Collisions and Speed

Evenstar · 02-28-2006, 05:14 PM

"Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide. These collisions not only resulted in vessel damage but often resulted in serious personal injury or death. Often the collision will result in people on board being thrown overboard by the force of the impact.

Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced."

Source: Rules of the Road Summarized - By Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski - Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce. http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

Woodsy · 02-28-2006, 10:22 PM

Evenstar...

Why note quote up to date reports? Such as the USCG report for 2004? The quote you came up with references data that is 10 YEARS OLD! Lets use something a little more relevant.

Let me guess? Because the current data doesn't support your argument? In the 2004 USCG report there were 1479 collisions with another vessel, resulting in 68 fatalities out of a possible 12,781,476 registered boats. More people die in car collisions!

Woodsy

Airwaves · 02-28-2006, 11:47 PM

It really isn't fair to quote someone talking nationally, especially when the Marine Patrol apparently disagrees.

So here are the stats that apply locally and the Marine Patrol comments on speed:

New Hampshire Boating Accident Statistics, 2004 (the most recent year available)
Source: http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm

Number of boats registered: (excluding sailboats under 20’) 101,626
Number of accidents: 35
Number of fatalities: 2
Types of accidents:
Collision with fixed object - 2
Collision with another vessel – 11
Ejected from vessel - 1
Falls with boat - 5
Falls on PWC - 1
Grounding - 3
Skier mishap - 1
Struck by boat - 2
Struck by motor or prop - 2
Struck submerged object - 3
Drowning - 1
Other deaths - 1
Total deaths - 2
Total injuries - 15

Alcohol related fatalities: 0
Alcohol related injured: 2
Accidents involving alcohol: 2

From the 1/31/06 Valley News
Complete article at: http://www.vnews.com/01312006/2865287.htm

“Few boating accidents in the state are caused by speeding, according to the New Hampshire Marine Patrol.
Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities.
The state already has some laws governing speed on the water. Boaters are not allowed to go above headway speed-- idling speed-- if they are within 150 feet of another boat.
The Marine Patrol has not taken an official position on the bill, but the patrol's head administrator questioned its merits in an interview yesterday.
“I'm somewhat confused as to whether the proponents of the bill are trying to be discriminatory against a particular kind of boat, or if they think that the passing of such a law is going to curb the perceived carnage that's out there,” said David Barrett, the director of the Division of Safety Services. “It will be difficult to enforce, but if the legislature passes it, we'll deal with it. It will not yield the same results it does on the highway.”
********************************************

According to Coast Guard statistics there have been 320 boating accidents in the entire state of NH between 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately the CG Stats do not say where in the state the accidents occurred.
********************************************

Massachusetts has had a 45 mile an hour speed limit law in place for years, here are the Boating Accidents Statistics for the Bay State in 2004

Number of boats registered: (all motorboats) 150,683
Number of accidents: 55
Number of fatalities: 9

Types of accidents;
Capsizing - 8
Collision with fixed object - 10
Collision with floating object - 2
Collision with another vessel – 19
Falls within a boat- 2
Falls overboard - 4
Fire/Explosion/Fuel - 2
Flooding/swamping - 2
Grounding - 1
Sinking - 3
Struck submerged object - 2
Drownings - 6
Other deaths - 3
Total deaths - 9
Total injuries - 35

Alcohol related fatalities: 1
Alcohol related injuries: 7
Accidents involving alcohol: 4

******************************************

Like NH, the statistics do not break down where the accidents occurred, however unlike NH, Massachusetts has an extensive coastline and an active commercial fishing fleet that are included in the statistics along with recreational boaters. Massachusetts also does NOT have a mandatory boater education law as NH does.

Now, the CG stats don't deal with "speed". They also don't break down the type of boat involved in the accident state by state (at least if they do I didn't see it) but it seems to me that 11 boat on boat collisions, 2 struck by boat and 2 struck by prop in 2004 out of a registered fleet of 101,626 vessels is a pretty good boating record!

Island Lover · 03-01-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities....

Airwaves

You see here is the problem. Your statistics are obviously WRONG! Better call back Lt. Dunleavy again and check that quote.

There were TWO fatal accidents during that period. One of those accidents involved speed greater than reasonable and prudent. The other accident involved a speed, determined by the Marine Patrol, to be greater than the proposed speed limits.

I don't know about the other data but since part of your data is wrong....

ITD · 03-01-2006, 11:18 AM

Island Lover,

Please reference that accidents you speak of and the source for your conclusions. Once again I think you are wrong.

Evenstar · 03-01-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

Why note quote up to date reports? Such as the USCG report for 2004? The quote you came up with references data that is 10 YEARS OLD! Lets use something a little more relevant.

Let me guess? Because the current data doesn't support your argument? In the 2004 USCG report there were 1479 collisions with another vessel, resulting in 68 fatalities out of a possible 12,781,476 registered boats. More people die in car collisions!

Woodsy

First of all this is not my "argument" ... all I did was quote a portion of a USCG document. I never even made a comment on it.

My post was in response to statements claiming that a speed limit would not make NH lakes safer. Here's a direct quote from a USCG document stating that It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions ... are reduced as speed is reduced."

So, are you trying to suggest that this statement is no longer true?
That there is no longer any statistical relationship between speed and the number of collisions?

BTW: The data that you are using isn't even complete, since it only includes accidents involving property damage of greater than $2,000, and/or injuries which did require medical treatment beyond first aid.

There's also a relationship between speed and the damage caused by a collision. Or are NH lakes somehow exempt from the law of physics as well?

Since you're looking for an argument: here's mine:
1.) Statistically, slower speeds reduce collisions.
2.) The faster the speed at the time of a collision, the greater the amount of damage (statistically).
3.) A speed limit will reduce speeds.
4.) Therefore a speed limit wiill make NH lakes safer.

Airwaves · 03-01-2006, 02:32 PM

Island Lover

The data is not mine, it comes from reports issued by NH Marine Patrol to the Coast Guard.

As you can see from the stats, there were 2 deaths reported in 2004.

With all due respect, I will take Lt Dunleavy's comment regarding speed and fatalities over yours since this is his job.

Island Lover · 03-01-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

Island Lover,

Please reference that accidents you speak of and the source for your conclusions. Once again I think you are wrong.

Once again I must remind you that 28 is greater than 25. Like it or not, this is always true. Clearly you guys would love to forget this accident ever happened, but it did.

I will not forget this fatality, nor will I allow incorrect statements like Airwaves to go unchallenged.

If the Marine Patrol actually made that quote then it speaks volumes for where their heads are at. It would seem the MP is cooking the data. This death will NOT be forgotten!

I will contact Lt. Dunleavy for a retraction!!!

Island Lover · 03-01-2006, 02:42 PM

Airwaves

Please don't try and wiggle out of your statement. You quoted the period 2000 to 2004. NOT 2004 alone.

Woodsy · 03-01-2006, 02:46 PM

I am sure the death IL is talking about and is certainly passionate about is Mr. Hartman. I don't know the details about what "other" death IL has mentioned. IL has brought up since this debate began that the estimated speed of 28 MPH is 3 MPH greater than the proposed 25 MPH night time limit.

In the real world, an extra 3 MPH wouldn't have changed anything. Danny Littlefield not drinking wine with dinner might have changed EVERYTHING!

Woodsy

ITD · 03-01-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Once again I must remind you that 28 is greater than 25. Like it or not, this is always true. Clearly you guys would love to forget this accident ever happened, but it did.

I will not forget this fatality, nor will I allow incorrect statements like Airwaves to go unchallenged.

If the Marine Patrol actually made that quote then it speaks volumes for where their heads are at. It would seem the MP is cooking the data. This death will NOT be forgotten!

I will contact Lt. Dunleavy for a retraction!!!

Don't you mean browbeat, cajole and threaten to agree with you or else? I'll take the Lt. original EXPERT (your term for these professionals not mine)statement anyday.

So you listed one accident where a speed limit would have made NO difference, hence you are wrong. I am waiting for the other........

ITD · 03-01-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

First of all this is not my "argument" ... all I did was quote a portion of a USCG document. I never even made a comment on it.

My post was in response to statements claiming that a speed limit would not make NH lakes safer. Here's a direct quote from a USCG document stating that It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions ... are reduced as speed is reduced."

So, are you trying to suggest that this statement is no longer true?
That there is no longer any statistical relationship between speed and the number of collisions?

BTW: The data that you are using isn't even complete, since it only includes accidents involving property damage of greater than $2,000, and/or injuries which did require medical treatment beyond first aid.

There's also a relationship between speed and the damage caused by a collision. Or are NH lakes somehow exempt from the law of phyics?

Since you're looking for an argument: here's mine:
1.) Statistically, slower speeds reduce collisions.
2.) The faster the speed at the time of a collision, the greater the amount of damage (statistically).
3.) A speed limit will reduce speeds.
4.) Therefore a speed limit wiill make NH lakes safer.

Evenstar,

Once again, please refer us to where you got this information, if it does exist you've twisted it, drawn your own incorrect conclusions and once again stated it as fact.

For example, you wrote:
1.) Statistically, slower speeds reduce collisions.

If this were true there would be no or very few traffic accidents on city streets (slower speeds) the majority of accidents would be highways (faster speeds). I could go on but suffice it to say you've got it wrong.

Evenstar · 03-01-2006, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

Evenstar,

Once again, please refer us to where you got this information, if it does exist you've twisted it, drawn your own incorrect conclusions and once again stated it as fact.

For example, you wrote:
1.) Statistically, slower speeds reduce collisions.

If this were true there would be no or very few traffic accidents on city streets (slower speeds) the majority of accidents would be highways (faster speeds). I could go on but suffice it to say you've got it wrong.

Your reply is very rude! And totally uncalled for. Why are you attacking me personally? Have I ever personally attacked you?

I didn't make this up, "twist it", or draw my own "incorrect conclusions".

You need to read my opening post in this thread:
"It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced." I posted my source and even provided the link.

I just summarized it up by writing: "Statistically, slower speeds reduce collisions" ... which is saying exactly the same thing.

John A. Birdsall · 03-01-2006, 04:17 PM

I would not question the LT. But in statements I have read on this thread it states I believe something about the speed limits on the lake not effecting the accidents. Now, if a boat is doing headway speed when it is within 150' how much damage will it cause? However, same boat going 30 mph and hits same object how much damage will it cause? Try that sober, then have two beers and hit the object at headway speed, and then again at 30 mph.

Some have said the accidents are caused by achol, and that speed is not a factor. I feel that yes achol is a factor, but again so is speed. I think hitting an object at headway speed will not do as much damage as doing it at 30 mph, But with that said if everybody would tend to the 150' rule and have something that has been missing on the lake such as courtesy, then the speed limit bill would not be needed.

Tell me something where was it said orginally that Kayaks, and canoes were speed bumps? was it the other kayaks and canoists statments or was it the big boats that go fast? At first I thought that was a funny statement until I hear peoples comments about it.

Courtesy would go far in the lake along with obeying the current laws.

Skip · 03-01-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Once again I must remind you that 28 is greater than 25. Like it or not, this is always true. Clearly you guys would love to forget this accident ever happened, but it did...I will not forget this fatality, nor will I allow incorrect statements like Airwaves to go unchallenged...The other accident involved a speed, determined by the Marine Patrol, to be greater than the proposed speed limits...

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and actually go back and read the proposed legislation (HB 162) that is now before the Senate for consideration. With the new wording added (and passed) by the House, to infer that if indeed (rememeber, the 28 Mph was an estimate, not a statement of actual speed) Littlefield was traveling 28 Mph and the proposed limit of 25 Mph was in place that he was in violation of the law is an incorrect statement.

Why?

Because the bill as proposed makes violations of posted limits "prima facie" evidence, not "absolute" violations.

Simply stated, whatever speed you are travelling, the State must prove that the speed you are cited for (under "prima facie") was not reasonable & prudent given the current conditions. If the speed limit was "absolute", as originally submitted, then any speed in excess of that posted would be all that was necessary for the State to show a violation had occurred.

The reasonable and prudent standard, which has been an integral part of our speed limits in New Hampshire for decades (and withstood all appeals to the Supreme Court) is what allows an officer to cite you if you are going the posted limit, but conditions warrant a slower speed. Example, you are going 65 Mph on Route 93 in a blinding snowstorm or thick fog. Yes, the posted limit is 65 Mph but all the officer has to prove to the judge is that the speed you were travelling was not "reasonable & prudent" given the current conditions. That is why, under normal conditions, you see officers give an upper cushion of anywhere from 12 to 15 Mph above the limit, to allow for speedometer error and convince the Court that the speed was unreasonable given the current conditions. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the summons you receive from the officer, which serves as the official court complaint in New Hampshire, actually reads such. Likewise, you are travelling 70 Mph in a 55 Mph zone with a car in perfect mechanical conditon, little or no traffic, ideal weather and you have held a license for many years with no violations. The Court can (and has in numerous cases) found that given the conditions your speed was not unreasonable and therefore no violation occurred. This is an argument many Attorneys invoke to throw out a DWI (or other) case by convincing the Court the original reason for the stop was not warranted, so all subsequent evidence gathered after the stop is inadmissable. Its know in legal parlance as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.

How does all this apply to Littlefield? For arguments sake, lets agree that he was indeed travelling 28 Mph that night, and the limit was 25 Mph. Under proposed HB 162 he has not broken the law by simply operating 3 Mph above the intended limit. The Court must accept the premise that given the conditions that evening, that a speed of 28 Mph was not reasonable & prudent given such conditions. Simply travelling above the limit is not grounds for being in violation.

