Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues > Speed Limits
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Blogs Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2008, 08:47 PM   #1
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,521
Thanks: 14
Thanked 237 Times in 118 Posts
Default HB847 Passed the Senate

HB847 Passed the Senate

Yea:14

Nay:10



Today is Yogi Berra's 88th birthday. Remember what he said.... "It aint over til its over"
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-15-2008, 09:12 PM   #2
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default You're right

Quote:
Orignally posted by Bear Islander
HB847 Passed the Senate

Yea:14

Nay:10



Today is Yogi Berra's 88th birthday. Remember what he said.... "It aint over til its over"
Yogi is right, it ain't over

The margin of approval, if you are correct is not enough to override a gubernatorial veto.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 07:13 AM   #3
parrothead
Senior Member
 
parrothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default I hope it makes a difference.

Well congratulations to everyone that worked to get this bill together. I hope it makes a difference, and everyone feels safer. Still don't agree with it, but it is what it is, and won't change the way my family boats. We keep our boat around 30 to save gas anyway.
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane
parrothead is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 07:29 AM   #4
Phantom
Senior Member
 
Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Northboro, Ma / Laconia
Posts: 637
Thanks: 32
Thanked 68 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Okay -- (serious quesion) Now that it has passed & I suspect the Govenor will sign ........................ When does this go into affect ???
__________________
A bad day on the Big Lake (although I've never had one) - Still beats a day at the office!!
Phantom is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 07:30 AM   #5
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,036
Thanks: 183
Thanked 561 Times in 328 Posts
Default

Welcome to the NEW New Hampshirechussetts.A lot more great bills to follow.Next up,lets make sure those bikers start wearing helmets.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 05-16-2008, 07:35 AM   #6
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Breckenridge CO
Posts: 3,306
Thanks: 1,495
Thanked 520 Times in 345 Posts
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Welcome to the NEW New Hampshirechussetts. A lot more great bills to follow. Next up,lets make sure those bikers start wearing helmets.
The lake will become the next Quabin Reservoir.
__________________
The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself - Benjamin Franklin
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 07:59 AM   #7
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,609
Thanks: 348
Thanked 209 Times in 113 Posts
Default Interesting

At least to me...in the Concord Monitor, it quotes two Dems as being opposed to HB847, D'Allesandro and Letourneu.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...PAGE/805160385
chipj29 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:04 AM   #8
Wolfeboro_Baja
Senior Member
 
Wolfeboro_Baja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 355
Thanks: 86
Thanked 67 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
Okay -- (serious quesion) Now that it has passed & I suspect the Govenor will sign ........................ When does this go into affect ???
According to the bill, January 1, 2009. Here's a link to the bill text; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...08/HB0847.html.
__________________
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulged, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow." {James Madison in the Federalist Papers, No. 62}
Wolfeboro_Baja is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:04 AM   #9
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I think that it is very sad that people have been so quick to enact a law that has the sole purpose of trying to remove a certain type of boat off the lake. When that law does not work they will try and put another law on the books and another. It makes me sick to my stomach really. By the way my boat puts out a MUCH larger wake at 45 then it does at 65. Evenstar understandably will still not feel comfortable going across the broads, people will still violate the 150 foot rule, people will still not boat safely. So what law is next guys?
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:18 AM   #10
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,501
Thanks: 205
Thanked 435 Times in 141 Posts
Post Effective dates and a prima facie primer....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja View Post
According to the bill, January 1, 2009. Here's a link to the bill text; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...08/HB0847.html.

Baja is correct, the bill will not be in effect until January 1, 2009 and sunsets (expires) January 1, 2011. It will not be in effect for this upcoming boating season.

Also of interest is that the limits imposed are of prima facie limits, not absolute limits. That is a very signigfcant legal difference.

In a nut shell, that means that if you are going in excess of 25/45 mph you are not by default in violation of the RSA, as some have led everyone to believe. The State must show that even given the 25/45 limit, the speed that you were observed at was not reasonable given the conditions at the time observed. If the limits imposed had used the absolute standard, as are terrestial speed limits are in the State of Maine, all the State would need to show for a conviction is any speed over the posted limit.

Bottom line? There is an extreme mount of leeway in the RSA as passed by the House & Senate, as some folks will quickly figure out next boating season.

As always if you would like further information on the difference between prima-facie and absolute limitsor want to discuss other aspects of this particular legislation, please feel free to PM me anytime.

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:18 AM   #11
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default When is the Govenor review

When is the Govenor reviewing the bill to pass or veto?

Also, is there a role call so I know how the person who represents me voted?
EricP is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:24 AM   #12
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Baja is correct, the bill will not be in effect until January 1, 2009 and sunsets (expires) January 1, 2011. It will not be in effect for this upcoming boating season.

Also of interest is that the limits imposed are of prima facie limits, not absolute limits. That is a very signigfcant legal difference.

In a nut shell, that means that if you are going in excess of 25/45 mph you are not by default in violation of the RSA, as some have led everyone to believe. The State must show that even given the 25/45 limit, the speed that you were observed at was not reasonable given the conditions at the time observed. If the limits imposed had used the absolute standard, as are terrestial speed limits are in the State of Maine, all the State would need to show for a conviction is any speed over the posted limit.

Bottom line? There is an extreme mount of leeway in the RSA as passed by the House & Senate, as some folks will quickly figure out next boating season.

