speed laws only apply to (mechanized) vehicles. One contradicts the other.

Sorry Skip, bicycles ARE mechanized vehicles. Therefore speed laws apply.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Sorry Skip, bicycles ARE mechanized vehicles. Therefore speed laws apply.

Sorry....in order to convict on a speed offense in New Hampshire one must prove "to drive". In New Hampshire "to drive" means to operate a motor vehicle. A bicycle by definition is a self propelled vehicle but not a motor vehicle.

To give you an example, several years ago a bicyclist was arrersted in New Hampshire for DWI (the first and only such recorded arrest). During the trial the key element was to make the assumption that a bicycle is a vehicle and subject to the motor vehicle code. As the case went forward both sides agreed to settle on a charge of reckless conduct and drop the motor vehicle charges agreeing that the code was not clear, while a group of lawmakers on both sides of the issue promised to take up the statute and clarify it.

Results? No conviction under the motor vehicle code and no definitive action yet from the legislature.

Police officers in this State before and since have not attempted to apply offenses requiring "to drive" to bicyclists, for obvious legal and common sense reasons.

Hope this helps!

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Skip

In New Hampshire "to drive" means to operate a motor vehicle.

I man in New Jersey was charged with drunk driving while operating a Zamboni...he blew 0.12. A judge threw out the case, declaring Zambonis are not motor vehicles.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/new....ap/index.html

Sorry to get off track...just thought of this thread when I read the article.

[Island Lover]

Skip

My point was that you were incorrect about about a bicycle being a mechanized vehicle.

So instead of taking the long way around the barn, just answer the main question please.

Is a bicycle a mechanized vehicle?

[fatlazyless]

Maybe five years ago, I was stopped by a Waterville Valley police officer because I was riding a bicycle after dark with no lights, no helmet and was weaving back and forth, slalom style, across the center white line on Rt 49. I cannot remember what he said but I did not get cited for any violation. Probably he said, I could not be seen in the dark, and maybe he was just checking to see if I was sober......which I was.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Skip

My point was that you were incorrect about about a bicycle being a mechanized vehicle.

So instead of taking the long way around the barn, just answer the main question please.

Is a bicycle a mechanized vehicle?

Sorry, your point was that a bicycle was subject to this State's speed regulations. My response is that they are not, and I have cited the pertinent regulations that define same and the only case in the State where an unsuccesful attempt was made to try to connect those dots.

I'll try this one last time....

Speed laws in New Hampshire pertain to motor vehicles.

They pertain to motor vehicles because a key element in the offense of unreasonable speed is "to Drive".

In New Hampshire "to Drive" is legally defined as to operate a motor vehicle.

A bicycle is not a motor vehicle. Under certain limited conditions a bicycle can be defined under the motor vehicle code as a vehicle, along with a horse or a mule or a donkey. But a vehicle is not the same legal definition as a motor vehicle!

Now, since you cannot meet all the necessary legal elements required to convict for unreasonable speed:

Speed laws do not apply.

Hope this clarifies it for you!

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Skip

Under certain limited conditions a bicycle can be defined under the motor vehicle code as a vehicle, along with a horse or a mule or a donkey. But a vehicle is not the same legal definition as a motor vehicle!

Now, since you cannot meet all the necessary legal elements required to convict for unreasonable speed:

Speed laws do not apply.

In some places however, you can be accused of DUI while on a horse!

http://www.comcast.net/news/strange/...03/627400.html

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Skip

Sorry, your point was that a bicycle was subject to this State's speed regulations. My response is that they are not, and I have cited the pertinent regulations that define same and the only case in the State where an unsuccesful attempt was made to try to connect those dots.

I'll try this one last time....

Speed laws in New Hampshire pertain to motor vehicles.

They pertain to motor vehicles because a key element in the offense of unreasonable speed is "to Drive".

In New Hampshire "to Drive" is legally defined as to operate a motor vehicle.

A bicycle is not a motor vehicle. Under certain limited conditions a bicycle can be defined under the motor vehicle code as a vehicle, along with a horse or a mule or a donkey. But a vehicle is not the same legal definition as a motor vehicle!

Now, since you cannot meet all the necessary legal elements required to convict for unreasonable speed:

Speed laws do not apply.

Hope this clarifies it for you!

Skip

That time you not only went around the barn, you got lost in the hay bale! Are you unable to answer a strait question, or do you have a problem admitting you made a mistake? Is a bicycle a mechanized vehicle? That's one of those "yes" or "no" things.

