|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-16-2006, 10:18 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Will NH lakes be safer?
A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!
Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or not? 84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer 9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer 7% - Undecided |
02-16-2006, 10:40 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 150
Thanks: 19
Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts
|
Based upon a 600 person telephonehttp://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/survey. The last time that I checked, NH had approximately 1.2 million people living within its borders. 600, statistically speaking, is a very small sampling. That's just 0.05% of the population if my ciphering is correct.
__________________
__________________ __________________ So what have we learned in the past two thousand years? "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." . . .Evidently nothing. (Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD) |
02-16-2006, 11:00 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Yankee
In a poll they don't call everybody in the state. Polling is a science. They call a sampling. That why its call a poll. And this poll is not the one you linked to. This poll was just taken. And it also shows only 5% of NH voters think it will not make the lakes more enjoyable. Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes more enjoyable, or not? 74% - Yes, believe will make lakes more enjoyable 5% - No, do not believe will make lakes more enjoyable 21% - Undecided |
02-16-2006, 11:12 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
There seems to be an echo in the forum... We have read these words previously. Have you depleted your bag of trick-words? |
|
02-17-2006, 01:40 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
The old poll from last June was 66%. That poll has been criticized here because it didn't mention 45/25. Now the poll taken a few days ago, specifying 45/25, is 84%. NH voters want HB162. |
|
Sponsored Links |
|
02-17-2006, 07:51 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
How about this poll
Quote:
Do you believe that preventing Tractor Trailer trucks from driving on our highways would make our roadways safer? Or Do you think not allowing people over the age of 70 to drive would make our roadways safer? Or Do you think that requiring everyone who boats should wear a PFD, would make our boaters safer? Etc. Can you guess what the percentages might be? I agree with the poll results based on the question. |
|
02-17-2006, 08:31 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
|
Poll of general public or boaters?
How many of the residents of the state use the lake or are boaters?
Non-boaters could well be influenced to believe that a 45/25 speed limit would make the lake a safer place. Faster than that in a boat can sound very scary to a non-boater. A poll that targets those that use the effected lake would be much more significant than one which surveys the general public.
__________________
|
02-17-2006, 08:41 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
|
|
02-17-2006, 08:52 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
|
America moves on a truck!
Hey WinniLaker, let's not be picking on tractor-trailer 18 wheel trucks. Everything in this country got there on a big truck and truck drivers are held to higher driving safety standards than cars. Just ask you local police dept if they hold the big trucks to higher standards.
One large reason why there is now a nation wide shortage of CDL-A truck drivers is because it is a very difficult state license test to pass. About seven out of eight flunk it. A simple and straight-ahead question it is. "Do you think NH lakes will be safer with a 45-25 speed limit?" In case you forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat! |
02-17-2006, 09:04 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,877
Thanks: 331
Thanked 1,662 Times in 581 Posts
|
The lakes would be safer if the marinas would stop renting boats to people who don't have a CLUE.......never mind being certified.I've never had a close call with a go fast boat....but I've had several with uneducated tourists in rentals.Two years ago a rental pontoon boat at WOT tried to pass between me and a skier in the water.They have no idea what the 150' rule means.Several times I've had rentals throw a wake up on me while towing one of the kids on a water toy.........while traveling at headway speed near shore.
Poll question......Would the lakes be safer if rental customers had to be certified??? |
02-17-2006, 10:13 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,662
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 349
Thanked 629 Times in 281 Posts
|
Safer than what
There is plenty of evidence that speeds above 45 is not a factor in any signficant number of accidents, so what's the point of the poll? Safer than what? Doesn't safer mean - less chance of an accident? Again, we have self-serving groups writing leading questions with a motive, asking questions to people who have been "educated" by previous advertising campaigns. Where is the independant pollsters writing the questions? Where is the segmentation by registered boaters (not voters). We continue going down the "feel good" route - let some people force others to change behavior so they can "feel safer" without actually being safer - and at the same time, reduce the civil liberties of safe boaters. The times, they are a'changing.
__________________
-lg |
02-17-2006, 10:38 AM | #12 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Rentals
Sam,
I agree with you. Rental boats are generally too small for the big lake on a busy weekend due to lake traffic, not speed. A small rental boat out in the broads is not going to be fun, especially if there is wind and there are wakes.They have not taken any real boater safety trailing and are pretty clueless. How many times have we all had rental boats come way too close, only to have the renters wave happily at us as though they don't know they are doing something wrong? |
02-17-2006, 11:11 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Last edited by winnilaker; 02-17-2006 at 11:49 AM. |
|
02-17-2006, 11:58 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
I hate to chime in again on this as I don't own a boat, but I do view a speed limit as a limit on personal freedoms (like helmet and seatbelt laws).
Having said that, I think if we want a poll that really means something, why not a poll of users on this site who know someone who was involved in an boating accident that was caused by either: a. excessive speed by a sober operator b. lack of skills/training in boat operation by a sober operator c. alcohol And compare the results of these 3 issues.
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet? Now? |
02-17-2006, 12:20 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
This poll result was reported on Channel 9 News at 5 o'clock last night....interesting.
|
02-17-2006, 12:36 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,877
Thanks: 331
Thanked 1,662 Times in 581 Posts
|
That WAS interesting,KC.......they published the poll results and three people spoke for the bill.....they didn't have a single voice from the other side.
|
02-17-2006, 01:31 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
|
|
02-17-2006, 01:45 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
What?
Quote:
And can you give your source for your statement that a majority of Senators are on board with HB162? |
|
02-17-2006, 01:48 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
02-17-2006, 01:58 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Read the specs for the Panther 80 (as in 80 feet with a cruising speed of 42 knots - just right for HB162): http://www.baiayacht.it/ Last edited by GWC...; 02-17-2006 at 06:32 PM. |
|
02-17-2006, 02:01 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 754
Thanks: 136
Thanked 92 Times in 51 Posts
|
Here's my take on the poll results. There are roughly 100,000 boats registered in NH. Let's be generous and say that 80% of those boats are owned by NH residents. I think there are around 800,000 registered voters so, to make the math easier (for me), I'll assume that 1 in 10 voters own a boat.