As always if you would like further information on the difference between prima-facie and absolute limitsor want to discuss other aspects of this particular legislation, please feel free to PM me anytime.

Skip
Whoa wait a minute here. This is pretty important. Thank you Skip for posting this. Now, could you explain this again as I am still digesting it. Am I reading this correctly, could a GFB still hit 70mph across the broads on a tuesday when there is no traffic and NOT be in violation of the law?
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:28 AM   #13
EricP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Whoa wait a minute here. This is pretty important. Thank you Skip for posting this. Now, could you explain this again as I am still digesting it. Am I reading this correctly, could a GFB still hit 70mph across the broads on a tuesday when there is no traffic and NOT be in violation of the law?
That's how I read it as well. Gee, doesn't that sound an awful lot like reckless driving which is already covered?
EricP is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:34 AM   #14
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 617
Blog Entries: 9
Thanks: 15
Thanked 70 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP View Post
When is the Govenor reviewing the bill to pass or veto?

Also, is there a role call so I know how the person who represents me voted?
It appears there was a role call, but I can't find it on the site yet.
WeirsBeachBoater is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:54 AM   #15
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,501
Thanks: 205
Thanked 435 Times in 141 Posts
Post Prima facie....

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Whoa wait a minute here. This is pretty important. Thank you Skip for posting this. Now, could you explain this again as I am still digesting it. Am I reading this correctly, could a GFB still hit 70mph across the broads on a tuesday when there is no traffic and NOT be in violation of the law?
Ah, you get it Grasshopper!

It is exactly the same principle (and verbiage) that is used to define most of the road speed limits in New Hampshire. That is why you see that under normal driving conditions you must be going anywhere from at least ten to fifteen miles an hour over the posted speed limit to receive a summons in New Hampshire.

Be forewarned however, many departments will stop you at excess speeds lower than that, and they usually have articulable suspicion to do so, but in most cases you receive a warning.

Absolute speed limits by definition on our State's 65 MPH highways and school zones are notable exceptions to the prima facie rule.

Prima facie limits are much more liberal in interpretation than absolute limits.

You give an excellent example. You are out on the Broads on a clear and calm unlimited visibility day and its just you and a distant NHMP boat. If you can articulate in Court that the spped you are suggesting, 70 MPH, was reasonable and prudent given the conditions of the day than you, my friend, have just learned what an affirmative defense is!

By the way, there is another side to these limits. Just because the limit is 25/45 does not mean that you can always approach these limits without due regard.

Lets say its a foggy limited visibility day, and you are plying along at 45 MPH because that's the limit. NHMP can still cite you for unreasonable speed if they can articulate to the Court that given the conditions present that speed was unreasonable at that given time.

So it does cut both ways....

While I understand the angst of folks on both sides of the issue, I truly beleive that this RSA as passed is no where as onerous as some may believe. The bottom line for probably 99% of the folks that are out there boating is that as long as they use common sense and obey all other current safety regulations, you will still be able to travel at the speeds you have been used to for years.

In the end except for a few rare occasions I don't expect to see anything different out on the Lake. The economy and price of fuel will be the determining factor on boating conditions for the foreseeable future...when folks really decipher this particular legislation they will find that its biggest impact will be on one's particular emotions, not actions.

Anyway, that's my $.02!
Skip is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:07 AM   #16
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,041
Thanks: 18
Thanked 306 Times in 111 Posts
Default

I will accept the loss with handshake and a good job to my opponents! It was a good fight, and they won... Perhaps all of the acrimony will dissipate now.

Who knows what will happen & how the political winds will blow in the 3 years between now and the sunset clause! We will have to wait and see...


Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:14 AM   #17
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,036
Thanks: 183
Thanked 561 Times in 328 Posts
Default

Here's WMUR's article.I had thought I heard Lynch was leaning towards a veto on this bill but this piece says the opposite.


Boat Speed Limits Approved For Winnipesaukee

POSTED: 7:22 am EDT May 16, 2008
UPDATED: 7:34 am EDT May 16, 2008


CONCORD, N.H. -- It looks like some boaters will have to slow down on Lake Winnipesaukee next summer.

The Senate passed trial speed limits on Thursday for the state's biggest lake and the plan is on its way to Gov. John Lynch's desk. He has said he will sign it.

The speed limits would go into effect on Jan. 1.

Boat speed limits have been debated for years. The plan that has been approved differs from past plans because it applies only to Winnipesaukee and would go off the books in two years. The bill sets speed limits at 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:17 AM   #18
B R
Senior Member
 
B R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Skip,

Did it pass as is or is it likely to have some amendments attached to it?

What is the process from here?
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"
B R is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:19 AM   #19
Rockdaddy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

So will jet skis and cabin cruisers next to be banned from the lake?
Rockdaddy is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:26 AM   #20
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 207
Thanks: 30
Thanked 74 Times in 41 Posts
Default

I am so excited to fire up my twin engine speed boat and cruise the lake this year as well as next year. If the Governor signs the bill, it will still be business as usual. The noise will not go away and the speed will not go away. Winnfarts hase accomplished nothing.
pm203 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:31 AM   #21
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Craft View Post
I think that it is very sad that people have been so quick to enact a law that has the sole purpose of trying to remove a certain type of boat off the lake. . . . Evenstar understandably will still not feel comfortable going across the broads,
There was nothing fast about the way that this bill has progressed toward being a law. If you don't remember, it was delayed by the House Transportation Committee in last March, so that the Marine Patrol could do a Speed Study on the lake.