You have not "cited the pertinent regulations" you just say that it is so. Give us the RSA number.

Below is the RSA that pertains to bicycles and motor vehicle laws. If you know of an RSA that counters this, please give us the number without the long "explanation".

265:143 Application of Motor Vehicle Laws to Bicycles. –
I. Every person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the rules of the road, except as provided in paragraph II and as to special regulations in this subdivision and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.
II. (a) Any peace officer, wearing a distinctive uniform, operating a bicycle during the course of his or her duties is exempt from the provisions of this subdivision, except as those provisions relate to driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, if the bicycle is being operated under any of the following circumstances:
(1) In response to an emergency call.
(2) While engaged in a rescue operation.
(3) In the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.
(b) This paragraph shall not relieve a peace officer from the duty to operate a bicycle with due regard for the safety of all persons using the public way.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

... except as provided in paragraph II and as to special regulations in this subdivision and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application...

The key here is the phrase "by their nature can have no application".

In order to be found guilty of a violation in the State of New Hampshire ALL elements of the offense must be proven by the state. One of the elements of unreasonable speed in New Hampshire is "to Drive" which can be found in RSA 259:24. The legal definition of "to Drive " in New Hampshire is to drive a motor vehicle. If you go to the basic speed law at RSA 265:60 (I) the opening paragraph is "No person shall drive". A bicycle is not a motor vehicle hence the element of "to Drive" cannot be substantiated, therefore you cannot violate the current speed laws in New Hampshire as written on a bicycle (or a mule, horse or donkey). Either that or I must have been asleep in my radar certification class!

It's really as simple as that....but again don't take my word for it, look up the case. The effort you will expend will give you a much greater appreciation of our State's motor vehicle code!

Anyway, please feel free to contact me off line and I would be glad to help you get your head better wrapped around this concept....

[Island Lover]

Yes Skip, a bicycles is not a motor vehicle. I think we all agree on that.

However RSA 265:143 clearly states that bicycles are subject to all the laws that a motor vehicle is.

Your "Drive" definition 259:24 only applies to motor vehicles. And as we have all agreed, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle.

I guess your real intension here is to talk this issue in circles so that most readers will give up and not follow what is going on. However you and I both know that you are wrong, but will not admit it.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...However RSA 265:143 clearly states that bicycles are subject to all the laws that a motor vehicle is...

Of course that is not what RSA 265:143 states. If indeed a bicycle was "subject to all laws that a motor vehicle is" then the following would be true:

No one under 16 could "drive" a bicycle!
Before you could "drive" your you would need lights, mirrors, a horn and working wipers!
And of course you could only burn unleaded gasoline in your bicycle!

I can only chalk up your obstinance over this matter as a complete misread of the statutes involved, much as you misinterpreted HB125 in your post #1 of the same named thread by not fully reading or understanding paragraph II of the proposed legislation.

But hey, maybe you are right and all that training and experience I have had in this particular matter was for naught. Yep, I better head right up to Radio Shack and get one of those new fangled cordless RADAR/LASER detectors that are on sale and mount it right up high on my handlebars!

They're still legal on bikes, right?

[Parker Island Fun]

Live free or die is more then a slogan. The operator of a boat should be responsible not a bunch of quacks in Concord.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Parker Island Fun

Live free or die is more then a slogan. The operator of a boat should be responsible not a bunch of quacks in Concord.

Agreed & well said!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.

Interesting that New Hampshire mandates PFDs for Jet-Ski (Ski Craft/PWC) operators when reading this NTSA report:

"A 1996 study by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators indicates that personal water craft were involved in approximately 36 percent of all boat accidents nationwide.

"A 1998 National Transportation Safety Board report states that personal watercraft boat accidents are the only type of recreational boat accident for which the leading cause of death is not drowning..."

http://tinyurl.com/337m5c

[nightrider]

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age


"CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House."

Just wondering....in the bill, just what exactly is the definition of "ride"????

[Skip]

Originally Posted by nightrider

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age


"CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House."

Just wondering....in the bill, just what exactly is the definition of "ride"????

The word the reporter should have used was underway.

Here is a text of the proposed legislation:

No child 12 years of age or under shall operate, control, or be transported on the deck of a boat or vessel which is underway upon the public waters of the state unless said child is wearing a personal flotation device of a type approved by the United States Coast Guard; provided, however, boats, vessels, and ships with continuous side rails enclosing the perimeter of the boat, vessel, or ship, 3 feet or more in height and enclosed between the deck and the top of the railing in a way that would reasonably prevent passage of a small child are exempted from the provisions of this section.