If I didn't boat, and knew nothing about boating laws, boater education, enforecement, etc., I'd probably say why not to speed limits, we have them on the roads (not realizing that there are great differences bewteen cars and boats - line of sight, operating 5 feet away from another vehicle, etc.). Basically, I'd bet that the majority of people being polled have not educated themselves on the issue, and if they don't boat, I can understand that. That being said, I'm not surprised by the results. I think our senate will apply more stringent standards and a more deeper understanding of the issue when they review HB162. That's why we elected them. |
02-17-2006, 02:18 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
I bet 84% of voter in NH once believed in Santa Claus too. Almost half of the residents of NH have below average intelligence; why does anyone really care what voters believe? Don't we (poorly) pay lawmakers to make decisions like this based on logic rather than emotions? I gotta go talk to my Senator, Jack Barnes and see what he thinks about all this. He's a pretty smart guy.
That poll is just hype. Both sides are guilty of hype though... I think peoiple will continue to kill and die with some regularity while doing dumb things on the lake regardless of the outcome of the law. |
02-17-2006, 04:38 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
New Hampshire lakes are public waters - owned by the people (residents) of NH. They aren't only for power boaters, or even just for boaters. 1,200 owners of NH public waters (NH residents) were polled. The results of the poll clearly show that NH residents are in favor of a speed limit. From RSA 270:1 "... 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."
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
02-17-2006, 06:22 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,662
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 349
Thanked 629 Times in 281 Posts
|
Part of the bill is all we need
HB162 should be limited to only the first paragraph:
X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel 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. Island Lover, when you say "Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.", I suggest you really be saying "Yes the lakes will FEEL safer with a 45/25 speed limit." Nice feelings is all you are going to get out of the law - feelings at the cost of civil liberty. It is a very steep price!
__________________
-lg |
02-17-2006, 10:19 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Lakegeezer
Why don't you go back up about 15 posts and read where winnilaker admits the lake will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit. Then you can argue with him! |
02-18-2006, 08:57 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Gilford
Posts: 57
Thanks: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
He was only agreeing with the results, do not spin it. The results would be considerably different if the poll was conducted with only boaters or registered boat ownwers.
Boat Safe, Boat Smart- no HB162 |
02-18-2006, 09:47 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
"Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or not? 84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer 9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer 7% - Undecided" And this is winnilakers responce... "I agree with the poll results based on the question." I find his answer refreshingly honest. |
|
02-18-2006, 10:31 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
Wrong again, you took one sentence of his response, used it out of context to portray him in a way that is false. More proof of what you have been doing. I wish I could say you have been "refreshingly honest" but I can't because doing things like this is not honest. Pay attention sentators. |
|
02-18-2006, 12:44 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
I like to canoe, a lot. I live in NH, and have for 37 of my 40 years. |
|
02-18-2006, 01:03 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Last edited by Evenstar; 02-18-2006 at 05:18 PM. |
|
02-18-2006, 06:39 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH
Posts: 396
Thanks: 155
Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts
|
Franklin Said......
I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude! Regards, The breeze make sure to wave because I'll wave back |
02-18-2006, 08:40 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
I went back up to the post in question and checked. She did not take "one sentence" she took a whole paragraph. More importantly I took winnilakers comment to mean exactly what it said. It was not taken out of context in my opinion. I think you are getting a little carried away here. I know you want this speed limit to fail, but this is not the way to go about it. Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way. |
|
02-18-2006, 09:46 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
I don't see a whole paragraph, I see one line of winnilaker's and a repeat of the poll question. I suggest you look at IL's post again, you're mistaken, or was it a mistake? There is one sentence used out of a post containing nine lines. The line used without the benefit of the other 8 lines can be interpreted differently then when used with Winnilaker's complete post. What's important is accuracy and honesty, keep things in context. Finally, I don't need to PM Winnilaker, it's very clear from his post what he meant. |
|
02-18-2006, 09:59 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,892
Thanks: 2,154
Thanked 765 Times in 548 Posts
|
Essentially wrong
Quote:
Five tons of boat operating at unreasonable speeds among lesser boaters doesn't strike me as an essential liberty. (But that's just me). |
|
02-18-2006, 10:01 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
What about the liberty of others?
Quote:
We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty. From RSA 270:1 "... 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."
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Last edited by Evenstar; 02-18-2006 at 11:27 PM. |
|
02-18-2006, 11:34 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 96
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Do you believe that preventing Tractor Trailer trucks from driving on our highways would make our roadways safer? The obvious answer is YES Do you think not allowing people over the age of 70 to drive would make our roadways safer? The obvious answer is YES Do you think that requiring everyone who boats should wear a PFD, would make our boaters safer? Again this is a YES I agree with the poll results based on the question. This is another YES He is pointing out that there is more to the enactment of a law than just a statistical improvement in safety. Otherwise we would all be driving around in Volvos at 5 mph. |
|
02-19-2006, 08:27 AM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
Quote:
That makes it all so clear
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos |
|
02-19-2006, 08:38 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
Showing the results of popular polls on subjects sach as this tends to push the assumption that voters should decide the laws. Problem is, what's popular isn't always right. Britney Spears is popular... I think I'd rather have wizened folks making laws based on logic. If the wize people do a poor job, they can be fired easily enough. The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion. |
|
02-19-2006, 08:55 AM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Who's Intruding on Whom?