And it is your opinion that the "sole purpose" of this law is to "remove a certain type of boat off the lake." That is not why I supported it.

How can you state with such certaintly that I will "not feel comfortable going across the Broads?" I will not even know that myself until after the law is enacted and then I will let you know how safe I feel crossing the Broads.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:48 AM   #22
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,501
Thanks: 205
Thanked 435 Times in 141 Posts
Post No more ammendments....

Quote:
Originally Posted by B R View Post
Skip,

Did it pass as is or is it likely to have some amendments attached to it?

What is the process from here?
It passed as is....the Governor can sign it, veto it or allow it without his signature. However, he cannot make any changes or ammendments to it.

As was discussed earlier, the only way it could be defeated is if the Governor chose to veto it and there is not enough votes to override, or if the Governor failed to act on it after the House was out of session it would fail in what is known as a "pocket veto".

However, news sources covering the story today say the Governor intends to sign the bill when it reaches his desk.
Skip is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:51 AM   #23
DoTheMath
Senior Member
 
DoTheMath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mass. - Horse Country
Posts: 122
Thanks: 30
Thanked 37 Times in 14 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Ah, you get it Grasshopper!

It is exactly the same principle (and verbiage) that is used to define most of the road speed limits in New Hampshire. That is why you see that under normal driving conditions you must be going anywhere from at least ten to fifteen miles an hour over the posted speed limit to receive a summons in New Hampshire.

Be forewarned however, many departments will stop you at excess speeds lower than that, and they usually have articulable suspicion to do so, but in most cases you receive a warning.

Absolute speed limits by definition on our State's 65 MPH highways and school zones are notable exceptions to the prima facie rule.

Prima facie limits are much more liberal in interpretation than absolute limits.

You give an excellent example. You are out on the Broads on a clear and calm unlimited visibility day and its just you and a distant NHMP boat. If you can articulate in Court that the spped you are suggesting, 70 MPH, was reasonable and prudent given the conditions of the day than you, my friend, have just learned what an affirmative defense is!

By the way, there is another side to these limits. Just because the limit is 25/45 does not mean that you can always approach these limits without due regard.

Lets say its a foggy limited visibility day, and you are plying along at 45 MPH because that's the limit. NHMP can still cite you for unreasonable speed if they can articulate to the Court that given the conditions present that speed was unreasonable at that given time.

So it does cut both ways....

While I understand the angst of folks on both sides of the issue, I truly beleive that this RSA as passed is no where as onerous as some may believe. The bottom line for probably 99% of the folks that are out there boating is that as long as they use common sense and obey all other current safety regulations, you will still be able to travel at the speeds you have been used to for years.

In the end except for a few rare occasions I don't expect to see anything different out on the Lake. The economy and price of fuel will be the determining factor on boating conditions for the foreseeable future...when folks really decipher this particular legislation they will find that its biggest impact will be on one's particular emotions, not actions.

Anyway, that's my $.02!
Thanks Skip for that clarification... It's good to know how it is "really" going to work once it hits the books.

Aside from all the banter - I still find it a dark day when laws are passed / enacted based on opinion and speculation vs. cold hard facts... But - whatever, I am just looking forward to a great summer in our new boat!!!

Be safe out there everyone - I hope WE all have an enjoyable summer - see you out on the water!!!
DoTheMath is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:55 AM   #24
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,609
Thanks: 348
Thanked 209 Times in 113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockdaddy View Post
So will jet skis and cabin cruisers next to be banned from the lake?
Jet skis will be banned via banning 2-strokes. Once they figure out that the newer jet skis have 4-stroke engines, they will ban all watercraft that seats less than 4 people.
Cruisers will be banned via some kind of wake limit law.

Or something like that.
chipj29 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:59 AM   #25
Excalibur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Gilford,NH is where I would like to be and Southborough, MA is where I have to be
Posts: 78
Thanks: 11
Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post
Default Live Free Or Die, Not Any More

I guess the old saying is going out the window

LIVE FREE OR DIE, perhaps NH should change the license plates and add more fees.

Is this happening because all us MAssholes are migrating North?
Excalibur is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 10:15 AM   #26
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,521
Thanks: 14
Thanked 237 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Two Democrats voted no, Gottesman and D'Allesandro

Two Republicans voted yes, Kenney and O'Dell

So it was not as partisan as some predicted.

Some Senators wanted to table it and add an amendment for an exception in the broads. However the vote went against them 13 to 11. Very close.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 10:25 AM   #27
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Lakegeezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,220
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 167
Thanked 282 Times in 134 Posts
Default Prima facie evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
Prima facie limits are much more liberal in interpretation than absolute limits.
Wikipedia describes Prima facie as "In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

The text of the HB847 is: 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.

I'm not a lawyer, but the use of prima facie in the law seems to imply that going over 45 is sufficient to prove that the speed was not reasonable or prudent. Maybe case law has watered down the meaning?

We all want reasonable and prudent speed. That was never the issue.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is online now  
Old 05-16-2008, 10:36 AM   #28
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,501
Thanks: 205
Thanked 435 Times in 141 Posts
Default Prima facie versus absolute....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
Wikipedia describes Prima facie as "In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

The text of the HB847 is: 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.