Finally, a review of the case. There is ample testified to evidence that copious amounts of alcohol were consumed by Littlefield and his adult passengers the night of the collision. Enough circumstantial and direct evidence that the State charged him with one count of felony Boating While Intoxicated, death resulting. Knowing that it would be difficult to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, due to Littlefied's leaving the scene and not providing a blood, breath or urine sample in a timely manner the State also charged Littlefield with Felony Failing to Maintain a Proper Lookout, death resulting. If speed had been a contributing factor to the collision, the prosecutor would have chargerd Littlefield with Reckless Operation, death resulting. That is the standard charge filed when speed is determined to be the cause of collision, whether by boat, vehicle, snowmobile atv, etc.

Now, if you re-read the testimony of record, you will find that the basic argument of the State was that the consumption of an alcoholic beverage impaired Littlefield's ability to operate his boat properly, as the conditions the night of the collision along with the operation of both craft defied any other explanation as to how Littlefield could not clearly see the other boat and steer clear of it. Littlefield's defense was that the other craft was not properly lit, he was not intoxicated (and the State could not prove so beyond a reasonable doubt) and given the conditions that night he could not see the other craft. Absent blood, breath or urine samples the jury found Littlefield "not guilty" of the boating while intoxicated charge, but did buy the State's argument that a reaonable person maintaining a proper watch that night could have seen the other craft and avoided it. He wasn't convicted due to speed, he was convicted for not keeping a proper watch. Speed was not even listed in the complaint as a contributing facter, which would have been the case invoking the Reckless Operation RSA. Under the current boating laws in New Hampshire a speed limit is not necessary to invoke speed as the contribuing factor, that is what the "Reckless" staute is for.

Bottom line?

If HB 162 as proposed had been in effect the evening of the collision in question, the belief that Littlefield was in violation of the law by allegedly travelling 3 Mph above the suggested limit is an untrue statement given the "prima facie" standard the proposed ammendment to the RSA reads.

Each side of this debate has provided ample reasons for supporting their claims of whether a fixed speed limit would or would not increase safety on the waterways of New Hampshire. The Littlefield case is not a valid example to utilize when discussing speed limits given the Bill as currently submitted.

For your review, I have attached the pertinent portion of HB 162 below and highlighted applicable portions in red.

2005 SESSION

05-0103

03/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT relative to general rules for vessels operating on water

.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Paragraphs; General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. Amend RSA 270-D:2 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraphs:

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.

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

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

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

Evenstar · 03-01-2006, 06:37 PM

adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment.

What this means is that any speeds above the speed limit are automatically rated as "not reasonable or prudent" and therefore are unlawful ... the burden would be on the defendant to prove otherwize.

Airwaves · 03-01-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Island Lover
Airwaves

Please don't try and wiggle out of your statement. You quoted the period 2000 to 2004. NOT 2004 alone.

If you'd like to take the time to re-read my post you will find that the newpaper article I posted quoted Lt. Dunleavy as talking about speed being involved in only 7 of 269 boating accidents during the 2000-2004 period. At the end of that article I even pointed out that the CG stats show there were 320 boating accident in NH during that period.

My comment about 2004 pointed out that were 2 fatal accidents in 2004. No wiggling necessary.

As a matter of fact if you wanted to go to the address I provided as one of my sources you would have found that between 2000 and 2004 there were 24 boating fatalites in that 5 year period in NH, not the 2 you speak of.

Quote:

Originally posted by Island Lover:
I will not forget this fatality, nor will I allow incorrect statements like Airwaves to go unchallenged.

I am sorry if this was a friend of yours, but it does not change the facts as I posted them.

Marine Patrol officers were quoted in a newspaper article that I posted and provided an address so you could read the full article.

The Marine Patrol compiles the statistics on boating accidents in NH and then sends them to the Coast Guard, those statistics are available on line and I provided the address for that as well.

I don't mind taking heat for mistakes, mis-statements etc that I make, but from your reaction I tend to think that this is the first time you've seen in print the feelings of the NH agency that would have to enforce this law and didn't like what they had to say.

So, if you choose to you can read it for yourself.

As I posted in my original post
The article that quotes Marine Patrol officers:
http://www.vnews.com/01312006/2865287.htm

The statistics compliled by the US Coast Guard:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm

Quote:

Originally posted by Island Lover
Airwaves

You see here is the problem. Your statistics are obviously WRONG!

Actually, as you can see if you want to read them, I am not wrong.

Island Lover · 03-01-2006, 07:47 PM

Airwaves

"Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities."

You wrote the above quote.

It is wrong! Admit it!

SKIP

You are also WRONG! 28 mph is "exceed the proposed limits". All the lawyers tricks in the world will not make 28 mph less than 25 mph. That you attempt to do so is insulting to the memory of the victim.

Nobody claimed that 28 mph was a "violation of the law". However 28 mph exceeds the proposed limits in every part of the universe except an attorneys brain.

Skip · 03-01-2006, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...SKIP...You are also WRONG! 28 mph is "exceed the proposed limits". All the lawyers tricks in the world will not make 28 mph less than 25 mph. That you attempt to do so is insulting to the memory of the victim.

Nobody claimed that 28 mph was a "violation of the law". However 28 mph exceeds the proposed limits in every part of the universe except an attorneys brain.

I am sorry if I was unable to explain clearly enough the basics of the law that you support and how it does not apply to the Littlefield crime. Suffice to repeat a violation of HB 162 as proposed only occurs when the speed observed is not reasonable & prudent under the given conditions present when the offense occurred given the recommended limit for the area. Its really a very basic premise easily absorbed by any New Hampshire police recruit in their first week of academy training.

Don't take my word for it....call your local police chief, town or city prosecutor, your family attorney or the free information line at the NH Bar Association.....

Sorry if I couldn't make it any clearer to you...

As usual, I am always available off-line to explain the matter further or recommend you to any of a number of reputable legal resources that can confirm how HB 162 will work if passed in its present form.

Skip

P.S. Darn, quit implying I might be an attorney....those are the darn scoundrels working the other side of the aisle!

Island Lover · 03-01-2006, 08:36 PM

Skip

Legal technicalities are not involved here. No explanations are required.

The quote attributed to Lt. Dunleavy states that there were no fatal accidents involving speeds greater than proposed. The proposed nighttime speed limit is 25 mph the speed of the boat was calculated to be 28 mph. Understanding nuances of the law is not necessary.

We are not trying to convict somebody here. The only question is if 28 is greater than 25. And no matter how much you dislike HB162, 28 is greater than 25.

By your theory the statement would be correct if there were 100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph.

THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT!

Bear Islander · 03-01-2006, 08:48 PM

The was a fatal accident in 2002 involving a speed greater than proposed.

No other interpretation is possible.

Skip · 03-01-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...By your theory the statement would be correct if there were 100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph.THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT!...

Again, you make an incorrect assumption. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....explain to me how any Court in this State would find that 200 Mph in a 25/45 Mph zone was reasonable and prudent given any current condition that you could come up with.

However, you actually sweetened the pot by stating "100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph".

Obviously there are no boaters operating at 200 mph on Lake winnipesaukee, but you are saying that if one did, then struck a boat at night in a 25 Mph zone or in the day at 45 Mph, that it wouldn't be unreasonable?

I am kicking myself for even responding to such an absurd proposition....but only do so to point out how obtuse your supposition is!

Again, there are many factual points that either side can make to reinforce their positions on whether or not fixed speed limits will enhance water safety, but the Littlefield example...no matter how it is spinned...is not germane to the core arguments of this debate.

To me the hyberbole invoked when trying to implicate the Littlefield crime within the framework of the HB 162 debate is truly disrespectful to the victims involved.

Enough said....as usual, I suspect you'll get in the last word!

Good evening,

Skip

Airwaves · 03-01-2006, 09:03 PM

Island Lover

I'll try this one more time and I'll even do the work.

Here is what you wrote

Quote:

Airwaves

"Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities."

You wrote the above quote.

Now, if you had bothered to go to the address that I provided TWICE!
you would have found the following headline:

Quote:

N.H. Bill Would Limit Speed for Boats
By Mark Davis
Valley News Staff Writer

Contained with that NEWSPAPER ARTICLE is the quote that you keep trying to attribute to me.

Now, am I going to believe you or the professional whose job it is to enforce boating laws in NH?

As someone pointed out, 28 miles an hour that was determined to be the speed of the accident is an ESTIMATE. But let's for a moment assume it to be accurate. Do you believe the 3 miles an hour would have changed the outcome? Not likely if it's the same accident I am thinking of.

And I'll even take it one step further. Let's say you are right about this accident. That means 1 fatal accident out of 269 accidents over a 5 year period due to speed.

If this isn't clear enough then I can't help you.

fatlazyless · 03-01-2006, 09:15 PM

With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

Airwaves · 03-01-2006, 09:33 PM

Perhaps a few, but I'd be willing to bet most of them head to the coast. As you point out the Mass speed limit is for inland waterways.

(the following is an edit added at 12:04am)

Massachusetts, with a population of 6-Million (your number) also has only 49 thousand more registered boats than NH.

Bear Islander · 03-01-2006, 10:56 PM

Airwaves

Who wrote the quote in the first place is not important.

The quote is inaccurate.

Or do you disagree?

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Original post by Bear Island:
Airwaves

Who wrote the quote in the first place is not important.

The quote is inaccurate.

Or do you disagree

Who wrote the quote is important because my integrity was called into question, how many times was I told that I HAD WRITTEN THE QUOTE! I copied and pasted the quote. I was not its author. I was also not the author of the Coast Guard Statistics.

As I have stated..."I will take Lt Dunleavy's comment regarding speed and fatalities over yours since this is his job".

The Marine Patrol is the investigating authority in these cases so they would know. I believe the results of their investigation over someone else's speculation.

What is happening with this insistance that Lt Dunleavy "got it wrong" in perhaps ONE instance, and threats to "call him to demand a retraction" is that you (plural) are trying to shift the focus away from the fact that the Marine Patrol is not supportive of your possition so you are grasping at that straw hoping we'll forget the Marine Patrol, while they are not taking an "official" possition, apparently thinks this is an unnecessary bill.

Yes, I consider the NH Marine Patrol and US Coast Guard to be a reliable source, do you disagree?

Island Lover · 03-02-2006, 01:18 AM

I have met Lt. Dunleavy several times. I have an email in to him at this time. I doubt he made that quote in that way because it is obviously and demonstrably wrong.

I think this is one time when you should be able to figure things out for yourself. There was a fatal accident in Meredith in 2002. The Marine Patrol determined the speed of the boat to be 28 mph. These are facts not in dispute. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

Some point out that the MP might be wrong about the speed, and many believe that only 3 mph over the proposed limit is insignificant.

That doesn't change the reality that the statement as quoted is incorrect.

ApS · 03-02-2006, 08:14 AM

Why even argue Littlefield again? Nearly everyone agrees that 25 MPH is a sensible speed limit in the dark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Evenstar...Why note quote up to date reports? Such as the USCG report for 2004? The quote you came up with references data that is 10 YEARS OLD! Lets use something a little more relevant. Let me guess? Because the current data doesn't support your argument? In the 2004 USCG report there were 1479 collisions with another vessel, resulting in 68 fatalities out of a possible 12,781,476 registered boats. More people die in car collisions!..."

When contrasting the two statements, one can conclude:

1) Ten years ago, there was an increased speedboat danger or...
2) In 2004, non-speedboats were staying home.

In either case, I'd value the statement of a senior U. S. Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer over a junior local official harboring a narrow—and possibly jaundiced—view. Remember this infamous NHMP statement regarding the boater-count last season?

Quote:

"I can't make an accurate estimate".

What IS an "accurate estimate"?

I don't know either, but it's the same "up-to-date" source as Lt. Dunleavy's "Speed doesn't kill" statement!

"Lesser" boats are staying home, particularly on holiday weekends. I couldn't find a single gasoline-free boat in this July 4th aerial. http://www.lakesregionaerials.com/boat_traffic.htm

They're staying home folks, and that's why Winnipesaukee is "safer" today.

Cal · 03-02-2006, 08:33 AM

[QUOTE=Island Lover]

The Marine Patrol determined the speed of the boat to be 28 mph. These are facts not in dispute. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

Some point out that the MP might be wrong about the speed, and many believe that only 3 mph over the proposed limit is insignificant.

[QUOTE]

The Marine Patrol ESTIMATED the speed to be 28 mph. May I respectfully suggest you look that up in your Websters or Funk and Wagnalls. Given the inaccuracy and design of the faces , trying to obtain accuracy , 3 mph at 25 to 28 is hard to determine. Now throw in darkness and what angle your looking at it from(standing or sitting) it become more difficult. And lets not forget , the whole time you have to be keeping a lookout ahead.
Now if you still believe 3 mph is SO significant , may I suggest you sit in the back of a boat and get struck from behind at 25 mph

I wouldn't want to. Now you see the point , how INSIGNIFICANT 3 mph really is.

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Original quote from Acres per Second:
When contrasting the two statements, one can conclude:

1) Ten years ago, there was an increased speedboat danger or...
2) In 2004, non-speedboats were staying home.

In either case, I'd value the statement of a senior U. S. Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer over a junior local official harboring a narrow—and possibly jaundiced—view. Remember this infamous NHMP statement regarding the boater-count last season?

Actually the waters in NH ARE safer now than they were ten years ago! Why? BOATER EDUCATION! If you will go back and review even the past 5 years in the CG address that I provided you will see the number of accidents and fatalies in NH falling, I directly attribute that to BOATER EDUCATION!