Quote:
1.) thrust oneself in as if by force 2.) enter uninvited 3.) enter unlawfully on someone's property Since human power boats were on the lake first, who actually intruded? In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding? We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
02-19-2006, 09:27 AM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... 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." According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
||
02-19-2006, 10:40 AM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
OK, enough guessing what I meant! Nice try to make it sound like I support HB162
Quote:
No need to PM me. My point was, that given the question and the people that probably answered, you can see how they got those results. But I don't find the results relevant. If a random survey called me and asked me: Would our roadways be safer is we prevented people over 70 from driving. I would answer YES. And I bet a high percentage would as well. However, what's the reality of passing a bill that terminate the rights of people over 70 from driving. I think many would call that discriminatory, why, because there are many responsible drivers over 70. And there are actually statistics that show the elderly are the #2 demographic that causes accidents behind teenagers. And the same goes with my Tractor Trailer driver question. So for the record, I don't suppport HB162, I don't think the poll holds the weight supporters feel it should and I don't think the results of such a law justifies the reasoning for it. |
|
02-20-2006, 08:18 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
So, nobody wanted to take my poll I see. What, are the supporters afraid of the outcome? Lets try this, as a "below average intelligence" NH voter, maybe someone can explain to me exactly how the speed limit will make me safer should I venture out on the lake in a boat. Am I less likely to be slammed into by another boat? Will the water be less choppy by reducing speeds? I guess I just don’t get it.
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet? Now? |
02-20-2006, 10:25 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,662
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 349
Thanked 629 Times in 281 Posts
|
The culture of fear
An interesting article came across my desk, and while reading it, I sensed a strong parallel between the culture shift in the US and the fear induced speed limit law project we have been following. Its a bit off-topic, and a bit 'heady', but a good read never the less and puts things in perspective.
Title: Culture of Fear: Dealing with cultural panic attacks by Ronald Bailey http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021706.shtml
__________________
-lg |
02-20-2006, 06:23 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
02-20-2006, 07:03 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
Are you unable or unwilling to use your kayak on the lake due to the presence of boats going more than 45 MPH? If so, the problem may be your own. I see lots of kayaks out there with fast boats alos present and everyone appears to be having fun. I don't think you've lots any rights at all. Proponents for this law seem to forget that it's considered bad form, at the least, (and is quite likely already against the law) to actually hit another boat, regardless of speed. Most boaters avoid hitting other boaters. Statistically, you are really quite unlikley to get run over by a power boat out there and are much more likely to die from something like an act of God or bad judgement. |
|
02-20-2006, 07:53 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Any "boat" can be unsafe!
|
02-20-2006, 07:59 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Burlington Ma / Laconia NH
Posts: 396
Thanks: 155
Thanked 201 Times in 97 Posts
|
Not Safer
Weis Guy,
The Lake will not be safer. I know the size my wake at slow speed (before getting on plane) and the size it is after getting on plane. Big difference. If this bill passes we should all go PLOWING around the Lake at 15mph and show the elite liberals the trouble they caused.You won't be able to ge out on that water in any thing less than a 28footer. Just a protesting thought.... Anyone been within a 1/4 mile of the Mail Boats? The size of that wake is downright dangerous! Getting back to my Quote from Franklin.... I think it's an Essential Liberty to be left alone when out on the water! Keep all your restrictive laws to yourself and leave us alone!!!! We go out on the water to get away from all that nonsense All the Best, The breeze Make sure to wave cause I'll Wave Back |
02-20-2006, 08:14 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
|
...nobody knows....nobody!
Oh, nobody knows how our 24 Senators will vote.
Nobody knows, not even the Senators themselves. One day, they wake up and think about that marina campaign contribution that they got last election. Another day, they wake up and think about Lake Winnipesaukee and its speedy reputation and whether that's good or bad for the tourist biz of the state. Another day they wake up and remember that boat ride in a constituant's big fast boat and what fun that was. Another day they wake up and feel bad for all the smaller boats getting bullied by the big bad go fast-be loud boats. Another day, they wake up and say to themselves "I wonder what I think today, who knows?" 24 Senators: 16 Repubs w/ one lady Senator, 8 Dems w/ 4 lady Senators and it is just too close to call. A vote taken today would probably be different than a vote taken on the next day. Even if the Transportation Committee recommends one way, the overall Senate is not bound by that and could vote the other way. So, n-o-b-o-d-y k-n-o-w-s......... |
02-21-2006, 01:34 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 599
Thanks: 27
Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts
|
Quote:
You know I have heard complaints about kayakers and the speed limit. Perhaps if you would paddle half as fast as Willie Coyete runs, then you too could go 45 mph. |
|
02-21-2006, 09:18 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,412
Thanks: 216
Thanked 782 Times in 464 Posts
|
Equal rights? For who?
Quote:
If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove. |
|
02-21-2006, 09:27 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
Quote:
In those infamaous words of "Captain Ron" , "If somethings going to go wrong , it will go wrong out there".
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos |
|
02-25-2006, 08:43 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
Quote:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-2958d5d7d427 |
|
02-25-2006, 08:54 AM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who. And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake Last edited by GWC...; 02-26-2006 at 04:59 PM. |
|
02-25-2006, 09:47 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 2,877
Thanks: 331
Thanked 1,662 Times in 581 Posts
|
I do admit,that as a NH native,that I am below average intelligence.But,somehow it annoys me when people that do not live here profess to know more about how to run our state than we do.
Vermont is a good example of a state that was overun with well meaning tourists from NY,Conn. and Mass. Now you can't even mow your lawn there without a permit. |
02-26-2006, 06:22 AM | #55 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
The uneducated boater is a much greater threat to kayakers and canoes than a 100 mph educated boater. I passed plenty of canoes and kayakers last year. I always slow down, keep my distance and wave a friendly hello just like most other boaters do.
If this was really about safety I think the people in favor of HB 162 would be pushing for eveyone who registers a boat in NH or rents one , to have a boating certificate. You should not be able to register your boat without first having a certificate.. This would make the lakes instantly safer and cost almost nothing compared to a useless speed limit. The uneducated boater is the danger on our lakes not speed. This bill does nothing to address safety IMO. |
02-26-2006, 06:53 AM | #56 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
About the poll results. When HB 162 was first brought up I too thought it was a good idea. A speed limit should make things safer right? If I was polled then I would have answered yes to HB 162.