I'm not a lawyer, but the use of prima facie in the law seems to imply that going over 45 is sufficient to prove that the speed was not reasonable or prudent. Maybe case law has watered down the meaning?

We all want reasonable and prudent speed. That was never the issue.
Good points & a very good question.

The key words are "unless rebutted".

With prima facie limits, you have the right to rebut the State's charge and offer a defense to the limit imposed.

Unlike an "absolute" limit, that dictates that constitutional issues aside, there is no rebuttal and that any speed in excess of the posted speed is grounds for guilt.

The law could have been written in either language, but it was written as a prima facie limit that gives the defendant the right to rebuttal.

However, most folks are not aware of the difference and plea guilty or nolo (contendre) to the charge assuming that all speed limits in New Hampshire are absolute.

Hopefully I have made some of the folks out here aware that there is a significant difference and that a speed above 25/45 does not automatically imply you will be found guilty of speeding.

Again, it all comes down to using a ton of common sense and always being aware of and obeying all other applicable safety regulations while you boat (or drive your car).

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 10:44 AM   #29
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,609
Thanks: 348
Thanked 209 Times in 113 Posts
Default

And if you do happen to get a speeding ticket (on the lake especially!), fight it in court!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:04 AM   #30
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 1,384
Thanks: 305
Thanked 121 Times in 88 Posts
Default Here it is

Gov says he will sign the bill:

http://wbztv.com/local/newhampshire/....2.725701.html

Quote:
Boat Speed Limit Approved For Winnipesaukee
Gov. Lynch Says He Will Sign The Bill
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) ― It looks like some boaters will have to slow down on Lake Winnipesaukee next summer. The Senate passed trial speed limits Thursday for the state's biggest lake in a 14-10 vote.

The plan is on its way to Gov. John Lynch's desk. He has said he will sign it.

The bill sets speed limits at 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night. The speed limits would go into effect beginning Jan. 1.

Boat speed limits have been debated for years. A group of year-round homeowners and vacationers on the lake pushed for the limit.

The plan that has been approved differs from past plans because it applies only to Lake Winnipesaukee and would go off the books in two years.

Manchester Democrat Louis D'Allesandro said speed limits amount to government overkill. "I always thought we were the Live Free or Die state, but here we are, restricting every phase of our lives," D'Allesandro said. "When does this end?"

He also suggested the speed limits would cause even more speeding.

"Who is going to arrest the boat police?" D'Allesandro said. "'Cause they're going to have to speed to catch the speeders."

Sen. Robert Letourneau, a Derry Republican, also opposed the limits. He said the possible speed limits have made boaters hesitant to put their boats in the water, which hurts businesses on the lake.

But Sen. Peter Burling, a Cornish Democrat, said it's important to consider those who say fast boats are bad for the lake. He said lawmakers tried to strike a balance.

"It's 'Live Free or Die' for everybody, and that includes the family in the kayak," Burling said.

Lawmakers would need to pass a new law to keep speed limits in place after Jan. 1, 2011.
Excuse me: but what crap
__________________
Capt. of the "Nevah Land"
AC2717 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:29 AM   #31
Skipper of the Sea Que
Senior Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 572
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Thumbs up Thanks Skip. And every dark cloud has a silver lining....

Thanks once again to Skip for another one of his very excellent contributions to our forum community. A concise, non-partisan explanation. You "rock" Skip .

Now for the Silver Lining: My wife has balked at spending the money for a good GPS or chartploter. Well, with speed limits in place I'm going to need an accurate way to measure the speed of our boat. That's a GPS or chartplotter. No excuse now honey were going to start shopping.

Be sure to practice watching those GPS units at night this season to maintain an appropriate ... 'er ... I mean legal speed for 2009. Don't take your eyes away from the water too long while reading the small speed numbers on your GPS .

Believe it or not, I ran into Boston Mayor Tom Menino early this morning and I asked him if he had an "in" with Governor Lynch.... It was a long shot but I was thinking he might get the word "veto" to the NH Gov. He couldn't help.

Happy and safe boating to all.
__________________



Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works.
Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient.

Last edited by Skipper of the Sea Que; 05-16-2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason: Read AP story AC2717 posted while I was writing this. I just have to shake my head...
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:52 AM   #32
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Whoa wait a minute here. This is pretty important. Thank you Skip for posting this. Now, could you explain this again as I am still digesting it. Am I reading this correctly, could a GFB still hit 70mph across the broads on a tuesday when there is no traffic and NOT be in violation of the law?
Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either. Just one more thing we have been saying, but nobody was listening.

BI where were you last night?
Island Lover is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:55 AM   #33
cowisl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cow Island
Posts: 148
Thanks: 6
Thanked 17 Times in 9 Posts
Default

What a shame. The crazy thing is that i could probably count in my head the number of "go fast boats" on winnipesaukee.
cowisl is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:07 PM   #34
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either. Just one more thing we have been saying, but nobody was listening.
Wait....isn't that the opponents arguement from the start? Why did we need a law again?
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:13 PM   #35
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,036
Thanks: 183
Thanked 561 Times in 328 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either. Just one more thing we have been saying, but nobody was listening.

BI where were you last night?
Your posts are a joke pure and simple.You are such a hypocrite when you say"If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care".That's exactly what the opponents argument has been right along and you have been totally against it.There are plenty of areas that higher speed than 45 is appropriate and others that are not.That's why we have reasonable and prudent definitions already in place and a why a 45 mph limit lakewide does not make sense.Thanks for pointing that out.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:22 PM   #36
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either. Just one more thing we have been saying, but nobody was listening.