As for taking the word of a CG Chief Warrent Officer over Lt Dunleavy, I could be wrong (and if I am I have no doubt that I will hear it) but it's my understanding that Lt Dunleavy did his inital training on the water as a member of the United States Coast Guard!

BTW, and I can look it up if no one knows off the top of their heads, Where is Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce?

Lt. Dunleavy did not say speed doesn't kill, he said there were no fatalities related to speed above the proposed limits in the past 5 years. Here is the quote from the article:

Quote:

Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities.

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 01:08 PM

Never mind, I looked it up myself. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, where today it it 79 degrees.

So, those of you who boat in Florida want to chime in and explain the differences between boating on Florida waters and boating on Lake Winnipesaukee? Perhaps even compare the number of boats in both states?

Bear Lover · 03-02-2006, 04:25 PM

Hi Airwaves

There was a fatal accident in 2002. Therefore the quote is not true.

Are you suggesting the accident didn't happen? Are you saying the MP didn't testify in court that the speed was 28 mph? Are you not aware that the proposed night time limit is 25 mph?

I don't understand your point here. Please explain.

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 05:19 PM

In 2002 there were 68 accidents, 3 of them involved fatalities with 3 deaths on NH waters.

Not having been in court I can't tell you what MP testified to in this particular case, but I can tell you that the 28 miles an hour was an estimate of speed. It could have been higher, it could have been lower. It was an estimate.

Unless of course you are implying there was a Marine Patrol boat on scene and the officer was using a radar gun to clock the speed of the offending boat.

So Lt Dunleavy's statement was NOT incorrect because the speed involved was an estimate.

Time to move on.

codeman671 · 03-02-2006, 06:00 PM

Island lover, if Danny had been written a measly $50 speeding ticket would that have made you feel better??? Your friend is still gone and nothing can change it. Bickering over a POSSIBLE but not PROVEN 3mph difference solves nothing. I am sure others would concur that 3mph over a speed limit if even proven is not reckless operation. Just a measly speeding ticket which probably would never have been written in the first place.

I bet we can take up a collection to pay the speeding ticket which you seem to think he should have received and stop the complaining. Anyone in?

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 06:06 PM

Mandated boater education in NH is working!

Let's take a look at the statistics:

2000, 94 accidents, 7 involving fatalities, 7 deaths
2001, 74 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths
2002, 68 accidents, 3 involving fatalities, 3 deaths
2003, 49 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths
2004, 35 accidents, 2 involving fatalities, 2 deaths

As you can see each year the number of accidents has declined. with the exception of 2003 the number of fatalities has also declined.

From 2000 to 2004 the number of boating accidents in NH has decreased by almost 66 percent!

That shows that boater education in the state is working!!!

Once EVERYONE, even us old timers, need to have completed a boating course and get our certificate those numbers will drop even further.

Do we need more Marine Patrol Officers, YES! Do we need additional laws that even the Marine Patrol in at least one newspaper interview has deemed unenforcable and unnecessary? NO!.

Discuss

Island Lover · 03-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

In 2002 there were 68 accidents, 3 of them involved fatalities with 3 deaths on NH waters.

Not having been in court I can't tell you what MP testified to in this particular case, but I can tell you that the 28 miles an hour was an estimate of speed. It could have been higher, it could have been lower. It was an estimate.

Unless of course you are implying there was a Marine Patrol boat on scene and the officer was using a radar gun to clock the speed of the offending boat.

So Lt Dunleavy's statement was NOT incorrect because the speed involved was an estimate.

Time to move on.

I received a email reply from Lt. Dunleavy. He claims he was misquoted.

He says that the 2002 accident was at a speed greater than proposed. He calls the 28 mph speed calculated, not estimated.

ITD · 03-02-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I received a email reply from Lt. Dunleavy. He claims he was misquoted.

He says that the 2002 accident was at a speed greater than proposed. He calls the 28 mph speed calculated, not estimated.

Well that makes it as clear as mud, science was not your major I take it. If Lt. Dunleavy maintains that a speed that has been calculated is not an estimate, then he loses all credibility with me.....

Cal · 03-02-2006, 07:16 PM

Not much to discuss. Just read the facts. Wonder how many involved alcohol?

Skip · 03-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

...If Lt. Dunleavy maintains that a speed that has been calculated is not an estimate, then he loses all credibility with me.....

Perhaps he was ..... misquoted???!!!

Cal · 03-02-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

Well that makes it as clear as mud, science was not your major I take it. If Lt. Dunleavy maintains that a speed that has been calculated is not an estimate, then he loses all credibility with me.....

Calculated or estimated is still nothing more than an educated GUESS.
There is no one on this earth that will ever know EXACTLY how fast that Baja was going because of so many variables.
Plus the fact that no MP was there to witness the accident and following H@R so none would have been there to issue a ticket. So just what would have been any different if the speed limit had been in effect

Bear Lover · 03-02-2006, 08:11 PM

I think some of you people need to study up on forensic accident reconstruction. It IS a science.

If a police officer stands on a highway, looks at the skid marks and looks at the damage to the vehicles he may come up with a speed ESTIMATE.

If a trained forensic accident reconstruction expert measures the length of the skid marks, weighs the cars, measures the coefficient of friction of the pavement etc. Then plugs these measurements into a formula, then the results are CALCULATED.

I'm sure boats create there own problems, there are no skid marks on the water. However the energy of the impact can still be calculated by the depth of damage, heat cracking etc.

The energy of impact along with the weight of the boats results in the speed of the vehicles. As in all science and engineering the is an expected percentage of error.

When measurements are plugged into a formula the answer is a calculation, not an estimate.

Skip · 03-02-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

...I think some of you people need to study up on forensic accident reconstruction. It IS a science...

See BL, watching all those episodes of CSI has finally paid off, its made you and millions of other viewers experts in the field of criminal forensics.

Now only if I could get those tightwads up at the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council to accept the nearly 10,000 undocumented hours I have accrued watching every darn cop show & movie broadcast, I could finally get my Masters in Criminology from that accredited University that always advertises in the back of Popular Mechanics magazine!

By the way, some good reading here: Instant CSI via TV

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Original post by Island Lover
I received a email reply from Lt. Dunleavy. He claims he was misquoted.

He says that the 2002 accident was at a speed greater than proposed. He calls the 28 mph speed calculated, not estimated

.

Okay, could you post your question to Lt Dunleavy and his response?

If there were more than one e-mails invoved please post them as well.

Did you contact the reporter and ask him about the articlel?

Time for you to do your homework. Dunleavy said calculated, vs estimated. Gee, what a difference!

Let's continue to play the word games shall we...
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Editon:

Calucated:
1. To ascertain by computation: reckon
2. To make an estimate of; evaluate.
3. To fit for a purpose; make suitable for

Estimate:
1. To calculate approximately the extent or amont of.
2. To form an opinion about; evaluate
3. A judgement based upon one's impressons; opinions

So, was it 28, 23 or 30? You tell me!

BTW: I haven't seen any of you address the issue that out of 101,626 registered boats in NH that only 35 were involved in accidents in 2004 and NONE were related to speed and none invovled fatalities. Just thought I'd point that out!

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 09:16 PM

Okay, you're right!

Feel better?

Lt Dunleavy was wrong in his quote. Out of 269 boating accidents there was 1 fatality due to speeds over the proposed limit in th epast 5 years!

Aren't you proud!

Now, lets look at the rest of the story:

Accidents have been dropping since 2000.

Wanna see the stats? I started a new thread called

Just the facts ma'am

but just in case you can't be bothered:
Let's take a look at the statistics:

2000, 94 accidents, 7 involving fatalities, 7 deaths
2001, 74 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths
2002, 68 accidents, 3 involving fatalities, 3 deaths
2003, 49 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths
2004, 35 accidents, 2 involving fatalities, 2 deaths

As you can see each year the number of accidents has declined. with the exception of 2003 the number of fatalities has also declined.

From 2000 to 2004 the number of boating accidents in NH has decreased by almost 66 percent!

That shows that boater education in the state is working!!!

Once EVERYONE, even us old timers, need to have completed a boating course and get our certificate those numbers will drop even further.

Do we need more Marine Patrol Officers, YES! Do we need additional laws that even the Marine Patrol in at least one newspaper interview has deemed unenforcable and unnecessary? NO!.

Discuss

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 09:22 PM

Alcohol involvement in boating accidents in NH
Fatalities, Injuries, Accidents with alcohol invoved:
2000 2, 4, 11,
2001 0, 2, 2,
2002 2, 5, 7,
2003 0, 0, 0,
2004 0, 2, 2,

Island Lover · 03-02-2006, 09:27 PM

Great News!

Think how much lower those numbers can go when we have a speed limit.

Skip · 03-02-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...Great News!...Think how much lower those numbers can go when we have a speed limit...

....and when we have "outlawed" swimming....

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 09:43 PM

My call sign and boat is Airwaves whenever you'd like to hail me do it on 16 then move to another channel.

ApS · 03-02-2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Actually the waters in NH ARE safer now than they were ten years ago! Why? BOATER EDUCATION! If you will go back and review even the past 5 years in the CG address that I provided you will see the number of accidents and fatalies in NH falling, I directly attribute that to BOATER EDUCATION!

Thank you for your opinion.

How bad was boating prior to this selective five-year search? The years coincide nicely with the boater education program, BTW.

(I think there are fewer boats on the big lake today primarily because it's become an open race course for entitled speedboaters.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

As for taking the word of a CG Chief Warrent Officer over Lt Dunleavy, I could be wrong (and if I am I have no doubt that I will hear it) but it's my understanding that Lt Dunleavy did his inital training on the water as a member of the United States Coast Guard!

A Chief Warrant Officer is a highly skilled and specialized position: Lt. Dunleavy serves in a politically-charged atmosphere, irrespective of where he got his "initial training".

Why else would Lt. Dunleavy refuse to give an estimate of the July 4th Winnipesaukee boat traffic—even when provided the means to calculate it accurately?

Fewer "speed bumps" = fewer accidents = fewer Marine Patrol responsibilities.

AND the MPs get to schmooze.

jrc · 03-02-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think some of you people need to study up on forensic accident reconstruction. It IS a science...

I'm sure boats create there own problems, there are no skid marks on the water. However the energy of the impact can still be calculated by the depth of damage, heat cracking etc.

The energy of impact along with the weight of the boats results in the speed of the vehicles. As in all science and engineering the is an expected percentage of error.

When measurements are plugged into a formula the answer is a calculation, not an estimate.

If you stick a whole bunch of estimates into a formula, you get a estimate out of the formula, no matter how complicated the formula. We engineers have a term for that, it's abbreviated GIGO.

The biggest estimate in this whole calculation is the speed of the Hartman's boat. All the energy, weights, skid marks, depth of damage, heat cracking etc. data is related to the relative speeds of the boats. The forensic scientist can calculate an estmated speed for the Littlefield boat relative to the Hartman boat. But the speed of the Hartman boat is a guess by the surviving people on the boat. They had no accurate speed measurement device. A boat speedometer is useless at the 6-7 mph. Which is the reported speed of the Hartman boat. So the police can calculate that Littlefield was going about 21-22 MPH (28 minus 6or7) faster than Hartman but they have only guesses on Hartman's speed. Just subtracting is over simplfying this because the boats did not hit exactly straight on, but the point is valid.

So what if they were going 3 MPH or 10 MPH then the calculated speed on Littlefield's boat would be 25 or 32. Can someone really tell the difference between 3 MPH and 7 MPH on a boat at night, without a GPS? The Hartman's weren't watching their speed, they were just taking a quiet ride home, when someone ran them down.

So if you read the court docs here

http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/...5/littl071.htm

you will see this "...At a speed of approximately twenty-eight miles per hour..." So the lawyers for Littlefield, the NH Attorney General and a Superior Court judge all understand that this is an approximation not an exact speed.

Island Lover · 03-02-2006, 10:25 PM

An approximation is a calculation with a tolerance.

A estimate is an educated guess.

Airwaves · 03-02-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Acres per Second:
How bad was boating prior to this selective five-year search? The years coincide nicely with the boater education program

,

They were were pretty bad, I wouldn't go out on weekends. Do the stats coincide with the NH boating education course? I Don't know, do they? So what where the stats prior to 2000? Do the homework yourself. Look them up!

Quote:

Originally posted by Acres per Second:
A Chief Warrant Officer is a highly skilled and specialized position: Lt. Dunleavy serves in a politically-charged atmosphere, irrespective of where he got his "initial training".

Why else would Lt. Dunleavy refuse to give an estimate of the July 4th Winnipesaukee boat traffic—even when provided the means to calculate it accurately?

I have no idea what you are talking about re: the number of boats watching a fireworks display? Is that what you are questioning this man's abilities on?

ITD · 03-03-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

An approximation is a calculation with a tolerance.

A estimate is an educated guess.

Wrong again............

ap·prox·i·ma·tion

( P ) Pronunciation Key (

-pr

k

s

-m

sh

n)
n.

