Payback Time

Island Lover · 06-09-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Because you and BI keep implying that excessive speed means >45/25.

Pick a year, any year.

I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.

Lakegeezer · 06-09-2008, 12:13 PM

Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...

Bear Islander · 06-09-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...

Can we add to this analogy a group opposed to any new septic restrictions. Their slogan is "NO RESTRICTIONS". They do not offer any viable alternative plan to improve water quality of limit spills. They cling to the fact that government water quality specifications do not specifically mention four bedroom homes. Therefore, they believe, they do not apply.

Sometimes you can't solve the problem, you can only limit the damage.

chipj29 · 06-09-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.

Thank you for admitting that.

Airwaves · 06-09-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Islander
Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.

Most boats stay under the 45/25 proposed limits now, with no speed limit law!

You still have left unanswered the question I raised after you made a wild accusation about the number of accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 caused by speed. Let me remind you by posting what you have still refused to back up in your haste to fear monger and even provide you the link to the stats for NH.

Here is a link to the 2006 NH Boating Stats provided by Woodsy
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4283

Quote:

Originally popsted by Islander
This is the typical "let's pretend there is no problem" argument. Also known as "but I want to go fast".

However it all revolves around the premise that going fast is just as safe as going slow. An obvious lie!

The Coast Guard considers excessive speed as a major factor in boating accidents, but what do they know! Where's the Beef? Ask the USCG!

The oppositions inability to see the problem is the reason why we won!

Islander, you make claims and fear monger and yet when called on it the silence is deafening!
Quote:

Quote:

Posted by Islander
"The leading causes of boating accidents are all operator-controlled, such as inexperience, inattention and excessive speed, the association said. The leading types of accidents include collisions with other vessels and collisions with fixed objects such as docks or channel markers. – CINDY KIBBE/NEW HAMPSHIRE BUSINESS REVIEW"

Gee, I think most people can see that a speed limit just might cut down on "excessive speed".

I think it is clear that one of the major reasons to enact a speed limit is to reduce the number of accidents involving excessive speed. You call that spin?

Then:
Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by Islander:
I think you left out a few qualifications. That data is only for one year on one lake. Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed
You really need to post all those qualifications.

Quote:
I responded:
I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.
What you continue to fail to do, or ignore, is any statistic, report or fact to back up your claim!
Again I ask, ISLANDER, YOU CLAIM
Quote:

Quote:

"Even then I just counted 47 accidents in 2006 on Winnipesaukee involving speed"

SHOW ME WHERE!
I have shown you my statistics, my references and my links. All you do is say NO NO NO. Prove it!

Island Lover · 06-09-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Most boats stay under the 45/25 proposed limits now, with no speed limit law!

Therefore some boats exceed 45/25. It is for them the law was written.

The boats that do not exceed 45/25 will not be effected by the law.

See how perfectly this works!

06-09-2008, 12:13 PM	#2
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 343 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really... __________________ -lg