BI where were you last night?
Certain Kayakers might mind Island Lover.....

As has been said before this won't affect me one bit as my bow-rider struggles to hit 50. It's just a shame that so much effort went into a law that will not have any real impact on safety. Here's to another summer boating alongside captain clueless and his posse. If anything at least safe boating certificates are mandatory for all now. Hopefully MP will be able to clamp down on that now. Have a safe summer.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:35 PM   #37
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Your posts are a joke pure and simple.You are such a hypocrite when you say"If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care".That's exactly what the opponents argument has been right along and you have been totally against it.There are plenty of areas that higher speed than 45 is appropriate and others that are not.That's why we have reasonable and prudent definitions already in place and a why a 45 mph limit lakewide does not make sense.Thanks for pointing that out.
I just did a search of all my posts looking for the word broads. This is what I posted on 2/6/6. And that is the only time I posted about the broads. You people were not listening!

Every now and then somebody will open it up on the broads... so what!
Island Lover is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:35 PM   #38
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,520
Thanks: 28
Thanked 347 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Congratulations on winning a hard fought fight. Let's see if this has any effect and how everything looks two years from now.

Remember, the truly wonderful thing about American democracy, elections are never more than two years away. Any mistake can be fixed.
jrc is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:43 PM   #39
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

For 2009, I'm predicting a 0% increase in speed related accidents....up from 0% over the past 100 years.

Please feel free to respond with incidents not related to alcohol.
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:50 PM   #40
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,521
Thanks: 14
Thanked 237 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
Your posts are a joke pure and simple.You are such a hypocrite when you say"If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care".That's exactly what the opponents argument has been right along and you have been totally against it.There are plenty of areas that higher speed than 45 is appropriate and others that are not.That's why we have reasonable and prudent definitions already in place and a why a 45 mph limit lakewide does not make sense.Thanks for pointing that out.
Before we start rewriting history, try reading these.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62708

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62946

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post67878

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post68378



IL - I am doing communications for an expedition crossing Greenland, had to stick by the electronics.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 12:52 PM   #41
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 1,384
Thanks: 305
Thanked 121 Times in 88 Posts
Default I got this in an email

I received this in the email as I signed to oppose the speed limit. I am sure many of us got this today
This is a UnOffical breakdown of the voting, again I stress unoffical breakdown and a view of how they think teh voting went down

though not official,
Supported HB847
Joseph Kenney
Kathleen Sgambati
Betsi DeVries
Molly Kelly
Bob Odell
Margaret Hassan
Martha Fuller Clark
Iris Estabrook
Jacalyn Cilley
Harold Janeway
Sylvia Larsen
Deborah Reynolds
Peter Burling
Joseph Foster

Opposed HB847
John Gallus
Sheila Roberge
Peter Bragdon
David Gottesman
Robert Clegg
Theodore Gatsas
John Barnes
Robert Letourneau
Lou D'Allesandro
Michael Downing



People's thoughts?
__________________
Capt. of the "Nevah Land"
AC2717 is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 02:26 PM   #42
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Before we start rewriting history, try reading these.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62708

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62946

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post67878

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post68378



IL - I am doing communications for an expedition crossing Greenland, had to stick by the electronics.
You omitted one relevent link:
Its getting awfully deep in here....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
...Hi Skip

Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!...

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion!
__________________
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=74
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 03:47 PM   #43
chunt
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Didn't the Governor say he would not pass any bill that was not funded?
chunt is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 04:29 PM   #44
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockdaddy View Post
So will jet skis and cabin cruisers next to be banned from the lake?

I hope so. Those darn sea lice really get to me
VtSteve is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:06 PM   #45
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Thanks: 181
Thanked 227 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Heard on the radio today that two of the Senators that voted for the bill are not seeking re-election: Senators Burling and Estabrook. They must feel great that they left such a legacy for others to deal with. At least we don't have to vote them out - they are leaving on their own. That only leave 12 other Senators that we have to send packing. Goodbye Senators - plenty of room in liberal states. We want Live Free or Die Conservatives back. Same goes for you, Governor Lynch - if you don't veto the bill, I think it's time for you to be voted OUT! Where's Steve Merrill when we need him????
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 05-16-2008, 10:51 PM   #46
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either. Just one more thing we have been saying, but nobody was listening.
The key words here are "when nobody is around," and this includes the Marine Patrol. If you are in an accident, while "opening it up" expect the book to be thrown at you.

And you guys really should be careful about dismissing the ability of this lake speed limit law to stand up in court, because the exact same "prima facie" language is used in the highway Speed Limitations:

NH RSA - Section 265:60:
Quote:
II. Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with RSA 265:60, I, the speed of any vehicle not in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie lawful, but any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-17-2008, 06:59 AM   #47
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Two Democrats voted no, Gottesman and D'Allesandro

Two Republicans voted yes, Kenney and O'Dell

So it was not as partisan as some predicted.