The act, process, or result of approximating.
Mathematics. An inexact result adequate for a given purpose.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=approximation

Island Lover · 03-03-2006, 01:21 AM

You dictionary definition is correct. Now check out the engineering definition for tolerance. "Permissible deviation" is another way to express an "inexact result adequate for a given purpose"

tol·er·ance (tlr-ns)
n.
a. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a dimension, often expressed as a percent

Cal · 03-03-2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

You dictionary definition is correct. Now check out the engineering definition for tolerance. "Permissible deviation" is another way to express an "inexact result adequate for a given purpose"

tol·er·ance (tlr-ns)
n.
a. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a dimension, often expressed as a percent

Simply stated , it's ok to be wrong as long as your close

ApS · 03-03-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

They were were pretty bad, I wouldn't go out on weekends. Do the stats coincide with the NH boating education course? I Don't know, do they? So what where the stats prior to 2000? Do the homework yourself. Look them up!

For comparative statistics, it would be preferable to cite the identical source as yours—though the source is cited nowhere here. Are they on the Internet

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I have no idea what you are talking about re: the number of boats watching a fireworks display? Is that what you are questioning this man's abilities on?

Nooooo.

See post #29 in this thread.

Evenstar · 03-03-2006, 08:54 AM

Disclaimer: My “agenda” here is only to show why I feel we need a speed limit, so please don’t take this as a post against PWC – I’m just trying to show the need to slow down.

The rest of this post is directly taken from:

Hostile Waters - The Impacts of Personal Watercraft Use on Waterway Recreation – American Canoe Association - By David Jenkins
http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_pwc_ACAreport.pdf

“Each year the nation’s waterways become more and more crowded. While crowded waterways increase the risks associated with all types of waterway recreation, crowded waters become more dangerous when high-speed recreation mixes with other types of waterway use.”

… PWC, “comprising less than 10 percent of all vessels -- is involved in 55 percent of all collisions between vessels. In addition, recent data indicates that 70 percent of all PWC accidents are collisions with other vessels, fixed objects or floating objects. When combined with collisions with people swimming or otherwise outside a boat (struck by boat) that percentage climbs even higher.”

“Research conducted on the BARD database revealed a number of important findings. Between 1996 and 2000, 12,218 PWC were involved in collisions with other vessels.”

“For the past three years vessel-on-vessel collisions have accounted for 60 percent of all reported PWC accidents. For accidents that did not involve PWC, collisions with other vessels never accounted for more than 25 percent of the total. The average difference of 34 percentage points translates into a 150 percent higher frequency of collisions with vessels among PWC involved accidents.”

“PWCare designed and marketed for speed. It should be no surprise that excessive speed is consistently one of the most frequently reported causes of PWC accidents. In the 1998 NTSB study, excessive speed was the third most often cited PWC accident cause. In California, a state where PWC accidents have been carefully reviewed, excessive speed is the second most often cited cause for accidents involving PWC. The ACA review of PWCaccident data revealed that excessive speed was a likely factor in well over half of all PWC accidents.”

“ACA found many accidents where excessive speed was clearly indicated by the accident narrative, but not officially cited as a cause of the accident. Other accident causes such as careless/reckless and operator inattention were often officially cited as causes of accidents involving excessive speed.”

“The PWC accident data indicate thatPWC are more than twice as likely to be traveling in excess of 40 mph at the time of an accident than other vessel types. Injury data also point to speed as a prominent factor in PWC accidents. The injuries most often resulting from PWC accidents involve blunt-force trauma resulting from collisions. The USCG accident data for the year 2000 show that trauma accounted for over 90 percent of the reported injuries resulting from PWC accidents. The injury types -- amputation, broken bones, head injury, internal injury, contusions, spinal/back injury and laceration -- accounted for 1,214 of the 1,341PWC related injuries identified.”

“Speed may be an even greater problem in the future as PWC manufacturers continue to increase PWC power.”

ITD · 03-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

You dictionary definition is correct. Now check out the engineering definition for tolerance. "Permissible deviation" is another way to express an "inexact result adequate for a given purpose"

tol·er·ance (tlr-ns)
n.
a. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a dimension, often expressed as a percent

Ah, the crux of the matter. A tolerance is needed because the number presented is not absolute. In other words it could have been 28, it could have been 25, it could have been 20, it could have been 30.

Now that wasn't that hard to admit, was it?

Airwaves · 03-04-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Acres per Second:
I don't know either, but it's the same "up-to-date" source as Lt. Dunleavy's "Speed doesn't kill" statement!

"Lesser" boats are staying home, particularly on holiday weekends. I couldn't find a single gasoline-free boat in this July 4th aerial. http://www.lakesregionaerials.com/boat_traffic.htm

They're staying home folks, and that's why Winnipesaukee is "safer" today.

I pointed out in another post that Lt. Dunleavy never made a statement that said "Speed doesn't kill"! What Lt. Dunleavy said in the newspaper article was

Quote:

"“Few boating accidents in the state are caused by speeding, according to the New Hampshire Marine Patrol.
Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities."

As for not giving an estimate on the number of boats on the lake on teh 4th of July? Who cares? Quite frankly I wouldn't give one either, even based on those photos, since I can't be certain when and where they were taken.

Quote:

Originally posted by Acres per Second
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
They were were pretty bad, I wouldn't go out on weekends. Do the stats coincide with the NH boating education course? I Don't know, do they? So what where the stats prior to 2000? Do the homework yourself. Look them up!

For comparative statistics, it would be preferable to cite the identical source as yours—though the source is cited nowhere here. Are they on the Internet

Check out post #3 on this thread, it even provides a link.

Quote:

Originally posted by Acres per Second
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
Actually the waters in NH ARE safer now than they were ten years ago! Why? BOATER EDUCATION! If you will go back and review even the past 5 years in the CG address that I provided you will see the number of accidents and fatalies in NH falling, I directly attribute that to BOATER EDUCATION!

Thank you for your opinion.

How bad was boating prior to this selective five-year search? The years coincide nicely with the boater education program, BTW.

(I think there are fewer boats on the big lake today primarily because it's become an open race course for entitled speedboaters.)

You're welcome for my opinion.

I find it confusing

that your post has such a negative tone to the benefits of boater education. I can't believe that you'd be happier if the trend of accidents were going in the other direction

Dave R · 03-04-2006, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Hostile Waters - The Impacts of Personal Watercraft Use on Waterway Recreation – American Canoe Association - By David Jenkins

This is interesting but really has very little to do with the speed limit debate. Most PWCs barely exceed 50 MPH and therefore won't really be affected by the speed limit when one considers the +5 to +15 MPH law enforcement folks typically allow on top of speed limits. Also, wakes from boats on busy days tend to keep PWC speed down below 45MPH most of the time.

I'd also like to see the PWC accident statistics for NH lakes since with the 150' rule, PWC collisions should be substantially less of a problem here. If they ARE a problem, then it's quite obvious that the 150' rule is being flagrantly violated so one could easily and correctly assume that speed limits will be just as flagrantly violated by the same folks.

In my experience on Winnipesaukee, PWCs are actually not much of a safety problem at all. The PWCs I see seem to be operated with more caution than most other craft, though there's usually an idiot or two in the mix like in any activity.

Evenstar · 03-04-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

This is interesting but really has very little to do with the speed limit debate. Most PWCs barely exceed 50 MPH and therefore won't really be affected by the speed limit when one considers the +5 to +15 MPH law enforcement folks typically allow on top of speed limits. Also, wakes from boats on busy days tend to keep PWC speed down below 45MPH most of the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

I'd also like to see the PWC accident statistics for NH lakes since with the 150' rule, PWC collisions should be substantially less of a problem here. If they ARE a problem, then it's quite obvious that the 150' rule is being flagrantly violated so one could easily and correctly assume that speed limits will be just as flagrantly violated by the same folks.

In my experience on Winnipesaukee, PWCs are actually not much of a safety problem at all. The PWCs I see seem to be operated with more caution than most other craft, though there's usually an idiot or two in the mix like in any activity.

One of the main concerns of the study (the last line in my previous post), was that PWC are getting more powerful (and faster). I did a quick search and here are what some 2005 and 2006 production models are capable of:

2005 Yamaha VX110 – 110 hp - “ averaged a respectable top speed of 51.85 mph”: http://www.watercraftworld.com/output.cfm?id=975331

2005 Sea-Doo GTX SC – 185 hp – “The fastest I have had her going (according to both the digital and analog speedo's) with just myself on it is 67 mph, and have had it going 64 mph with three of us on it.”

2006 Sea-Doo's RXP – 215 hp - does 0 to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277266.html
“I was amazed at how fast this thing is. I am a big guy, 450lbs and the all-new digital speedo said 81 MPH. I mean that was nuts. I let a buddy who is 200 lbs lighter ride and he had it up to 90 MPH.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/enthusiasts/review_detail.asp?rv=35844&veh=24204

2005 Yamaha WaveRunner® FX Cruiser: “I had this up to 61 mph with me, 280 pounds, on it without any modifications.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/motorcyclereviewdetail/rv=31028/veh=13829/review31028.htm

2006 Yamaha GP® 1300R – 170 hp - this is one very fast jetski NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED approx 85+ mph (real scary speed) http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/view/F85118/

2006 Honda AquaTrax F-12X – “Dumping 165 hp into a watercraft that weighs just over 700 pounds is like giving Kentucky Derby winner Monarchos the whip. I have to strain to keep from being tossed off, and within seconds the speedometer is reading 68 mph.” http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277116.html

You guys really amaze me. Many of you claim that there’s no relationship between speed and accidents. Then when someone posts a report that shows a definite connection, you try to just dismiss it.

By claiming that the posted report has “very little to do with the speed limit debate.”

Or that the poster misquoted the information (Even though I post my links).

Or that the 150 foot rule was violated, so the speed doesn’t even matter. (Guess what? In any collision, when either vessel was traveling faster than headway speed, the 150 foot rule has been violated.)

Or that the information in the report doesn't apply to Winnipesauskee. (HB-162 is for a speed limit on all NH lakes and rivers, not just Winni)

ApS · 03-05-2006, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

"This is interesting but really has very little to do with the speed limit debate. Most PWCs barely exceed 50 MPH..."

Well, I agree that there is much less to fear from a PWC "hit".

However, you previously described your own boat as "twitchy" at 50MPH. Wouldn't HB162 limit the number of boats on Winnipesaukee on the edge of control?

Woodsy · 03-06-2006, 09:23 AM

I think there are more people boating on Lake Winnipesaukee now than ten years ago! But I really don't expect the number of boats & people using the Lake to jump in any sort of exponential way. Let me explain..

I think Lake Winnipesaukee is pretty much built out boatwise. There have been no new marinas opened in long time, and there is no commercially viable land left on Lake Winnipesaukee that will support a new marina. None of the towns that house the marinas are allowing them to build any more rack storage for boats. The public launches around the lake have very limited parking and on most summer weekends the parking lots fill early. In short, there is no place for a large influx of new boats to go.

Quite frankly, I really don't care how bad boating was 10, 20 or thirty years ago. its the past! I really don't care that someone hit an island in a Cigarette boat in 1975.. The legislature enacted a BSC requirement because of those older concerns. I am concerned with how safe boating has been since the enactment of the BSC requirement. Since then boating accidents are down 68%! Boater Education works!

Woodsy

Lakewinniboater · 03-06-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

That is an unreasonable assumption! How about the fact that there is NO LAKE in MA that is the size of Winnipesaukee. They may not like Ocean boating, maybe they have family here, maybe they grew up boating on this lake, maybe that it is a quick drive and a large open body of water.

I for one, know that I do not enjoy the lakes of MA. They are too small and do not provide the entertainment ON THE WATER that Winni does.

Not to mention that I own property on the lake. However, are you inferring even further that because I do not support HB 162 and that I live and earn my money in MA, that I should not have the right to enjoy Winni?

Considering the property taxes that I pay, I would disagree.

Let's remember that this lake is no one group of people's property! No one owns the water. It is owned by the state of Nh and there for every American (and visitor's) use.

Just thought that I would clarify

BroadHopper · 03-06-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

I will have to disagree. There are lakes in Massachusetts that don't have speed limits. I have a friend that owns property on Webster Lake on the Mass, Conn border. He says that is the first time he heard of it. Many of the bass boats on that lake are buzzing around at twice that speed. You won't see the deep vees on that lake as it is very swallow and it is difficult to get on plane. Most of the lakes in Mass. don't even have bouys! The ones I've been on have plastic milk bottles floating on the surface designating underwater hazards. I have to laugh as the locals on the lake calls underwater hazards: 'sunken islands'.

GusMan · 03-06-2006, 03:17 PM

Well, Broadhooper... you can disagree all you want, but you and your friend on Webster Lake would still be wrong. There is a state-wide speed limit in Massachusetts.... 45 MPH. Been there for a while.

Oh, but you say there are boats that still exceed the limit?? How can that be??? It's against the law?? Therein lies the problem... enforcement.

Webster Lake may be the most heavily patrolled lake in Massachusetts. State Marine Patrol and Local police departments both have officers on the lake all the time... in marked and unmarked watercraft yet still, the speed limit is exceeded. Morons are everywhere... new laws won't change that.

Now... lets look at Winnie.... I'm there all the time.... Is it crazy??? Yeah, sometimes... but mostly it's relatively OK. But guess what... nearly every single time I'm on that lake.... I witness an infraction of the 150 foot rule. How long has that law been on the books? Again, never enforced.

Obviously, if the 150 foot rule was obeyed (which will never happen) there would *never* be an accident involving boats even remotely approaching what the proposed speed limit is.

The problem??? Irresponsible morons. And guess what... irresponsible morons aren't bright enough to avoid "accidents" at any speed.

Oh... and just so you don't think I'm running around in the "Summa Humma" or anything... I've been bass fishing winnie for more than two decades in a 16 foot aluminum bass boat.. first with a 20 HP motor and now with a 75 HP motor.... top speed?? mid 30's..... maybe.