I then started reading and slowly realized this bill puts too many restriction out there with very little results. I just don't believe it is about safety anymore. Poll 600 people in NH with boating certificates instead. The people polled should be educated boaters or I would call it a bogus poll. My wife has been listening to me talk about this. Yesterday she finally said "Maybe the speed limit will make the lake safer hun". I got on my soap box First I asked"We have been boating for over 10 years. Have we ever had an incident with a fast boat?" Her answer"no". "Have we ever had an experience with a uneducated boater?" Her answer "yes several times" . With one very close call. Finally I asked" Do you think a educated boater with a fast boat should be limited to 45 mph on a huge empty lake during the middle of the week?" "of course not" she said. I told her that this law would make that happen. She felt that was totally wrong and why can't they just have a weekend and holiday speed limit , like alot of NH lakes do. She realized this was an incredible infringement on our NH liberties even though our boat barely goes 50mph. I would even agree with a weekend speed limit because that is a compromise at least(and I only go boating on weekends).It seems there is no compromise though, If the proponents really want safer lakes they should push for stricter boater education IMO. Again this bill does nothing for safety on our lakes IMO. |
02-26-2006, 03:58 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Westford, MA and Alton Bay, NH
Posts: 225
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Don't twist polls or words
Quote:
__________________
Wendy "Wasn't Me!" |
|
03-02-2006, 11:39 AM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
And your point is?
Quote:
I fail to see your point, and don't enjoy being laughed at, just because I prefer kayaks over powerboats. And I have actually kayaked on lakes in larger waves than what your picture shows. I've also done Class III white water. Notice how the waves in your photo are biggest closer to the shore (breakers), which is why hugging the shore is not always the best thing to do. Here's a typical sea kayak shot, to give you a better idea of what sea kayaks are actually made for:
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
03-02-2006, 12:29 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
I think there is plenty of room on Lake Winnipesaukee for everybody.
However, the only boating related fatality we had last year was the darwin award contender who thought it was a good idea to go kayaking during the flooding in Alstead. Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
03-02-2006, 05:37 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
You'll notice that the sea kayakers in my photo are wearing PFDs. And, as I posted earlier, from the years 1996 though 2002, only 1% of fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks involved sea kayaks. (from: CRITICAL JUDGMENT II - Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak Fatalities 1996-2002 by the American Canoe Association)
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Last edited by Evenstar; 03-02-2006 at 10:37 PM. |
|
03-03-2006, 09:08 AM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Evenstar...
It really doesn't matter to me what type of kayak you happen to use. So your sea kayak is the GFBL of kayaks? So what? It is still a kayak, and it still has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat. In any case, I was pointing out the flawed judgement that kayaker used. In fact when I was pulling my boat out of the water in December I witnessed 2 people in a sea kayaks go out for a paddle... no PFD, just a dry suit! On a snowy December day! Yet another case of poor judgment. The MP had closed Glendale at that point, if something bad happened they were out of luck. Statistically you are more likely die in a kayak or a canoe than you are on any other type of craft. You want to restrict my personal freedoms yet you want no restrictions on your personal freedom! You already have access to every public body of water in the State of NH, and thats not good enough for you. You want to limit my personal freedom not because you can't kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee, but just because YOU want to feel safe. How is that fair? Especially when all of the statistics point to Lake Winnipesaukee being a VERY SAFE place for all to enjoy. Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
03-03-2006, 10:47 AM | #62 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
GFBL kayak??? 5 to 6 mph is fast? And my kayak is hardly loud! Where’s the data to back up your statement that a sea kayak “has a greater potential for a fatality than a hi-performance boat”? The USCG data gives that there were 98 “canoe/kayak” fatalities in 2004. If sea kayakers are only 1% of all canoe/kayak fatalities, then that’s only 1 person. So are you saying that no one died in a hi-performance boat in 2004? Quote:
Again that person was not on a NH lake, so that doesn’t belong in this thread. Are you suggesting that no one in a hi-performance boat has ever made a mistake, or suffered from “flawed judgment”? Are you positive that those drysuits were not PFD rated? Some are – some are inflatable. Or that they weren’t being worn over a PFD, as some people prefer? Whatever, I never said that every sea kayaker always makes the best decisions. Quote:
Quote:
I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place – 222 boating accidents in 6 years on just one lake isn’t what I call safe! (And that number doesn’t even include accidents with less than $2000 damage): New Hampshire Boating Accidents – Data for years 1999 – 2004: Lake Winnipesaukee: 222 Lake Winnisquam: 28 Ossipee Lake: 15 Atlantic Ocean: 14 Lake Sunapee: 14 Squam Lake: 10 Merrimack River: 8 Hampton River: 6 “Coast Guard boating records for 1999-2004 list up to three causes for each boating accident. The causes cited in New Hampshire were operator inexperience, a cause of 61 accidents; operator inattention, 59; hazardous waters, 55; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; weather, 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.” From: http://nh.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060204/OUTDOOR/60203002 [Source: Telegraph analysis of Coast Guard Recreational Boat Accidents Database, 1999-2004]
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Last edited by Evenstar; 03-04-2006 at 08:39 AM. |
||||
03-04-2006, 02:45 PM | #63 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
03-04-2006, 07:47 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 1,149
Thanks: 205
Thanked 424 Times in 242 Posts
|
Raw numbers without context are meaningless
If you consider the safe passage law, by definition, any boats that collide at speeds greater than 6 MPH are using "excessive" speed. Some of the Coast Guard stats that break this down into more detail show that speeds in excess of 40 MPH are responsible for very few accidents and deaths compared to accidents and deaths occuring at speeds below 40 MPH. Why? Probably because there are a LOT of people traveling at slow speeds and few traveling at 40 plus. What does this mean? To me, it means that there are no clear statistics that show high speed is a major contributor to boating accidents on NH lakes. In general, the statistics that are available indicate that high speed is not a disproportionate contributor to accidents and fatalities. Would more detailed information show a disproportionate high speed link to accidents? Personally I don't believe it would but the reality is that we do not have this information.