Some Senators wanted to table it and add an amendment for an exception in the broads. However the vote went against them 13 to 11. Very close.
Wasn't the lead sponsor of the bill a Republican? I think the proponents were skewed more D, but I don't know any of them, so being an R or D at the state level can be misleading.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 05-17-2008, 08:07 AM   #48
Skipper of the Sea Que
Senior Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 572
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Arrow Who should be careful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
The key words here are "when nobody is around," and this includes the Marine Patrol. If you are in an accident, while "opening it up" expect the book to be thrown at you.

If they are in an accident while "OPENING it up", I would assume that they were still in the process of getting up to their desired speed before the accident. Is that what you said? A minor point probably - Anyway:
How much bigger would that book be with the proposed "new law" compared to the same accident with the current rules, like a violation of the 150' rule and safe, reasonable speeds etc.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
And you guys really should be careful about dismissing the ability of this lake speed limit law to stand up in court, because the exact same "prima facie" language is used in the highway Speed Limitations:
Ms Evenstar, I believe that you should be careful about dismissing Skip as easily as you have done. In his post above he indicated,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
"Absolute speed limits by definition on our State's 65 MPH highways and school zones are notable exceptions to the prima facie rule.
Ms. Evenstar, would you please point us to the information that you say is contrary to that which Skip presented.

Thank you.

------------------------

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que

Kayakers love water --- This boater loves life & wife and enjoys Champagne
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 05-17-2008, 10:02 AM   #49
topwater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 240
Thanks: 61
Thanked 74 Times in 38 Posts
Default

I think it would be interesting to find out WHAT STATE the people who voted for this bill are orginally from. I'm sure there are those that have moved here from other states, to either get away from the CRAP in thier home state, or because they could not make it in the political ring in which they came from. The question is " ARE THESE POLITICIANS THAT VOTED FOR THIS BILL ORGINALLY FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE OR ARE THEY IMPLANTS FROM OTHER STATES? "
topwater is offline  
Old 05-17-2008, 11:06 AM   #50
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Lakegeezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,220
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 167
Thanked 282 Times in 134 Posts
Default A bit gender skewed

In analyzing the vote, 90% of the women senators voted for the speed limit while 64% of the men senators voted against it. Emotion over logic?
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is online now  
Old 05-17-2008, 09:47 PM   #51
Cal
Senior Member
 
Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 615
Thanks: 37
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
In analyzing the vote, 90% of the women senators voted for the speed limit while 64% of the men senators voted against it. Emotion over logic?
That's what happens when you allow a woman into politics
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos
Cal is online now  
Old 05-17-2008, 10:09 PM   #52
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
Ms Evenstar, I believe that you should be careful about dismissing Skip as easily as you have done. In his post above he indicated,

Ms. Evenstar, would you please point us to the information that you say is contrary to that which Skip presented.

Thank you.
------------------------

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que


Kayakers love water --- This boater loves life & wife and enjoys Champagne
Look, I'm just trying to be nice by pointing out that the language in this lake speed limit bill is the same language that is used in highway speed limit laws. If you don't believe me, fine. I'm not dismissing anyone.

Goodness, I can't even be nice on this forum, without being critized for it!

And I gave you the actual NH RSA - I'm not making this stuff up, but since you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm


And I asked you nicely to please stop using a distorted version of my signature. Continuing to do so is a trolling - which is in violation of forum rules.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-17-2008, 11:22 PM   #53
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,521
Thanks: 14
Thanked 237 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC... View Post
You omitted one relevent link:
Its getting awfully deep in here....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
...Hi Skip

Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!...

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion!
__________________
Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=74
I don't see how that is relevant. Skip was responding to a post I had made much earlier. He was not responding to my post about the broads.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 06:17 AM   #54
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,501
Thanks: 205
Thanked 435 Times in 141 Posts
Default Please re-read my posts carefully...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
...Look, I'm just trying to be nice by pointing out that the language in this lake speed limit bill is the same language that is used in highway speed limit laws. If you don't believe me, fine. I'm not dismissing anyone...
If you take a moment and read all my posts on this subject, particularly my post #15 in this particular thread, you will find that I have already clearly explained the relevance between the new boating legislation & the current applicable verbiage contained in most NH motor vehicle speed legislation.

Only by taking the information I have presented piecemeal or out of context can you imply than anyone in this thread was insinuating that the new legislation could be ignored or defeated in Court.

My intent was to show that the limits imposed are not absolute in nature and that there is a certain amount of reasonable leeway given the proper conditions, the most important issue being that you are always operating your boat in a safe and reasonable manner.

That you may not be able to comprehend these concepts is acceptable, as you have never presented....in your incredible resume...any credentials related to your expertise in matters pertaining to New Hampshire's criminal code.

Or perhaps I missed that post?

Have a great summer,

Skip
Skip is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 07:54 AM   #55
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,520
Thanks: 28
Thanked 347 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
...And I asked you nicely to please stop using a distorted version of my signature. Continuing to do so is a trolling - which is in violation of forum rules.
If you're going to start talking about your signature, then I have to chime in.
I find it offensive, provocative and illogical so please remove it.

"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

I'm a boater and I love people, not objects. I also love spending time on my boat. It's a personal insult to me that you suggest in every post that I "love" my boat.

I'm also a kayaker and I strongly believe that kayaks are boats and should be treated as boats with the same right and the same responsibilties. You personally insult all kayakers in every post be discriminating between boaters and kayakers. All kayakers are boaters.