Cheers....

Gusman

Dave R · 03-06-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

One of the main concerns of the study (the last line in my previous post), was that PWC are getting more powerful (and faster). I did a quick search and here are what some 2005 and 2006 production models are capable of:

2005 Yamaha VX110 – 110 hp - “ averaged a respectable top speed of 51.85 mph”: http://www.watercraftworld.com/output.cfm?id=975331

2005 Sea-Doo GTX SC – 185 hp – “The fastest I have had her going (according to both the digital and analog speedo's) with just myself on it is 67 mph, and have had it going 64 mph with three of us on it.”

2006 Sea-Doo's RXP – 215 hp - does 0 to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277266.html
“I was amazed at how fast this thing is. I am a big guy, 450lbs and the all-new digital speedo said 81 MPH. I mean that was nuts. I let a buddy who is 200 lbs lighter ride and he had it up to 90 MPH.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/enthusiasts/review_detail.asp?rv=35844&veh=24204

2005 Yamaha WaveRunner® FX Cruiser: “I had this up to 61 mph with me, 280 pounds, on it without any modifications.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/motorcyclereviewdetail/rv=31028/veh=13829/review31028.htm

2006 Yamaha GP® 1300R – 170 hp - this is one very fast jetski NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED approx 85+ mph (real scary speed) http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/view/F85118/

2006 Honda AquaTrax F-12X – “Dumping 165 hp into a watercraft that weighs just over 700 pounds is like giving Kentucky Derby winner Monarchos the whip. I have to strain to keep from being tossed off, and within seconds the speedometer is reading 68 mph.” http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277116.html

You guys really amaze me. Many of you claim that there’s no relationship between speed and accidents. Then when someone posts a report that shows a definite connection, you try to just dismiss it.

By claiming that the posted report has “very little to do with the speed limit debate.”

Or that the poster misquoted the information (Even though I post my links).

Or that the 150 foot rule was violated, so the speed doesn’t even matter. (Guess what? In any collision, when either vessel was traveling faster than headway speed, the 150 foot rule has been violated.)

Or that the information in the report doesn't apply to Winnipesauskee. (HB-162 is for a speed limit on all NH lakes and rivers, not just Winni)

You've made two big assumptions here, one that folks only buy the most powerful PWCs offered, and two, that everyone has a late model PWC. I still stand by my statement that most PWCs barely exceed 50 MPH. There are scads of older and less powerful machines out there on the lake.

My point about the 150' law is that most states don't have such a law and that the report you quoted from is not NH specific. If it includes statistics from states that don't have a 150' law, then it's not nearly as relevant an argument here in NH. We already have an excellent 150' law that works perfectly at preventing collisions at speed, when it's obeyed. It can make a HUGE difference on a machine that typically loses all directional control when the opertaor releases the throttle. With a 150 feet to slow down or turn, the odds of a collision are drastically reduced. With 50 feet to slow down or turn, a collision is far more likely. See my point? If not, please study why so many PWCs are involved in collisions. I think you'll find that the inability to steer is the main cause, not speed, per se.

Last time I looked, this was a Winnipesaukee forum, hence the Winnipesaukee reference.

Dave R · 03-06-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Well, I agree that there is much less to fear from a PWC "hit".

However, you previously described your own boat as "twitchy" at 50MPH. Wouldn't HB162 limit the number of boats on Winnipesaukee on the edge of control?

Assuming "twitchy" means "on the edge of control", sure. That's a pretty big leap though.

ITD · 03-06-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

One of the main concerns of the study (the last line in my previous post), was that PWC are getting more powerful (and faster). I did a quick search and here are what some 2005 and 2006 production models are capable of:

2005 Yamaha VX110 – 110 hp - “ averaged a respectable top speed of 51.85 mph”: http://www.watercraftworld.com/output.cfm?id=975331

2005 Sea-Doo GTX SC – 185 hp – “The fastest I have had her going (according to both the digital and analog speedo's) with just myself on it is 67 mph, and have had it going 64 mph with three of us on it.”

2006 Sea-Doo's RXP – 215 hp - does 0 to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277266.html
“I was amazed at how fast this thing is. I am a big guy, 450lbs and the all-new digital speedo said 81 MPH. I mean that was nuts. I let a buddy who is 200 lbs lighter ride and he had it up to 90 MPH.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/enthusiasts/review_detail.asp?rv=35844&veh=24204

2005 Yamaha WaveRunner® FX Cruiser: “I had this up to 61 mph with me, 280 pounds, on it without any modifications.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/motorcyclereviewdetail/rv=31028/veh=13829/review31028.htm

2006 Yamaha GP® 1300R – 170 hp - this is one very fast jetski NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED approx 85+ mph (real scary speed) http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/view/F85118/

2006 Honda AquaTrax F-12X – “Dumping 165 hp into a watercraft that weighs just over 700 pounds is like giving Kentucky Derby winner Monarchos the whip. I have to strain to keep from being tossed off, and within seconds the speedometer is reading 68 mph.” http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277116.html

You guys really amaze me. Many of you claim that there’s no relationship between speed and accidents. Then when someone posts a report that shows a definite connection, you try to just dismiss it.

By claiming that the posted report has “very little to do with the speed limit debate.”

Or that the poster misquoted the information (Even though I post my links).

Or that the 150 foot rule was violated, so the speed doesn’t even matter. (Guess what? In any collision, when either vessel was traveling faster than headway speed, the 150 foot rule has been violated.)

Or that the information in the report doesn't apply to Winnipesauskee. (HB-162 is for a speed limit on all NH lakes and rivers, not just Winni)

Wow Evenstar, I'm not even going to check your HP numbers although some of the speeds seem to be a stretch but I'll just give to you the fact that all the PWCs listed will go faster than 45mph.

You know what though, your posts are getting better but you are still the same person who posted as though you had many bad experiences on Winni. when in fact you had never been on the lake with your kayak. So I always view your posts with an ounce of skepticism.

Now after months of asking for data to support your claims you've started to try to do so. The problem I have is that you are drawing conclusions that are a stretch for supporting the original argument which is whether or not there is a need for a speed limit on Winni.

Here is a line that I think is just plain wrong :

"It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions ... are reduced as speed is reduced."

Now I know you are parafrasing a Coast Guard CO, but just because someone took the time to write it down doesn't mean it's true. It just doesn't make sense, as I said before, if this were true there would be many more highway accidents than city road accidents.

This speed limit is not going to make it safe for you to travel anyplace you want on the lake. There are few lakes in NH where a motorboat can be used as practically as on Winnipesaukee. There are hundreds of lakes and rivers in NH where you can use your kayak. There are hundreds of places on Winni. where you can use your kayak and never see a motor boat. You want to be out in the middle of lake in your kayak and feel safe. It will still not be safe for you to be in the middle of the lake with a 45mph speed limit. Imposing your speed limit on everyone else because you've decided you want to kayak across the Broads once in a while is just not right.

BroadHopper · 03-06-2006, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GusMan

Well, Broadhooper... you can disagree all you want, but you and your friend on Webster Lake would still be wrong. There is a state-wide speed limit in Massachusetts.... 45 MPH. Been there for a while.

Oh, but you say there are boats that still exceed the limit?? How can that be??? It's against the law?? Therein lies the problem... enforcement.

Webster Lake may be the most heavily patrolled lake in Massachusetts. State Marine Patrol and Local police departments both have officers on the lake all the time... in marked and unmarked watercraft yet still, the speed limit is exceeded. Morons are everywhere... new laws won't change that.

Gusman

Because Mass. do not have a safe passage law, I don't feel safe at all. Even on Webster Lake, I get water spray by each passing boat! I fell far safer on Lake Winnie because of the safe passage law. Not because of the speed limit.
There is another lake I am familiar with on the Mass., NH border. The are so many young kids on Long Pond with PWC's, it feels like the Wild West. So where are the law enforcements?????

That is what I am trying to point out. How can we add new laws if the NH MP does not have the manpower to enfoce the existing laws????

codeman671 · 03-06-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

One of the main concerns of the study (the last line in my previous post), was that PWC are getting more powerful (and faster). I did a quick search and here are what some 2005 and 2006 production models are capable of:

2005 Yamaha VX110 – 110 hp - “ averaged a respectable top speed of 51.85 mph”: http://www.watercraftworld.com/output.cfm?id=975331

2005 Sea-Doo GTX SC – 185 hp – “The fastest I have had her going (according to both the digital and analog speedo's) with just myself on it is 67 mph, and have had it going 64 mph with three of us on it.”

2006 Sea-Doo's RXP – 215 hp - does 0 to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277266.html
“I was amazed at how fast this thing is. I am a big guy, 450lbs and the all-new digital speedo said 81 MPH. I mean that was nuts. I let a buddy who is 200 lbs lighter ride and he had it up to 90 MPH.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/enthusiasts/review_detail.asp?rv=35844&veh=24204

2005 Yamaha WaveRunner® FX Cruiser: “I had this up to 61 mph with me, 280 pounds, on it without any modifications.” http://www.powersportsnetwork.com/motorcyclereviewdetail/rv=31028/veh=13829/review31028.htm

2006 Yamaha GP® 1300R – 170 hp - this is one very fast jetski NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED approx 85+ mph (real scary speed) http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/view/F85118/

2006 Honda AquaTrax F-12X – “Dumping 165 hp into a watercraft that weighs just over 700 pounds is like giving Kentucky Derby winner Monarchos the whip. I have to strain to keep from being tossed off, and within seconds the speedometer is reading 68 mph.” http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/boating/1277116.html

You guys really amaze me. Many of you claim that there’s no relationship between speed and accidents. Then when someone posts a report that shows a definite connection, you try to just dismiss it.

By claiming that the posted report has “very little to do with the speed limit debate.”

Or that the poster misquoted the information (Even though I post my links).

Or that the 150 foot rule was violated, so the speed doesn’t even matter. (Guess what? In any collision, when either vessel was traveling faster than headway speed, the 150 foot rule has been violated.)

Or that the information in the report doesn't apply to Winnipesauskee. (HB-162 is for a speed limit on all NH lakes and rivers, not just Winni)

I am an experienced personal watercraft owner and have owned and/or operated many of the machines on this list. Most of the speed limits listed are "speedo" (or "dreamo" as it is called) miles per hour and not actual mph. There is no stock factory watercraft on the market that will do over 70-71mph. The fastest production watercraft is the Sea Doo RXP 2 seater and it has to be absolute perfect conditions to touch 70mph. Any moron that claims to be hitting 85-90mph on a stock ride is simply that, a moron. The HP ratings did all look accurate.

jrc · 03-06-2006, 10:40 PM

APS
Surely, no one on either side of HB-162 advocates operating a boat "beyond the edge of control"? The speed at which controlling a boat becomes diffcult varies greatly with the design of the boat. I know some 12' outboard driven jon boats can easily obtain uncontrollable speeds, well below 45 MPH. They can be twitchy at 10 MPH.

Evenstar · 03-06-2006, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

You know what though, your posts are getting better but you are still the same person who posted as though you had many bad experiences on Winni. when in fact you had never been on the lake with your kayak. So I always view your posts with an ounce of skepticism.

Hey, I’ve always been totally honest about my kayaking experiences: In one of my very first posts (04/04/05) on this forum I wrote: “I'm just wondering why Lake Winnipesaukee is being singled out for a bill to impose a limit on speed. Why not a state speed limit for all lakes? After all, aren't high speeds likely to be even more dangerous on smaller lakes?” [Hmmm, I actually wrote that before HB-162 was changed to include all NH lakes and rivers] “I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me.”

And again, on 04/20/05, I wrote: “Like I explained, I have been to the lake many times, I just haven't been on it in my kayak yet.”

Quote:

Now after months of asking for data to support your claims you've started to try to do so. The problem I have is that you are drawing conclusions that are a stretch for supporting the original argument which is whether or not there is a need for a speed limit on Winni.
Here is a line that I think is just plain wrong :
"It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions ... are reduced as speed is reduced." Now I know you are parafrasing a Coast Guard CO, but just because someone took the time to write it down doesn't mean it's true.

I wasn’t paraphrasing anything. Go back and read the first post in this thread, and then check out the link that I posted instead of accusing me of drawing false conclusions, or of misquoting someone. That statement was from Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski - Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce. His credibility seems pretty good to me.

There are times when I'm obviously giving my opinion (just like everyone else here does), but I've also provided as much data (with sources and links) as anyone here (and way more than most).

Quote:

...There are hundreds of lakes and rivers in NH where you can use your kayak. There are hundreds of places on Winni. where you can use your kayak and never see a motor boat.

Now who’s making unsupported claims? How many NH lakes are big enough to go 20 miles on, without going in circles? (Hint, there are at most, 10 or 12 NH lakes that are large enough.) Give me the name of just one NH lake or river that is big enough to really use a sea kayak on that doesn’t have motorboats on it.

Quote:

You want to be out in the middle of lake in your kayak and feel safe. It will still not be safe for you to be in the middle of the lake with a 45mph speed limit.

How can you state that it won’t be safe for me to be out in the middle of Winni, if there was a 45mph speed limit? Give me just one good reason.

jrc · 03-07-2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How can you state that it won’t be safe for me to be out in the middle of Winni, if there was a 45mph speed limit? Give me just one good reason.

I think this has been covered before. By any objective measure, the overwhelming factor in collision danger is the volume boats and the skill of the operators not the speed of the boats. Also as discussed before the biggest danger to a kayaker in the broads is cold water. HB-162 doesn't address these issues so you won't be any safer.