As to the number of accidents on Winni, there are many factors that must be considered to place these numbers in context. For example, Winni is about 10 times larger than Winnisquam. If you multiply Winnisquam's 28 accidents by 10 you get 280, significantly more per acre than Winni (222). You would also need to ask how many boats are using these lakes. Because of the variety of entertainments availble on Winni I would guess that many more boats are in use on Winni than on other NH lakes. I have 0 boating accidents in my swimming pool. Does that allow me to compare it to Winni in terms of safety? A meaningful statistic would be the number of accidents per boating hour in use. I don't think we'll get that since boaters don't clock in and out when using their boats. I would like to get better information so that we can make informed choices in the future. IS education working? Are boaters aware of the current laws on the lake? Are people getting into accidents new boaters? new to the lake? The clear statistics that ARE available show that with increasing boat registrations in NH the number of reported accidents are decreasing. That is surely a good thing. However, no one disputes that the lake is more congested, especially on some summer weekends. This congestion amplifies any problems that may have already been happening. People are ruder when crammed together and stupid behavior seems to peak when people become impatient. These are real problems that we need to think about, and they can be hard to fix. People need to be made aware of the problems and taught how to avoid them and we need tough enforcement of existing laws to reign in the boneheads. |
03-05-2006, 10:45 AM | #65 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Speed Limit on lakes
I have been boating on Lake Winnipesaukee since 1976, and in those years have seen many foolish and dangerous acts committed by boaters. In my opinion, the question regarding the speed limit SHOULD BE: "What do you think the best method would be to increase safety of boaters on the lakes?"
I believe the answer to this is required safe boating programs. In my 30 years of boating on the lake, ALL of the dangerous acts that I have witnessed have one thing in common - ignorance of the rules of the "road" and ignorance regarding the operation of a vessel. Lowering the maximun speed on the lake, will not make the boaters any safer. I have yet to witness any dangerous acts which were speed related. (If you are curious - I do NOT have a performance boat.) In closing, I truly hope this law does not pass because it will adversely affect the boating enjoyment and many of the lakeside businesses around the lake. |
03-05-2006, 12:10 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
http://www.orionsignals.com/Marine/P...d-signals.html P.S.- Having difficulty seeing you and your sea kayak in this picture enjoying Mother Nature's thrills... |
|
03-05-2006, 01:08 PM | #67 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, to recap. Boating accidents since 1999 have DECREASED by 68%. BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING! So let it work!!! |
|||||
03-05-2006, 01:15 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
FYI: I made that thrill comment ONCE. In this post: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26984&postcount=3 My comment was in response to Cal’s comment: “... If you find the little safe ponds and streams so boring , you must LIKE the thrill that comes with the big lake. So now you wish to make it boring too?” My reply was: “Speeding boats do not make a lake more exciting for kayaks - We count on Mother Nature to do that.” I don’t see any power boats in your photo either. You guys act like I’m some kind of irresponsible thrill junkie – just because I made one comment about Mother Nature providing enough thrills for us sea kayakers. I don’t go out in conditions that are beyond what I can handle and I do turn back when conditions start to get a bit too challenging. Did I ever say that Winni, or any other large lakes were NEVER too rough for me? All I’ve said is that sea kayaks are made for large bodies of water, so they (with an experienced paddler) are safe to use in much rougher conditions than what open canoes and recreational kayaks would be safe in. See my post on whistles (and air horns): http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=28538&postcount=57 If a boat is going too fast to see me – it’s likely too noisy for the operator to hear an air horn – assuming that I even have time to use one. Besides, it does take both hands to paddle a kayak.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
03-05-2006, 03:10 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2006, 05:38 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Thanks!
Thanks Konachick, I really appreciate your post!
But I just wanted to point out that I'm a she.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
03-06-2006, 08:22 AM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
Quote:
My face is red I must admit...I'm feeling dumb, a real big twit..Evenstar is a woman no doubt...I'll say it from the hilltops, I'll even shout!! Sorry Ms. Evenstar! |
|
03-06-2006, 09:04 AM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Evenstar...
My comment as to your kayak being the GFBL of kayaks was in reference to the statement you made about sea kayaks being a high performance version (longer, & faster & generally more seaworthy) than a regular kayak. It wasn't meant to be a slam in any way. Sorry if you didn't get it. What most people seem to forget when discussing speed on the water is VISIBILITY. In most instances on Lake Winnipesaukee visibility is 360 degrees and measured in MILES! Not hundreds of feet. A prime example is that you can see FL4 from FL3. The distance between the two is approximately 2.25 miles. A boat traveling at 45 MPH is covering 66 FPS. A boat traveling at 70MPH is covering 103 FPS. Its only traveling 37 FPS faster than a boat traveling 45 MPH. When you can see objects 1+ miles away, there is plenty of time to correct your course to avoid a collision. Your other point, as to the 222 boating accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee over a 4 year period needs some clarification. Given the amount of people who are using the Lake, 222 accidents over a 4 year period is pretty low. Especially when you consider how many of the 222 accidents were related to excessive speed.... 35! So in 4 years of data collection, thousands and thousands of boats using Lake Winnipesaukee and the accident rate for excessive speed is 35! I wonder how many of those 35 accidents were at speeds over 45MPH during the day or 25MPH at night? I would also like to know how many were collisions with other boats or watercraft? If Fear is the issue, and you fear getting run over by a boat, the statistic I would be most concerned with is collisions. Where are the collision accident stats for Lake Winnipesaukee or NH that justify that fear? I really don't think an airhorn is all that attention grabbing... but for some strange reason a couple of short sharp blast on a police whislte seems to quickly gather a persons attention! Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
03-06-2006, 02:18 PM | #73 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
NH's statistics aren't very good.