Your signature should read: Boaters enjoy boating... Boaters love being in the water
jrc is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 08:56 AM   #56
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
If you take a moment and read all my posts on this subject, particularly my post #15 in this particular thread, you will find that I have already clearly explained the relevance between the new boating legislation & the current applicable verbiage contained in most NH motor vehicle speed legislation.

Only by taking the information I have presented piecemeal or out of context can you imply than anyone in this thread was insinuating that the new legislation could be ignored or defeated in Court.
Skip, I did read all your posts and was not bring critical of anything you posted. I was merely responding to Island Lover's post #32, about boats "opening it up" on the Broads. And was just trying to clarify things a bit. I may not agree with many of the powerboat owners on this forum, but I don't want people getting in trouble because they misunderstand something that was posted here.

Quote:
That you may not be able to comprehend these concepts is acceptable, as you have never presented....in your incredible resume...any credentials related to your expertise in matters pertaining to New Hampshire's criminal code.
Skip, I'm just trying to be helpful here. Yet some people here still have the need to attack and twist everything that I post. And now you're assuming that I'm not able to "comprehend these concepts." I find your reply very condescending and insulting. Why is it that I have to continue to prove myself on this forum? Who else here is ever asked to back up their posts with any "credentials"?

But since my education is being questioned yet again: I graduated from NHTI last May with a degree in Paralegal Studies; I did my internship at the NH State House, under a UNH Political Science internship program, by working as an aid to a NH Senator from early January until early June of 2007; I just completed my Junior year at Roger Wiliams University, where I'm doing a dual major in Political Science and Legal Studies.

Now I'll likely get attacked for "bragging" about my abilities again.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 10:06 AM   #57
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal View Post
That's what happens when you allow a woman into politics
Boys...why start this? It would be a good idea imho to let this one go tyvm.
KonaChick is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 08:32 PM   #58
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=2969
VtSteve is offline  
Old 05-19-2008, 08:59 AM   #59
Mashugana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 73
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question If a boat revs in a forrest and no ne is around does it make a noise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
The key words here are "when nobody is around," and this includes the Marine Patrol. If you are in an accident, while "opening it up" expect the book to be thrown at you.
Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?

If they could prove that over the speed limit was the primary cause of an accident how would that effect the penalty?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
And you guys really should be careful about dismissing the ability of this lake speed limit law to stand up in court, because the exact same "prima facie" language is used in the highway Speed Limitations: NH RSA - Section 265:60:
Evenstar, why do you think that a lake speed limit citation would not hold up in court? I don't see where anyone said that.

BTW, I am a boater, what about my love?
Mashugana is offline  
Old 05-19-2008, 09:20 AM   #60
gtxrider
Senior Member
 
gtxrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,012
Thanks: 1
Thanked 44 Times in 23 Posts
Default Just like on a paved road

[QUOTE=Mashugana;70770]Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?




I bet they try to measure the SKID marks to determine the speed!
gtxrider is offline  
Old 05-19-2008, 10:20 AM   #61
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashugana View Post
Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?
My two statements were meant to be separate events. Sorry for not making that clear. Of course there would have to be some proof of having been traveling over the speed limit when the accident occurred.

Quote:
Evenstar, why do you think that a lake speed limit citation would not hold up in court? I don't see where anyone said that.
I do think that a lake speed limit would hold up in court. Yet others here were suggesting that it would be easy to defend, due to the "prima facie" language that was used. I was merely trying to caution against that attitude. It is my understanding that the language in the bill 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 otherwise. And I don't see that as being easy to prove.

Here's examples from this thread about what others are suggesting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
You are out on the Broads on a clear and calm unlimited visibility day and its just you and a distant NHMP boat. If you can articulate in Court that the spped you are suggesting, 70 MPH, was reasonable and prudent given the conditions of the day than you, my friend, have just learned what an affirmative defense is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either.
Quote:
BTW, I am a boater, what about my love?

Why is my signature suddenly an issue? It was never meant to be an insult to anyone - so please don't take it that way. It doesn't state that boaters love their boats more than anything else or that they only love their boats. It does not state that kayaks are not a type of boat. It does not state that kayakers don't love their kayaks.

The point on my sig is that, if you kayak, you'd better love the water, because you are going to get wet. A slightly modified version of my sig could also be very appropriate for collegiate sailing as well, as I get much wetter racing sailboats than I do when I kayak.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 05:46 AM   #62
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Evenstar: I can go for a walk in the woods durring hunting season, I would not do it, but I could. I also would not even think about asking those that hunt to not do so because I want to take a morning walk in the woods. From what I am hearing you say I should enact a law that says that no one should be able to hunt so that I can take my morning walk? Your chances of being hit on the water are infinately less then being shot while walking in the woods during hunting season. Both are statistically much less then being in a car accident. Live and let live. There is an entire lake out there for everyone to use, find a place that you do feel safe and enjoy it.

The argument about me not being able to see as far at speed is totally false. If the proponents of the law ever drove one of these boats they would realize that. How is it that my vision becomes less when traveling at speed? When you are driving in a car does your vision become less when you drive at highway speed vs. traveling around town on back roads? Also, when I drive slower I have to look at 360 degrees of the lake as people could approach from the sides and behind. As I travel faster it is less important what is behind me and more improtant what is in front of me. Get up to 70 or so MPH and there is almost no chance that some one is aproaching you from behind. This allows me to focus more on what is in front of me. How is it that my vision is less at speed?
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 06:39 AM   #63
Gilligan
Senior Member
 
Gilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 10 Times in 4 Posts
Talking Marks in the milfoil

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtxrider View Post

I bet they try to measure the SKID marks to determine the speed!
Measure skid marks to figure boat speed. Too funny .