How can you be so fearful of a statistically insignificant danger?

Dave R · 03-07-2006, 07:40 AM

In case I wasn't clear in my earlier post on the subject, most PWCs have no steering control when the operator releases the throttle because the steering is provided by thrust vectoring. With no thrust to vector, there's no steering. This is a common factor in PWC accidents since the first thing most folks do when faced with an imminent collision is try to slow down rather than steer hard and get hard on the gas to avoid the collision.

I just read an article about PWCs in the latest issue of BoatUS. Many new PWCs come with off-throttle steering now and they predicted that in 2007 all new PWCs would come with that feature. Should really cut down on accidents. The newest PWCs are also very quiet and statistically, are being purchased by a more mature crowd. The article also states that in Florida, PWC accidents have been on a steady decline from 451 accidents in 1997 to 169 accidents in 2004. Love to hear how this meshes with David Jenkin's numbers. Oh wait, he didn't publish any hard numbers, only percentages... Have to wonder if he used percentages because the actual number of accidents is declining. Still like the see the PWC stats for NH though. That's the real issue here

Evenstar · 03-07-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

I think this has been covered before. By any objective measure, the overwhelming factor in collision danger is the volume boats and the skill of the operators not the speed of the boats. Also as discussed before the biggest danger to a kayaker in the broads is cold water. HB-162 doesn't address these issues so you won't be any safer.

I wear cold water gear when the water is cold, including wetsuit, drytop. The water in Winni isn't any colder than any other northern lake. Being out on cold water isn't dangerous, when you're wearing the proper clothing.

I agree that there's a relationship between colissions and the number of boats per square mile. But there's also a connection between speed and collisions. HB-162 will slow down powerboats, which I believe will make me safer.

Quote:

How can you be so fearful of a statistically insignificant danger?

Hi-speed collisions are not statistically insignificant. This is not just my opinion.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski summarized it as: "The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced."

Hostile Waters - The Impacts of Personal Watercraft Use on Waterway Recreation - American Canoe Association states: “PWC are designed and marketed for speed. It should be no surprise that excessive speed is consistently one of the most frequently reported causes of PWC accidents. ... The ACA review of PWC accident data revealed that excessive speed was a likely factor in well over half of all PWC accidents.” .... “The PWC accident data indicate that PWC are more than twice as likely to be traveling in excess of 40 mph at the time of an accident than other vessel types. Injury data also point to speed as a prominent factor in PWC accidents."

ITD · 03-07-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How can you state that it won’t be safe for me to be out in the middle of Winni, if there was a 45mph speed limit? Give me just one good reason.

One Good Reason:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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

You obviously felt unsafe, speed limit didn't help you there.

Reason for the skepticism:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've kayaked a great deal on Squam, even on busy weekends, and have never felt unsafe on that lake. I can't say that about Winni. And the waves and the wind were not why I felt unsafe on Winni.

{bold added by ITD}

Evenstar · 03-07-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

One Good Reason:
You obviously felt unsafe, speed limit didn't help you there.

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

I never said that I felt at all unsafe at the time. The operator of the powerboat obviously saw us, so we never felt like he might get close enough to hit us.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did. My kayak has both front and rear sealed (watertight) compartments, so my kayak will not sink even if the cockpit fills completely with water.

The powerboat operator broke the 150 foot law. But just because one law gets broken, that doesn't negate other laws, or show that other laws are not necessary.

GWC... · 03-07-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If you're going to quote me, please keep my quotes in the context that I wrote them. You are twisting what I actually wrote.
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.

Quote:

The advantage of a whistle is that they are small and can be worn around the neck. I keep one in my pfd zippered pouch, along with a signal mirror. An air horn has to be stowed, so it's not as fast to get to. Plus, if you end up swimming, you might not be able to get to the air horn in your boat.

Handless bailing - how interesting. Where do you keep the battery to operate the pump?

The horn device mentioned by link and picture is mouth operated and attached to a lanyard, as is a whistle, for the record.

Airwaves · 03-07-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evenstar:
Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski summarized it as: "The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced."

Hostile Waters - The Impacts of Personal Watercraft Use on Waterway Recreation - American Canoe Association states: “PWC are designed and marketed for speed. It should be no surprise that excessive speed is consistently one of the most frequently reported causes of PWC accidents. ... The ACA review of PWC accident data revealed that excessive speed was a likely factor in well over half of all PWC accidents.”

So tell me how quoting a former Commanding Officier at a Coast Guard Station in Florida (who in all likelihood has never been on Winni) and The American Canoe Association looking at national numbers is relevant to Lake Winnipesaukee especailly when the marine law enforcement agency that actually patrols the lake states speed is not a major factor in accidents on Winnipesaukee?

I thought HB 162 was about speed limits of 45/25 or are we beginning to see the second wave of the assault, banning PWCs?

Quote:

.... “The PWC accident data indicate that PWC are more than twice as likely to be traveling in excess of 40 mph at the time of an accident than other vessel types. Injury data also point to speed as a prominent factor in PWC accidents

And 40 mph would still be under the limits of HB162 so it helps how?

As I have posted in response to you prior, (that supporters of HB162 are still ignoring) Using the article you provided a link to, boating accidents in NH have decreased by 68% between 1999 and 2004, (109 to 35) that's almost double the percentage nationally.

BOATER EDUCATION IS WORKING, LET IT WORK!

ITD · 03-07-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

I never said that I felt at all unsafe at the time. The operator of the powerboat obviously saw us, so we never felt like he might get close enough to hit us.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did. My kayak has both front and rear sealed (watertight) compartments, so my kayak will not sink even if the cockpit fills completely with water.

The powerboat operator broke the 150 foot law. But just because one law gets broken, that doesn't negate other laws, or show that other laws are necessary.

So you don't feel unsafe around speeding boats. I don't understand any of your posts then, because you repeatedly say in other posts you feel unsafe around speeding boats. Or do the facts change with the argument?

Evenstar · 03-07-2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

Handless bailing - how interesting...

The horn device mentioned by link and picture is mouth operated, for the record.

Why do you guys feel the need to pick apart every post I make?

This stuff isn't all that difficult to figure out. If you just gave it a little thought, instead of just critizing me. I do know what I'm taking about, as far as kayaking goes.

For you guys, who are having trouble getting this:

When I'm worried that a speeding boat doesn't see me, I'm going to try my best to get out of his way if possible, and this requires using both arms. Besides that, the most visible part of a kayak is often the movement of the paddles. About the worse thing for me to do would be to stop paddling and just sit there, trying to make a noise that he's probably not even going to hear.

If a wake overflows into my cockpit, and there's no immediate danger, I'm free to stop paddling long enough to bail out my kayak. (If there's any other dangers, I just keep paddling until I'm in a safe place. Then I bail.)

Evenstar · 03-07-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

So you don't feel unsafe around speeding boats. I don't understand any of your posts then, because you repeatedly say in other posts you feel unsafe around speeding boats. Or do the facts change with the argument?

Goodness you guys are really getting pathetic!

No - I still feel unsafe around Speeding boats that are going at high speeds - and may not see me!

My argument has not changed. I explained this incident a long time ago: When I wrote "speeding boat", I just meant a boat that was going way faster than it should have been at that distance from us. That powerboat was not traveling at high speed and the operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us. The guy was showing off, but we never felt like we were in any danger of being hit by him.

Yes, he broke the 150 foot law, and I wasn't happy about that. He should never have been that close. Guys often come closer than they should, just to check us out - but most actually slow way down. But some guys seem to have trouble thinking straight when they are looking at females.

Cal · 03-07-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

So you don't feel unsafe around speeding boats. I don't understand any of your posts then, because you repeatedly say in other posts you feel unsafe around speeding boats. Or do the facts change with the argument?

Isn't it a girls prerogative to change her mind

. Maybe I better not go there

Woodsy · 03-08-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

How can you state that it won’t be safe for me to be out in the middle of Winni, if there was a 45mph speed limit? Give me just one good reason.

Evenstar...

What he should have said was that it will not be ANY safer for you... operator inattention, operator inexperience coupled with boat traffic and congestion are the biggest safety issues on Lake Winnipesaukee not speed. HB-162 does nothing to address these issues. There are NO instances of a canoe or kayak getting run over by a speeding boat! None, Zip, Zero, Nada, Empty Set! As I have stated before while paddling your kayak you have no accurate way of determining speed as the boat approaches you. It really doesn't matter if he approaches you at 25MPH, 45MPH or 70MPH. The difference in speed of 37 FPS is not discernable by you while you are paddling. If the boat comes within 150' of you he has broken the law... If we educate more people about the 150' safe passage law, then there will be less 150' incursions.

Truly boater education is the key... and it is working! Tightening up on the BSC laws, will certainly help improve safety.

Woodsy

Evenstar · 03-08-2006, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So tell me how quoting a former Commanding Officier at a Coast Guard Station in Florida (who in all likelihood has never been on Winni) and The American Canoe Association looking at national numbers is relevant to Lake Winnipesaukee especailly when the marine law enforcement agency that actually patrols the lake states speed is not a major factor in accidents on Winnipesaukee?

Opponents of a speed limit have repeated claimed that there's no relationship between higher speeds and accidents. Both of these sources said that there is a definite connection. If statistics actually show that more collisions happen at higher speeds, then there is a connection, even if you refuse to admit that these statistics apply to Winni.

Quote:

I thought HB 162 was about speed limits of 45/25 or are we beginning to see the second wave of the assault, banning PWCs?

My post was to show how collisions and speed are connected, and not an attack against all PWC. If that was my intention, then I would have used different quotes from the ACA report. I'm not out to ban any type of watercraft - I just want the fastest ones to slow down to a safer speed.

Quote:

And 40 mph would still be under the limits of HB162 so it helps how?

The quote doesn't say "40mph", it says "in excess of 40 mph" - 60mph is in excess of 40 mph.

Quote:

As I have posted in response to you prior, (that supporters of HB162 are still ignoring) Using the article you provided a link to, boating accidents in NH have decreased by 68% between 1999 and 2004, (109 to 35) that's almost double the percentage nationally.

A number of the supporters of HB-162 have addressed those statistics many times. I've brought up the fact several times that not all boating accidents make it into the USGC reports, plus the argument that smaller boats have been using Winni less in recent years. There are other possible reasons for a lower number of REPORTED accidents in 2004. For one thing, it was one of the coldest and wettest summer in recent years, which likely has some impact.

Overall, NH doesn't have a very good boating safety record compared with our neighboring states, which is something that the opponents to HB-162 are ignoring.

GWC... · 03-08-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This stuff isn't all that difficult to figure out. If you just gave it a little thought, instead of just critizing me. I do know what I'm taking about, as far as kayaking goes.

When I'm worried that a speeding boat doesn't see me, I'm going to try my best to get out of his way if possible, and this requires using both arms.

(If there's any other dangers, I just keep paddling until I'm in a safe place. Then I bail.)

Seriously, how long does it take to put a sound device, attached to a lanyard you wear, in your mouth to enable you to toot and paddle at the same time, should the need arise?

Per your advice...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This stuff isn't all that difficult to figure out.

ITD · 03-08-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're skepticism is completely due to you drawing the wrong conclusions again - and not from what I actually wrote.

I never said that I felt at all unsafe at the time. The operator of the powerboat obviously saw us, so we never felt like he might get close enough to hit us.

Being swamped in a kayak just means that water pours into your cockpit. It's annoying, but doesn't necessarily feel unsafe. Usually you just bail out (or pump out the water), which is what we did. My kayak has both front and rear sealed (watertight) compartments, so my kayak will not sink even if the cockpit fills completely with water.

The powerboat operator broke the 150 foot law. But just because one law gets broken, that doesn't negate other laws, or show that other laws are not necessary.

My skepticism comes from reading your posts and remembering what you say from one to the next.

The speeding boat post was in a thread concerning the 45 mph speed limit. Speeding implies a speed greater than the proposed limit. You getting swamped by a "speeding" boat troubles me. You see a "speeding" boat generally gives a small wake. If I believe all your posts a sea kayak would not get swamped by a small wake. So that leaves me to believe that the "speeding" boat was probably traveling below planing speed, which for sake of argument is about 15 mph (with a "tolerance"

). This troubles me because your definition of "speeding" is actually not that fast at all, in fact it seems to be below 45 mph. Now there is another definition "speeding at high speed", what's next, speeding at ludicrous speed?

Here's my problem, your information is incorrect in that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You have very limited experience on Winni. (once or twice) yet you try to make it sound unsafe and pass yourself off as knowing what you are talking about. We ask for statistics, you provide quotations. The statistics you do provide do not support your cause and you misinterpret them be it intentionally or through error.

Airwaves · 03-08-2006, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evenstar:
A number of the supporters of HB-162 have addressed those statistics many times. I've brought up the fact several times that not all boating accidents make it into the USGC reports,

Right, only the ones with over 2-thousand dollars or personal injuries. 2-Thousand dollars damage on a boat isn't much damage.

Quote:

Orginally posted by Evenstar:
plus the argument that smaller boats have been using Winni less in recent years.

I didn't bring this quote up in the past because it's just foolish. If you follow that line of thinking then the accident rate is dropping because small boats are not on the water! That would be the same as saying smaller boats are the cause of accidents on Winni, do away with them and the problem is solved.

Quote:

Original quote by Evenstar:
There are other possible reasons for a lower number of REPORTED accidents in 2004. For one thing, it was one of the coldest and wettest summer in recent years, which likely has some impact.