Quote:
The 150 foot rule does me no good at all when a vessel is traveling fast and the operator doesn’t see me. That ADDITIONAL 37 FPS could very well be the difference between my kayak being hit or not. Quote:
But 222 for a single lake in a 4 year period is still a great deal of accidents! According to the USCG 2004 Boating Statistics, during the 5 year period (2000-2004) the entire state of Massachusetts had 266 boating accidents, the entire state of Maine had 286 accidents, and the entire state of Vermont had 28 accidents. The other thing is that I am entitled to my opinion – even when it is different than yours. My statement was, “I don’t consider Winni to be a very safe place.” If you’re in a large powerboat, you might consider Winni to be safe – but try to see it from my perspective – my kayak is only 23 inches wide and I’m actually sitting below the waterline. Since I’m much more vulnerable than you are, isn’t it likely that I might also feel less safe? I think that the main reason that there aren’t more collisions on Winni is that there are relatively few paddlers on the lake (for a lake this size). And most of the paddlers stay in the coves or hug the shore - because they’re afraid of being run over by powerboats.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
||
03-06-2006, 05:34 PM | #74 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,892
Thanks: 2,154
Thanked 765 Times in 548 Posts
|
Flogging Will Continue Until Morale Improves—Department
Quote:
Quote:
1) Why did accidents drop by nearly half in 1996—then double? 2) Why were accidents so low in 2004? 3) Why were fatalities at a record low in 2004? 4) Why are other states with mandatory Boater Education seeing higher accident rates? For New Hampshire in 1996 and 2004, the answer is...unprecedented rainfall in 1996, and a very soggy 2004 season! Nobody is going to drive up to Winnipesaukee and put their boat in the water if the forecast is for rain, rain, and more rain. Boating accidents in nearby Connecticut and New Jersey have spiked. Both states have required Boater Education much longer than New Hampshire. Their "education" programs are keeping accidents down, all right—but only when there's bad weather!!! New Jersey went for a NEW!!!—AND—IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course this year when their accident rate went from 85 to 124. It couldn't be their unlimited boating speeds, of course. (Last year's Barnegat Bay speed limit initiative in New Jersey got scuttled with help from the $peedboat industry lobbyist$). The peaks and valleys associated with New Hampshire accident numbers are "statistically insignificant"; i.e., as a small state, we have too few numbers to determine a trend attributable to the educated boater. There is a closer correlation to clouds than to education! The only trend your numbers support are the very same numbers that are decreasing across the country anyway. |
||
03-07-2006, 08:31 AM | #75 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Quote:
There should be no issues with visibility at all on Lake Winnipesaukee. Visibility is measured in miles. If the operator of the boat didn't see you it was because he wasn't paying attention, not because you weren't visible in your bright yellow kayak. While I have no doubt some bonehead has come too close to you on occasion, certainly well within your comfort zone, a speed limit is not going to affect that behavior. Quote:
The main reason there aren't more collisions between any of the different types of watercraft on Lake Winnipesaukee is because of the 150' safe passage rule. To date there have been ZERO collisions between a speeding powerboat and a kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee. Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
||
03-07-2006, 08:42 AM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
03-08-2006, 10:48 AM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
I've addressed the flag on sea kayaks problem before - flags make these kayaks very unsafe - especally in rough weather. FYI: The type of flag mentioned in this bill is a distress flag - for emergency use. If this becomes law, I would need to have a distress flag OR a whistle (which I already use) with me. You guys just love to skip over any facts that support our concerns, by trying to divert these post off in other directions.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Last edited by Evenstar; 03-08-2006 at 05:22 PM. |
|
03-08-2006, 11:16 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Actually Evenstar you are flat wrong on this. You cannot tell the approaching speed of a boat heading straight towards you on a Zero (0) bearing. Nodody can! Your only reference to boat speed would be the noise the boat is making.
The distance you are able to see within a 360 degree arc is also limited by the height of your head above the water and wave action. The higher your head above the surface of the water, the greater distance you can see. If your head is only 3' above the waters surface while kayaking and you are playing in 2' waves, your 360 degree visibility is extremely limited. On my boat, while standing in the bolsters, my head is approximately 10' above the surface of the water, allowing for much greater range of visibility. I think you can see concord from the bridge of some of those big cruisers! A small flag similar to that of one used on a childs bicycle will not make your craft unstable. It will allow for much greater visibility, and the more visible you are, the safer you will be, regardless of boat speed. I do agree with you that paddles are the most easily seen because they are in motion. The human eye is very sensitive to motion. Thats why a small (emphasis on small) triangular flag bobbing back & forth on a whip will greatly aid in visibility. Your chances of getting run over while playing in the Broads are nil. Too much room and plenty of visibility. Your chances of getting run over in the Weirs increases exponentially as the number of boats increases and they are confined to a small area. You won't get run over by a boat going faster than 45 MPH in the Weirs... its just too congested. Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
03-08-2006, 01:51 PM | #79 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Two foot waves go up and down. My visibility is just fine in waves. If my visibility is so limited, how come I NEVER have trouble spotting other kayaks even when they are a mile or more away, yet many powerboaters say that they have trouble seeing us? I think that visibility is much more of an issue as speed increases - due to many factors. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|||
03-08-2006, 02:18 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
For someone with as must fear as you profess to having with regards to boating on the Lake, you need to find a safer, more stable kayak that will afford you the luxury of being seen more readily by being able to display a small bicycle type flag on your kayak. Perhaps something akin to what one sees in Hawaii being paddled, the boat with the outrigger for stability. http://cgi.ebay.com/Canoe-Stabilizer...ayphotohosting Talk about stability and being seen: http://www.sailboatstogo.com/catalog...gory=KAYAK_RIG GFBL Kayak Last edited by GWC...; 03-08-2006 at 03:06 PM. |
|
03-08-2006, 05:13 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
I have no fear of Winni - I'm afraid of the people who feel the need to go fast, at the expense of other boaters. You're actually suggesting that I give up my preferred type of boating, just so you guys can continue to go as fast as you want?!!! And you complain that a speed limit would infringe on your boating rights? Give me a break! If I wanted to sail, I would buy a sailboat! Then there's the little problem that hi-speed powerboats also run into sailboats. So how would I be any safer? The obvious solution is to have you guys slow down, which is exactly what HB-162 is for. Anyone who thinks that a little flag is going to keep kayakers safe from being run over should watch APS's video link: http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568 How much of a chance would any kayaker have if they had been in the path of that speeding boat?