[Misty Blue]

I spend a lot of time with the boating public and I think that it is nutz that we can argue about speed limits and if we should have a law banning certain water toys and ignore the fact that NH is the only state, around here anyway, that can let a six year old go out without a PFD on. That said...

Moms and DADs PLEASE listen. All of the requirements for children to wear PFD apply only when the vessel is UNDERWAY. This is defined as when the vessel is not anchored(moored), docked or aground. The problem is that kids don't drown on vessels that are underway. They drown at the dock, at the beach, at the river and in the pool.

Please, until they are very good swimmers, keep the kids in PFDs any time they are near the water and not being well supervised.

As for inflatable PFDs. These ar Type Vs. I believe that the law requires that a type I, II or III PFD be worn while riding on a Jet-Ski. The type V may not fit the bill.

As for auto inflating type Vs, I never work underway without a type V on. Which is why I don't use an auto inflator. While I can imagine a situation where I am unconcious when I hit the drink I don't think that it is likely. What does happen often is that I enter the water on purpose for work or play and the manual inflator ("Just pull the string") gives me the option to wear the PFD without popping the $20 auto inflator.

For example. I wear my type V when I am sailing the sunfish. I would not if I had to worry about it going off every time that I dumped it.

Misty Blue.

[KonaChick]

I agree that laws should be enacted to protect us however it's been said before on this forum and I'll say it again..you just can't dictate common sense. New Hampshire does not have a helmet law for motorcyles which I personally think is insane...how many lives could be saved by passing a helmet law in New Hampshire?? It's one that would not take too much effort to enforce either, as you can cleary tell if a rider has a helmet or not. I guess I'm just saying you can pass all the laws you want and some will agree and some will disagree...you just can't legislate common sense!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I agree that laws should be enacted to protect us however it's been said before on this forum and I'll say it again..you just can't dictate common sense. New Hampshire does not have a helmet law for motorcyles which I personally think is insane...how many lives could be saved by passing a helmet law in New Hampshire?? It's one that would not take too much effort to enforce either, as you can cleary tell if a rider has a helmet or not. I guess I'm just saying you can pass all the laws you want and some will agree and some will disagree...you just can't legislate common sense!

The difference between a mandatory helmet law and the proposed life jacket law, is that the helmet law protects an adult from her/himself and the life jacket law protects ignorant children from potentially dangerous situations adults put them in. NH already has laws that make motorcycle helmets amd seatbelts mandatory for those under 18. I have no issue with laws protecting children. My kids, 10 and 12, wear their life jackets on deck when underway (oddly, the proposed law mirrors our boat rules precisely).

I do have issues with helmet laws for adults, though. I like the freedom of choice even though I always wear full gear (not just a full face helmet, but over $1000 worth of high quality, very effective, protective gear) when I ride one of my motorcycles. If folks want to ride without gear, I say let them. They're not endangering anyone but themselves. Same deal with seatbelts. I wear mine all the time. Don't care what other adults do.

[KonaChick]

I wasn't comparing the two laws simply saying that you can't dictate commone sense..it's common sense to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle because if you were to fall off your head would probably suffer siginifcantly less damage then if you were riding sans hemlet...just like wearing a helmet when you ride a snowmobile or bicycle. It's all about common sense, some people have it, some don't. No matter how many laws you enact you will NEVER be able to protect people from themselves, plain and simple.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I wasn't comparing the two laws simply saying that you can't dictate commone sense..it's common sense to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle because if you were to fall off your head would probably suffer siginifcantly less damage then if you were riding sans hemlet...just like wearing a helmet when you ride a snowmobile or bicycle. It's all about common sense, some people have it, some don't. No matter how many laws you enact you will NEVER be able to protect people from themselves, plain and simple.

We are in agreement about common sense, but you also stated that you advocate a helmet law. That's the part I was debating. I don't want any laws protecting me from me, I'm quite comfortable taking responsibility for myself.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Dave R

We are in agreement about common sense, but you also stated that you advocate a helmet law. That's the part I was debating. I don't want any laws protecting me from me, I'm quite comfortable taking responsibility for myself.

I agree Dave, I don't think there could ever be a law enacted to protect you from yourself.