Weather plays a factor in boat traffic, and if the figures for 2004 were an anomaly I might consider it, however the trend for the past 6 years that stats are available show an annual decrease in accidents.

There was also a posting on another thread (and I am paraphrasing) that said boater education has no impact on safety! I found that one of the funniest posts I had recently read (no, it was not written by Evenstar). So now it's not Speed kills, it's Education kills!

Quote:

Original post by Evenstar:
Overall, NH doesn't have a very good boating safety record compared with our neighboring states, which is something that the opponents to HB-162 are ignoring.

NH's boating record has improved every year, and as I have posted prior, 35 accidents in 2004 involving a fleet of registered boats of over 101K (not including transient boats) is a pretty darn good record!

So, the Laconia paper mentioned the Senate committee was going to take this up today and vote on whether to recommend or not recommend it to the senate, any idea what happened?

Evenstar · 03-08-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

My skepticism comes from reading your posts and remembering what you say from one to the next.

Well, your memory is either very poor or extremely selective. If you don’t believe me, go to this post and read what I actually wrote almost a year ago: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15097&postcount=43

What right do you have to use your own definition for MY words to suit yourself!!! I was very specific about what I was writing about and I explained exactly what I meant. I defined my use of the word speeding in that old post, shortly after making it. And I also explained what I meant by the word swamping. (FYI: I bought my sea kayak last June – after I made that “swamping” post. My previous kayak was a day/light touring kayak, and I didn’t even have a spay skirt for that boat.)

Not that it’s any of your business, but I have a documented learning disability due to a severe head injury, which was the result of an accident I was involved in when I was little. The left side of my brain was badly damage, so language (especially writing) causes some real problems for me.

I work very hard at being clear in anything that I write. So it really frustrates me when you and others here try to add meanings to my posts that are not even in my words, or when you just ignore my explanations for what I honestly meant when I wrote my posts. I really don’t like being accused of lying or of changing my mind to suit my agenda. If you don’t get it yet my only agenda is safety for paddlers on NH’s lakes, and equal right to use our lakes – without feeling like we’re going to be run over. I'm not anti powerboat, anti PWC, or anti any other kind of boat.

I’ve always been completely open and honest about how much I’ve paddled on Winni. I have said many times that my paddling experience is mostly on other large NH lakes and on the Connecticut River. But HB-162 will affect all NH lakes and rivers.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience in anything than what I actually have.

It really doesn’t make any difference how many bad experiences I’ve had on Winni. The fact is that I did spend time kayaking out on the main lake last summer and I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph). I’m not exaggerating anything and I do honestly believe that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on, mostly due to the excessive speeds of some of the powerboats. And I’m not alone in having this opinion. My best friend was more scared out there than I was.

There’s nothing at all wrong with any of my information. You might not agree with them, but I believe they are all pretty good sources.

GWC... · 03-09-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It really doesn’t make any difference how many bad experiences I’ve had on Winni. The fact is that I did spend time kayaking out on the main lake last summer and I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph). I’m not exaggerating anything and I do honestly believe that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on, mostly due to the excessive speeds of some of the powerboats. And I’m not alone in having this opinion. My best friend was more scared out there than I was.

One should know one's limits and not exceed them.

You experienced a feeling of fear because you exceed your limits, as did your friend.

There are plenty of water bodies in NH were you are within your limits and are able to enjoy the experience without feeling fearful. Squam being one.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why do you feel a need to "spin" your posts to impose a speed limit upon others on a body of water that is obviously beyond your limits?

Why can you not enjoy the beauty of Squam and leave the Lake the way it is; rather than trying to impose your will upon those who enjoy the Lake as it is?

How happy would you be if a group of concerned citizens decided to seek legislation to ban kayaks from large bodies of water in NH, including Squam?

Squam has a speed limit. Great!

The Lake does not. Great!

Take a wild guess where you need to kayak so that you and your friend may enjoy life and all the pleasures Mother Nature offers.

Life is short - live within your limits and kayak were you are happy and feel safe. A beautiful place already exists where you and your friend may do just that - Squam.

Evenstar · 03-09-2006, 07:56 AM

[quote=GWC...]One should know one's limits and not exceed them.
You experienced a feeling of fear because you exceed your limits, as did your friend.[quote]
That’s just not true! Don’t you even read my posts? How were we exceeding our limits???? Our abilities had nothing at all to do with our fear. I posted this as clearly as I know how: “I honestly felt unsafe because of the number of boats that were traveling at high speeds (well about 45 mph).”

Quote:

Why do you feel a need to "spin" your posts to impose a speed limit upon others on a body of water that is obviously beyond your limits?

Winni is not beyond my limits – and my abilities have nothing whatsoever to do with a speed limit.

It’s easy to slam someone on a message board. Are you an expert paddler? You must be to think that you’re qualified to question the abilities of another paddler. How many miles did you kayaked last season? I can out paddle most guys and would be surprised it anyone on the forum could match my paddling abilities.

What right do you have to suggest that any NH resident doesn’t have the right to use any NH lake – without the fear of being run over? I certainly have the right to fight for any law that I believe in!

Paddlers were on Winni for centuries before powerboats. My grandfather canoed and kayaked on Winni over 50 years ago. Some of us are not willing to just hand Winni over to the hi-speed powerboats without a fight.

HB-162 doesn’t ban any type of vessel! If this law passes, you can still boat on Winni.

If you need to go faster than this law will permit – there’s this place called the OCEAN.

02-28-2006, 05:14 PM	#1
Evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Littleton, NH Posts: 382 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Collisions and Speed "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide. These collisions not only resulted in vessel damage but often resulted in serious personal injury or death. Often the collision will result in people on board being thrown overboard by the force of the impact. Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced." Source: Rules of the Road Summarized - By Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski - Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce. http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm __________________ "Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

03-01-2006, 02:46 PM	#10
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I am sure the death IL is talking about and is certainly passionate about is Mr. Hartman. I don't know the details about what "other" death IL has mentioned. IL has brought up since this debate began that the estimated speed of 28 MPH is 3 MPH greater than the proposed 25 MPH night time limit. In the real world, an extra 3 MPH wouldn't have changed anything. Danny Littlefield not drinking wine with dinner might have changed EVERYTHING! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-01-2006, 06:37 PM	#16
Evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Littleton, NH Posts: 382 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thats not the definition in my law books: adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. What this means is that any speeds above the speed limit are automatically rated as "not reasonable or prudent" and therefore are unlawful ... the burden would be on the defendant to prove otherwize. __________________ "Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

03-01-2006, 09:15 PM	#24
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	.....a Go Fast-Be Loud magnet! With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

03-01-2006, 09:33 PM	#25
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Perhaps a few, but I'd be willing to bet most of them head to the coast. As you point out the Mass speed limit is for inland waterways. (the following is an edit added at 12:04am) Massachusetts, with a population of 6-Million (your number) also has only 49 thousand more registered boats than NH. Last edited by Airwaves; 03-02-2006 at 12:03 AM.

02-28-2006, 10:22 PM	#2
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Evenstar... Why note quote up to date reports? Such as the USCG report for 2004? The quote you came up with references data that is 10 YEARS OLD! Lets use something a little more relevant. Let me guess? Because the current data doesn't support your argument? In the 2004 USCG report there were 1479 collisions with another vessel, resulting in 68 fatalities out of a possible 12,781,476 registered boats. More people die in car collisions! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

02-28-2006, 11:47 PM	#3
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	It really isn't fair to quote someone talking nationally, especially when the Marine Patrol apparently disagrees. So here are the stats that apply locally and the Marine Patrol comments on speed: New Hampshire Boating Accident Statistics, 2004 (the most recent year available) Source: http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...dent_stats.htm Number of boats registered: (excluding sailboats under 20’) 101,626 Number of accidents: 35 Number of fatalities: 2 Types of accidents: Collision with fixed object - 2 Collision with another vessel – 11 Ejected from vessel - 1 Falls with boat - 5 Falls on PWC - 1 Grounding - 3 Skier mishap - 1 Struck by boat - 2 Struck by motor or prop - 2 Struck submerged object - 3 Drowning - 1 Other deaths - 1 Total deaths - 2 Total injuries - 15 Alcohol related fatalities: 0 Alcohol related injured: 2 Accidents involving alcohol: 2 From the 1/31/06 Valley News Complete article at: http://www.vnews.com/01312006/2865287.htm “Few boating accidents in the state are caused by speeding, according to the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities. The state already has some laws governing speed on the water. Boaters are not allowed to go above headway speed-- idling speed-- if they are within 150 feet of another boat. The Marine Patrol has not taken an official position on the bill, but the patrol's head administrator questioned its merits in an interview yesterday. “I'm somewhat confused as to whether the proponents of the bill are trying to be discriminatory against a particular kind of boat, or if they think that the passing of such a law is going to curb the perceived carnage that's out there,” said David Barrett, the director of the Division of Safety Services. “It will be difficult to enforce, but if the legislature passes it, we'll deal with it. It will not yield the same results it does on the highway.” ****************************************** According to Coast Guard statistics there have been 320 boating accidents in the entire state of NH between 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately the CG Stats do not say where in the state the accidents occurred. **************************************** Massachusetts has had a 45 mile an hour speed limit law in place for years, here are the Boating Accidents Statistics for the Bay State in 2004 Number of boats registered: (all motorboats) 150,683 Number of accidents: 55 Number of fatalities: 9 Types of accidents; Capsizing - 8 Collision with fixed object - 10 Collision with floating object - 2 Collision with another vessel – 19 Falls within a boat- 2 Falls overboard - 4 Fire/Explosion/Fuel - 2 Flooding/swamping - 2 Grounding - 1 Sinking - 3 Struck submerged object - 2 Drownings - 6 Other deaths - 3 Total deaths - 9 Total injuries - 35 Alcohol related fatalities: 1 Alcohol related injuries: 7 Accidents involving alcohol: 4 **************************************** Like NH, the statistics do not break down where the accidents occurred, however unlike NH, Massachusetts has an extensive coastline and an active commercial fishing fleet that are included in the statistics along with recreational boaters. Massachusetts also does NOT have a mandatory boater education law as NH does. Now, the CG stats don't deal with "speed". They also don't break down the type of boat involved in the accident state by state (at least if they do I didn't see it) but it seems to me that 11 boat on boat collisions, 2 struck by boat and 2 struck by prop in 2004 out of a registered fleet of 101,626 vessels is a pretty good boating record!

03-01-2006, 11:18 AM	#5
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,860 Thanks: 461 Thanked 666 Times in 366 Posts	Island Lover, Please reference that accidents you speak of and the source for your conclusions. Once again I think you are wrong.

03-01-2006, 02:32 PM	#7
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Island Lover The data is not mine, it comes from reports issued by NH Marine Patrol to the Coast Guard. As you can see from the stats, there *were* 2 deaths reported in 2004. With all due respect, I will take Lt Dunleavy's comment regarding speed and fatalities over yours since this is his job.

03-01-2006, 02:42 PM	#9
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Airwaves Please don't try and wiggle out of your statement. You quoted the period 2000 to 2004. NOT 2004 alone.

03-01-2006, 04:17 PM	#14
John A. Birdsall Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Norwich, CT Posts: 599 Thanks: 27 Thanked 51 Times in 35 Posts	I would not question the LT. But in statements I have read on this thread it states I believe something about the speed limits on the lake not effecting the accidents. Now, if a boat is doing headway speed when it is within 150' how much damage will it cause? However, same boat going 30 mph and hits same object how much damage will it cause? Try that sober, then have two beers and hit the object at headway speed, and then again at 30 mph. Some have said the accidents are caused by achol, and that speed is not a factor. I feel that yes achol is a factor, but again so is speed. I think hitting an object at headway speed will not do as much damage as doing it at 30 mph, But with that said if everybody would tend to the 150' rule and have something that has been missing on the lake such as courtesy, then the speed limit bill would not be needed. Tell me something where was it said orginally that Kayaks, and canoes were speed bumps? was it the other kayaks and canoists statments or was it the big boats that go fast? At first I thought that was a funny statement until I hear peoples comments about it. Courtesy would go far in the lake along with obeying the current laws.

03-01-2006, 07:47 PM	#18
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Airwaves "Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities." You wrote the above quote. It is wrong! Admit it! SKIP You are also WRONG! 28 mph is "exceed the proposed limits". All the lawyers tricks in the world will not make 28 mph less than 25 mph. That you attempt to do so is insulting to the memory of the victim. Nobody claimed that 28 mph was a "violation of the law". However 28 mph exceeds the proposed limits in every part of the universe except an attorneys brain.

03-01-2006, 08:36 PM	#20
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Skip Legal technicalities are not involved here. No explanations are required. The quote attributed to Lt. Dunleavy states that there were no fatal accidents involving speeds greater than proposed. The proposed nighttime speed limit is 25 mph the speed of the boat was calculated to be 28 mph. Understanding nuances of the law is not necessary. We are not trying to convict somebody here. The only question is if 28 is greater than 25. And no matter how much you dislike HB162, 28 is greater than 25. By your theory the statement would be correct if there were 100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph. THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT!

03-01-2006, 08:48 PM	#21
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	The was a fatal accident in 2002 involving a speed greater than proposed. No other interpretation is possible.

03-01-2006, 10:56 PM	#26
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,757 Thanks: 31 Thanked 429 Times in 203 Posts	Airwaves Who wrote the quote in the first place is not important. The quote is inaccurate. Or do you disagree?