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
03-09-2006, 08:32 AM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Quote:
Do you understand the rules of navigation? That video has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with being an complete idiot! That speeding boat that you are so afraid of being run over by is a U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Boat, probably similar in layout to the one the MP have on Lake Winnipesaukee. It wasn't somebody driving a Hi-Performance boat! The helmsman at the controls of the USCG Patrol Boat was WRONG! I did not hear any siren or horn that indicated they were enroute to an emergency and thus be given the right of way. In this instance the Coast Guard boat was the give way vessel... he didn't yield right of way and the little boat got run over! He should have chopped his throttles and turned to starboard in order to miss the little boat. Of course on the Great Lakes where this occured there is no 150' Safe Passage Rule... so he could have missed the little boat by a few feet and all would be well and legal! If the boat is not approaching you on a Zero bearing then its not going to collide with you. Your forward motion of 5-6MPH is pretty similar to the headway speed of any powered vessel and is pretty negligible. Its that simple. Speed is very difficult to judge on the water because you have no point of reference. Its not like a car where you have trees and signs etc to give you a point of reference. I can concede your point on the flags. Rolling a kayak with a flag might add a bit of difficulty, but it will not be immpossible. Perhaps if they add a requirement that instead of a flag, you are required to have hunter orange paddle blades and wear a hunter orange PFD... would that work for you? Last year on the weekend after July 4th I witnessed 3 kayakers out at out at dusk in a dark green kayaks, black wetsuit tops and no lights... That is a recipe for disaster. I don't think all kayakers and other paddlers are that irresponsible. I do understand your fear, and to you its real. But statistically you can safely enjoy your sport on the big lake without compromising another individuals personal freedom. Nobody has been run over in a kayak or canoe by a speeding boat on Lake Winnipesaukee! Boating accidents are down dramatically since the inception of a BSC requirement. To point, accidents are down 68%! Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
|
03-09-2006, 09:27 AM | #83 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,892
Thanks: 2,154
Thanked 765 Times in 548 Posts
|
Quote:
Also, I recall WRKO-talk/radio reporting a Winnipesaukee kayaker that had been run over in 2003 and was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I reported that accident here at the forum. No further word as to his future prospects appeared. Perhaps a new forum member can elaborate on that collision. It's likely that collisions like his are not well reported—this being a tourist state, and all. (WRKO is a Boston station). Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
03-09-2006, 09:49 AM | #84 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
You've decided there is a big problem on Lake Winnipesaukee when in reality and statistically there isn't. Quote:
Now you called that boat a "speeding boat" which from reading your other posts is not a boat "speeding" at "high speed". From what I can tell from your other posts a "speeding" boat is not exceeding the proposed 45 mph speed limit, whereas a boat "speeding" at "high speed" does exceed the proposed 45 mph speed limit, now these are your words from your posts. Furthermore, most in that thread pretty much agreed that probably neither boat was capable of traveling over 45 mph, hence the accident happened at a speed of less than 45 mph. So why is it relevant in a speed limit discussion, other than to prove, yes, accidents do happen, and yes, the cause of this accident was not speeding but operator inattention. Just one more case of your evidence and statistics not proving your point. |
|||
03-09-2006, 10:00 AM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2006, 10:39 AM | #86 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,980
Thanks: 246
Thanked 739 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
The folks we all need to watch out for are the uninformed people plowing along, bow high, making a huge wake and thinking they are saving fuel by not being up on plane. They can hardly see in front of them because they are running at a terrible angle. They are going so slowly that they probably think they don't need to pay much attention, but are moving fast enough to do some serious damage if they do have a collision. Since you brought up infringment... You are asking that the rules for the whole state be changed to suit your own fears of paddling on one lake that you rarely frequent, right? |
|
03-09-2006, 11:08 AM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
The Coastie ignored rule 15 of the COLREGS... and a collision occured! This collision has absolutely nothing to do with HB-162 or Lake Winnipesaukee. Why APS brought it up is beyond me, other than for some sort of inflammatory reason.
www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
03-09-2006, 12:12 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,547
Thanks: 3,159
Thanked 1,094 Times in 788 Posts
|
Marine Patrol accident.
I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day. |
03-09-2006, 06:35 PM | #89 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
New Jersey's NEW!!!-AND-IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course went from requiring operators of PWCs under age 25 to pass a test, to boaters on NON-tidal waters to pass a test! THAT WAS THE NEW AND IMPROVED ASPECT OF THE TEST. It also means ocean boaters are NOT REQUIRED to take or pass a mandatory boating test. Now I don't know how long their PWC requirement was in effect but the expansion to include NON-tidal waters is much more recent than NH's boater education law! I'll be the first to admit I don't know alot about boating in New Jersey, but based on a map of NJ I think I am safe in saying the vast majority of boaters are ocean boaters, not lake boaters and are not required to pass a boating education course or pass a test. So to try to say New Jersey's boating law isn't working when it doesn't require a majority of their boaters to take or pass a boating course is not relevant to anything! If New Jersey had the same law, or even a similar one to the law in place in NH it might have a place in this discussion! I have spent some time searching the internet to find a correlation between boater education and increased boating accidents in CT but I haven't found one, could you please tell us your source? In the meantime I stand by my statement. Boating accidents in NH have decreased every year from 1999 to 2004. Boater education is working, LET IT WORK! |
||
03-09-2006, 10:31 PM | #90 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|||
03-09-2006, 10:35 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
Here's New Jerseys "new and improved" regulations for boaters iin a nut shell
MANASQUAN, N.J. – With the ending of the 211th Legislature, the passage of boater education legislation places New Jersey’s education law amongst the strongest in the nation, according to the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey (MTA/NJ), which said Assembly Bill 2624 (Smith) was a major priority for the association. The new boater education and safety law applies to all people age 16 years and older who operate registered vessels above 12 feet that are defined as power vessels under the law. It becomes effective over a staggered period of time. Specifically, persons born after December 31, 1978 have to take the course immediately. Persons born after December 31, 1968 and on or before December 31, 1978 have to take the course before June 1, 2006. Persons born after December 31, 1958 and on or before December 31, 1968 have to take the course before June 1, 2007. Persons born after December 31, 1948 and on or before December 31, 1958 have to take the course before June 1, 2008. All other persons need to take the course before June 1, 2009, according to the association. This bill states that “out of state” boaters 18 years of age and older who operate a power vessel for less than 90 days in New Jersey are exempt from the safety course if they can show proof of similar education from NASBLA, the Coast Guard or other state.