03-02-2006, 01:18 AM	#28
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	I have met Lt. Dunleavy several times. I have an email in to him at this time. I doubt he made that quote in that way because it is obviously and demonstrably wrong. I think this is one time when you should be able to figure things out for yourself. There was a fatal accident in Meredith in 2002. The Marine Patrol determined the speed of the boat to be 28 mph. These are facts not in dispute. Therefore the statement is incorrect. Some point out that the MP might be wrong about the speed, and many believe that only 3 mph over the proposed limit is insignificant. That doesn't change the reality that the statement as quoted is incorrect.

03-02-2006, 08:33 AM	#30
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	[QUOTE=Island Lover] The Marine Patrol determined the speed of the boat to be 28 mph. These are facts not in dispute. Therefore the statement is incorrect. Some point out that the MP might be wrong about the speed, and many believe that only 3 mph over the proposed limit is insignificant. [QUOTE] The Marine Patrol ESTIMATED the speed to be 28 mph. May I respectfully suggest you look that up in your Websters or Funk and Wagnalls. Given the inaccuracy and design of the faces , trying to obtain accuracy , 3 mph at 25 to 28 is hard to determine. Now throw in darkness and what angle your looking at it from(standing or sitting) it become more difficult. And lets not forget , the whole time you have to be keeping a lookout ahead. Now if you still believe 3 mph is SO significant , may I suggest you sit in the back of a boat and get struck from behind at 25 mph I wouldn't want to. Now you see the point , how INSIGNIFICANT 3 mph really is. Attached Images __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

03-02-2006, 01:08 PM	#32
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce Never mind, I looked it up myself. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, where today it it 79 degrees. So, those of you who boat in Florida want to chime in and explain the differences between boating on Florida waters and boating on Lake Winnipesaukee? Perhaps even compare the number of boats in both states?

03-02-2006, 04:25 PM	#33
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hi Airwaves There was a fatal accident in 2002. Therefore the quote is not true. Are you suggesting the accident didn't happen? Are you saying the MP didn't testify in court that the speed was 28 mph? Are you not aware that the proposed night time limit is 25 mph? I don't understand your point here. Please explain.

03-02-2006, 05:19 PM	#34
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	In 2002 there were 68 accidents, 3 of them involved fatalities with 3 deaths on NH waters. Not having been in court I can't tell you what MP testified to in this particular case, but I can tell you that the 28 miles an hour was an estimate of speed. It could have been higher, it could have been lower. It was an estimate. Unless of course you are implying there was a Marine Patrol boat on scene and the officer was using a radar gun to clock the speed of the offending boat. So Lt Dunleavy's statement was NOT incorrect because the speed involved was an estimate. Time to move on.

03-02-2006, 06:00 PM	#35
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,360 Thanks: 210 Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts	Littlefield... Island lover, if Danny had been written a measly $50 speeding ticket would that have made you feel better??? Your friend is still gone and nothing can change it. Bickering over a POSSIBLE but not PROVEN 3mph difference solves nothing. I am sure others would concur that 3mph over a speed limit if even proven is not reckless operation. Just a measly speeding ticket which probably would never have been written in the first place. I bet we can take up a collection to pay the speeding ticket which you seem to think he should have received and stop the complaining. Anyone in?

03-02-2006, 06:06 PM	#36
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Just the facts ma'am Mandated boater education in NH is working! Let's take a look at the statistics: 2000, 94 accidents, 7 involving fatalities, 7 deaths 2001, 74 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths 2002, 68 accidents, 3 involving fatalities, 3 deaths 2003, 49 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths 2004, 35 accidents, 2 involving fatalities, 2 deaths As you can see each year the number of accidents has declined. with the exception of 2003 the number of fatalities has also declined. From 2000 to 2004 the number of boating accidents in NH has decreased by almost 66 percent! That shows that boater education in the state is working!!! Once EVERYONE, even us old timers, need to have completed a boating course and get our certificate those numbers will drop even further. Do we need more Marine Patrol Officers, YES! Do we need additional laws that even the Marine Patrol in at least one newspaper interview has deemed unenforcable and unnecessary? NO!. Discuss

03-02-2006, 07:16 PM	#39
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	Not much to discuss. Just read the facts. Wonder how many involved alcohol? __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

03-02-2006, 08:11 PM	#42
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I think some of you people need to study up on forensic accident reconstruction. It IS a science. If a police officer stands on a highway, looks at the skid marks and looks at the damage to the vehicles he may come up with a speed ESTIMATE. If a trained forensic accident reconstruction expert measures the length of the skid marks, weighs the cars, measures the coefficient of friction of the pavement etc. Then plugs these measurements into a formula, then the results are CALCULATED. I'm sure boats create there own problems, there are no skid marks on the water. However the energy of the impact can still be calculated by the depth of damage, heat cracking etc. The energy of impact along with the weight of the boats results in the speed of the vehicles. As in all science and engineering the is an expected percentage of error. When measurements are plugged into a formula the answer is a calculation, not an estimate.

03-02-2006, 09:16 PM	#45
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Let's give this one to you Okay, you're right! Feel better? Lt Dunleavy was wrong in his quote. Out of 269 boating accidents there was 1 fatality due to speeds over the proposed limit in th epast 5 years! Aren't you proud! Now, lets look at the rest of the story: Accidents have been dropping since 2000. Wanna see the stats? I started a new thread called Just the facts ma'am but just in case you can't be bothered: Let's take a look at the statistics: 2000, 94 accidents, 7 involving fatalities, 7 deaths 2001, 74 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths 2002, 68 accidents, 3 involving fatalities, 3 deaths 2003, 49 accidents, 5 involving fatalities, 6 deaths 2004, 35 accidents, 2 involving fatalities, 2 deaths As you can see each year the number of accidents has declined. with the exception of 2003 the number of fatalities has also declined. From 2000 to 2004 the number of boating accidents in NH has decreased by almost 66 percent! That shows that boater education in the state is working!!! Once EVERYONE, even us old timers, need to have completed a boating course and get our certificate those numbers will drop even further. Do we need more Marine Patrol Officers, YES! Do we need additional laws that even the Marine Patrol in at least one newspaper interview has deemed unenforcable and unnecessary? NO!. Discuss

03-02-2006, 09:22 PM	#46
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	Alcohol involvement in boating accidents in NH Fatalities, Injuries, Accidents with alcohol invoved: 2000 2, 4, 11, 2001 0, 2, 2, 2002 2, 5, 7, 2003 0, 0, 0, 2004 0, 2, 2,

03-02-2006, 09:27 PM	#47
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	Great News! Think how much lower those numbers can go when we have a speed limit.

03-02-2006, 09:43 PM	#49
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	My call sign and boat is Airwaves whenever you'd like to hail me do it on 16 then move to another channel.

03-02-2006, 10:25 PM	#52
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	An approximation is a calculation with a tolerance. A estimate is an educated guess.

03-03-2006, 01:21 AM	#55
Island Lover Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 213 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post	You dictionary definition is correct. Now check out the engineering definition for tolerance. "Permissible deviation" is another way to express an "inexact result adequate for a given purpose" tol·er·ance (tlr-ns) n. a. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a dimension, often expressed as a percent

03-03-2006, 08:54 AM	#58
Evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Littleton, NH Posts: 382 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	PWC: Speed / Accident Relationship Disclaimer: My “agenda” here is only to show why I feel we need a speed limit, so please don’t take this as a post against PWC – I’m just trying to show the need to slow down. The rest of this post is directly taken from: Hostile Waters - The Impacts of Personal Watercraft Use on Waterway Recreation – American Canoe Association - By David Jenkins http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_pwc_ACAreport.pdf “Each year the nation’s waterways become more and more crowded. While crowded waterways increase the risks associated with all types of waterway recreation, crowded waters become more dangerous when high-speed recreation mixes with other types of waterway use.” … PWC, “comprising less than 10 percent of all vessels -- is involved in 55 percent of all collisions between vessels. In addition, recent data indicates that 70 percent of all PWC accidents are collisions with other vessels, fixed objects or floating objects. When combined with collisions with people swimming or otherwise outside a boat (struck by boat) that percentage climbs even higher.” “Research conducted on the BARD database revealed a number of important findings. Between 1996 and 2000, 12,218 PWC were involved in collisions with other vessels.” “For the past three years vessel-on-vessel collisions have accounted for 60 percent of all reported PWC accidents. For accidents that did not involve PWC, collisions with other vessels never accounted for more than 25 percent of the total. The average difference of 34 percentage points translates into a 150 percent higher frequency of collisions with vessels among PWC involved accidents.” “PWCare designed and marketed for speed. It should be no surprise that excessive speed is consistently one of the most frequently reported causes of PWC accidents. In the 1998 NTSB study, excessive speed was the third most often cited PWC accident cause. In California, a state where PWC accidents have been carefully reviewed, excessive speed is the second most often cited cause for accidents involving PWC. The ACA review of PWCaccident data revealed that excessive speed was a likely factor in well over half of all PWC accidents.” “ACA found many accidents where excessive speed was clearly indicated by the accident narrative, but not officially cited as a cause of the accident. Other accident causes such as careless/reckless and operator inattention were often officially cited as causes of accidents involving excessive speed.” “The PWC accident data indicate thatPWC are more than twice as likely to be traveling in excess of 40 mph at the time of an accident than other vessel types. Injury data also point to speed as a prominent factor in PWC accidents. The injuries most often resulting from PWC accidents involve blunt-force trauma resulting from collisions. The USCG accident data for the year 2000 show that trauma accounted for over 90 percent of the reported injuries resulting from PWC accidents. The injury types -- amputation, broken bones, head injury, internal injury, contusions, spinal/back injury and laceration -- accounted for 1,214 of the 1,341PWC related injuries identified.” “Speed may be an even greater problem in the future as PWC manufacturers continue to increase PWC power.” __________________ "Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

03-06-2006, 09:23 AM	#64
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I think there are more people boating on Lake Winnipesaukee now than ten years ago! But I really don't expect the number of boats & people using the Lake to jump in any sort of exponential way. Let me explain.. I think Lake Winnipesaukee is pretty much built out boatwise. There have been no new marinas opened in long time, and there is no commercially viable land left on Lake Winnipesaukee that will support a new marina. None of the towns that house the marinas are allowing them to build any more rack storage for boats. The public launches around the lake have very limited parking and on most summer weekends the parking lots fill early. In short, there is no place for a large influx of new boats to go. Quite frankly, I really don't care how bad boating was 10, 20 or thirty years ago. its the past! I really don't care that someone hit an island in a Cigarette boat in 1975.. The legislature enacted a BSC requirement because of those older concerns. I am concerned with how safe boating has been since the enactment of the BSC requirement. Since then boating accidents are down 68%! Boater Education works! Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-06-2006, 03:17 PM	#67
GusMan Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 122 Thanks: 0 Thanked 42 Times in 24 Posts	Speen limits in Mass. Well, Broadhooper... you can disagree all you want, but you and your friend on Webster Lake would still be wrong. There is a state-wide speed limit in Massachusetts.... 45 MPH. Been there for a while. Oh, but you say there are boats that still exceed the limit?? How can that be??? It's against the law?? Therein lies the problem... enforcement. Webster Lake may be the most heavily patrolled lake in Massachusetts. State Marine Patrol and Local police departments both have officers on the lake all the time... in marked and unmarked watercraft yet still, the speed limit is exceeded. Morons are everywhere... new laws won't change that. Now... lets look at Winnie.... I'm there all the time.... Is it crazy??? Yeah, sometimes... but mostly it's relatively OK. But guess what... nearly every single time I'm on that lake.... I witness an infraction of the 150 foot rule. How long has that law been on the books? Again, never enforced. Obviously, if the 150 foot rule was obeyed (which will never happen) there would never be an accident involving boats even remotely approaching what the proposed speed limit is. The problem??? Irresponsible morons. And guess what... irresponsible morons aren't bright enough to avoid "accidents" at any speed. Oh... and just so you don't think I'm running around in the "Summa Humma" or anything... I've been bass fishing winnie for more than two decades in a 16 foot aluminum bass boat.. first with a 20 HP motor and now with a 75 HP motor.... top speed?? mid 30's..... maybe. Cheers.... Gusman

03-06-2006, 10:40 PM	#73
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	APS Surely, no one on either side of HB-162 advocates operating a boat "beyond the edge of control"? The speed at which controlling a boat becomes diffcult varies greatly with the design of the boat. I know some 12' outboard driven jon boats can easily obtain uncontrollable speeds, well below 45 MPH. They can be twitchy at 10 MPH.

03-07-2006, 07:40 AM	#76
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,974 Thanks: 246 Thanked 736 Times in 438 Posts	In case I wasn't clear in my earlier post on the subject, most PWCs have no steering control when the operator releases the throttle because the steering is provided by thrust vectoring. With no thrust to vector, there's no steering. This is a common factor in PWC accidents since the first thing most folks do when faced with an imminent collision is try to slow down rather than steer hard and get hard on the gas to avoid the collision. I just read an article about PWCs in the latest issue of BoatUS. Many new PWCs come with off-throttle steering now and they predicted that in 2007 all new PWCs would come with that feature. Should really cut down on accidents. The newest PWCs are also very quiet and statistically, are being purchased by a more mature crowd. The article also states that in Florida, PWC accidents have been on a steady decline from 451 accidents in 1997 to 169 accidents in 2004. Love to hear how this meshes with David Jenkin's numbers. Oh wait, he didn't publish any hard numbers, only percentages... Have to wonder if he used percentages because the actual number of accidents is declining. Still like the see the PWC stats for NH though. That's the real issue here