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos |
03-09-2006, 11:24 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
This is the part of the NJ law that people have left out:
Quote:
|
|
03-10-2006, 06:41 AM | #93 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,892
Thanks: 2,154
Thanked 765 Times in 548 Posts
|
Guesstimate needed...
Quote:
I'm wondering just how responsive a media is to "injury-accidents". (In a state dependant on out-of-staters). A kayaker was run over in the Moultonbourough area of Winnipesaukee in 2003. He was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I heard about it on WRKO-Boston, but heard nothing locally and no follow-ups at any media. Quote:
Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive. At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.) |
||
03-10-2006, 08:07 AM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
03-10-2006, 08:32 AM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Quote:
I cannot find ANY record of a kayaker being run over by a powerboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. You may have thought you heard it on WRKO, but given that we cannot find anything about it I think you were misinformed. Certainly a traumatic accident with major injury such as that would be filed somewhere! We can still find references to the Hartman/Littlefield accident and that happened in 2003. If a kayaker had been run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, given the veracity of the fight over HB-162, I am sure someone from WinnFabs would have brought up this accident as loudly as they brought up Hartman/Littlefield. As fas as the the video you posted, I agree with you, it is VERY instructive. It shows what happens when someone does not pay attention and does not follow the rules of navigation or COLREGS. It has nothing to do with a speed limit as neither boat appeared to capable of traveling over 45 MPH. Weather wasn't an issue as it was a bright sunny day with excellent visibility. The primary cause of this collision would be operator inattention on the part of USCG boat. When he realized a collision was immenent, he violated the COLREGS by not chopping his throttle and/or throwing the boat into an emergency reverse or stop. He was also required to turn to starboard, not port as he did in the video. The USCG boat violated the COLREGS and caused a collision. Plain and simple! Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
|
03-10-2006, 08:45 AM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,896
Thanks: 469
Thanked 682 Times in 380 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
03-10-2006, 09:15 AM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
Quote:
Your the one who stated you "I can certainly tell the difference betweent 45 and 70mph". When you are in a small craft such as a kayak all boats will seem like they are traveling at high speed. Its nice to see that you have conceded the point that you cannot tell how fast a boat is traveling. Boats don't change direction constantly and certainly not at high speed. However, a boat can approach your kayak from any direction, requiring you to keep your head on a swivel and maintain a proper lookout at all times. Apparently you don't understand the Rules of Navigation. The guy in the small boat was NOT REQUIRED TO YIELD to the USCG boat. Read my post above. The USCG boat broke the rules, not the little guy, regardless of his admission of inattention. If he had seen the USCG boat, certainly he could have adjusted his course/speed and the collision could have been avoided. It still doesn't change the fact that the USCG boat was in the wrong, the little boat was the stand on boat. Boats do collide, and the collision in the video above ocurred at speeds well below 45 MPH. The primary reason for that collision is OPERATOR INATTENTION on the part of the USCG boat. Excessive Speed had nothing to do with this accident other than both boats were on plane. If a kayaker had been in the path of either boat I am sure they would have been able to avoid the kayaker. In the video above both operators were singularly focused on what was directly ahead of them, and not any possible dangers approaching from the side. I have no doubt that kayaking out in the Broads can be a bit nervewracking on a busy summer saturday. I really do understand that. There are quite a few boats out there and while your busy paddling the waves, you don't want to worry about getting run over. The problem is, regardless of a Speed Limit, or a Safe Passage Law, you are primarily responsible for your own safety. The 150' Safe Passage Rule, or a Speed Limit law, or any other type of law or rule of navigation will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect you if the operator of the boat is not paying attention. If the operator of the boat is paying attention, then you are in absolutely no danger! I am sorry you can't seem to grasp this very simple concept. Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
|
03-10-2006, 02:36 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Now you are using inattentive behavior as a reason to justify HB162. When will the spin end? |
|
03-10-2006, 04:31 PM | #99 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
If???
Quote:
I read your entire post, and who was at more at fault was never my point. That video shows two powerboats colliding on open water, when visibility was very good. That was my entire point. That’s what you and I were discussing earlier. How would that powerboat operator, who didn’t even see a Coast Guard vessel, have seen a much smaller boat???? Quote:
And what am I supposed to do to prevent being run over by a speeding powerboat??? Believe me, I’m extremely aware of everything on the water, and when I see a powerboat heading in my direction, I make every effort to stay out of his path. But I can only paddle so fast. At my top speed of about 7 feet per second, it takes me over 2 seconds just to travel the length of my kayak, and during those 2 seconds a boat traveling at 70 mph would have covered over 200 feet. Sort of puts me at a slight disadvantage, doesn't it? Quote:
If??? That’s the problem! If a powerboat operator sees me, then I’m in no danger. If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger. If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger. But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger. If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit. (BTW: I have no problem grasping any of the “simple concepts” you guys have presented – the problem is that most of you don’t take your concepts far enough for me. You just use them as far as they support your arguments, and conveniently leave out the parts that don’t.)
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|||
03-10-2006, 10:13 PM | #100 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,892
Thanks: 2,154
Thanked 765 Times in 548 Posts
|
A kayaker WAS run over. Who knew?
Quote:
NO KAYAKS HAVE BEEN RUN OVER ON WINNIPESAUKEE! From the Old Forum: Quote:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45731 (I also think the Coast Guard's impact on the runabout was less than 20MPH—to carry its instructiveness another step). Last edited by ApS; 03-14-2006 at 07:33 PM. Reason: It's pretty bad when you can't read and understand your own post! |
||
Bookmarks |
|
|