Hey maybe they can measure disturbed milfoil. The new pavement.

If no one is around and your boat doesn't sink what prevents a hit-and-run?
__________________
Gilligan is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 08:22 AM   #64
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Craft View Post
Live and let live. There is an entire lake out there for everyone to use, find a place that you do feel safe and enjoy it. The argument about me not being able to see as far at speed is totally false. If the proponents of the law ever drove one of these boats they would realize that. How is it that my vision becomes less when traveling at speed? When you are driving in a car does your vision become less when you drive at highway speed vs. traveling around town on back roads? Also, when I drive slower I have to look at 360 degrees of the lake as people could approach from the sides and behind. As I travel faster it is less important what is behind me and more improtant what is in front of me. Get up to 70 or so MPH and there is almost no chance that some one is aproaching you from behind. This allows me to focus more on what is in front of me. How is it that my vision is less at speed?
You guys love using our state motto to protect your own freedoms, while in the very same breath suggesting that others give up their freedoms – so that you can continue to have an unlimited speed limit on the lake.

You and others here contend that kayaks should be restricted to certain areas of the lake – I contend that an experienced sea kayaker should be able to safely use the entire lake – without fear of being run over by high speed boats. My boat is made to use on the main lake. I’m not supporting a bill that would limit what parts of the lake that powerboats should use.

Besides, I’ve had close encounters with high-speed powerboats when I’ve been only a few hundred feet from shore. And others had testified about similar close calls relatively near the shore. I should not have to hug the shore or be restricted to coves to be safe from being run over. Slowing down the fastest boats to a safer speed is the fairest thing for everyone – since it is the least restrictive.

My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow).

This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.

I never stated that vision is less at higher speeds – just that vision doesn’t magically get better at higher speeds (as some forum members have suggested).

Not every boater has perfect vision, and not every boater pays enough attention to smaller boats, and visibility is not always perfect out on the lake. Combine any of these with high speeds and you can have a dangerous situation for smaller boats.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 12:37 PM   #65
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,520
Thanks: 28
Thanked 347 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
...
Why is my signature suddenly an issue? ...
You made it an issue.
jrc is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 12:54 PM   #66
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,921
Thanks: 62
Thanked 214 Times in 141 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Why is my signature suddenly an issue? It was never meant to be an insult to anyone - so please don't take it that way. It doesn't state that boaters love their boats more than anything else or that they only love their boats. It does not state that kayaks are not a type of boat. It does not state that kayakers don't love their kayaks.
You are the one that made others signatures an issue. They have a right to use whatever they want as long as it meets forum regulations for decency, even if it does poke some fun at yours.

Give it a rest and move on.
codeman671 is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 01:24 PM   #67
gtxrider
Senior Member
 
gtxrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,012
Thanks: 1
Thanked 44 Times in 23 Posts
Default its not speed it is distance

[QUOTE=Evenstar;70826]

My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow).


It is not the size of boat. I have had Captain Bonehead run right up next to me in a 19' boat. It is the 150' rule and not speed!
gtxrider is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 01:54 PM   #68
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Evenstar. My smaller boat (the one that I use the most) is probably only 2-3 feet longer then your kayak. I am willing to bet that it sits only slightly higher in the water then a kayak. I have NEVER had any issue with some one almost running me over at speed. Lots of people have violated the 150 foot rule around me. Not once has it been a speed boat at a high rate of speed.
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 02:40 PM   #69
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Y
This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.
YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 03:04 PM   #70
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????
AMAZING!!!!! yet sad.....
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 04:09 PM   #71
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
AMAZING!!!!! yet sad.....
I know... here you go, you can all read it for yourself : http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...0&postcount=36
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.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-20-2008, 05:35 PM   #72
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc View Post
You made it an issue.
No I didn't. Others make it an issue by trying to us my signature against me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
You are the one that made others signatures an issue. They have a right to use whatever they want as long as it meets forum regulations for decency, even if it does poke some fun at yours. Give it a rest and move on.
I explained my signature. No member has the right to take another forum member's post and twist it in a way that pokes fun at the other member. That is hateful and it is trolling - which is in violation of the rules of this forum. I'll "give it a rest and move on," just as soon as others here do. I'm the one being made fun of, not you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtxrider View Post
It is not the size of boat. I have had Captain Bonehead run right up next to me in a 19' boat. It is the 150' rule and not speed!
Size is more than just length. My kayak is only 22 inches wide and it weighs only 50 pounds. If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????
That is not true and you know it! You are just taking my post out of context again (just like you did in #251 in the "Life after speed limits" thread).

In my very next post,#43 (which was posted way back on April 4, 2005!), I wrote: "That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!

I also explained this in my reply to your former accusation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
This is still 100% true "Visibility has NEVER been a problem for me on Squam Lake – because there is a 40 mph speed limit which apparently keeps powerboat operators from traveling faster than their ability to see." The guy on Squam back in the summer of 2004 clearly saw us and was just being a jerk. I made that clear in that old thread, but you neglected to include that part. So that was clearly not a case of someone who was traveling too fast to see me. So go try to find something else to use against me - because you failed again. And personally I'm really getting tired of defending myself here all the time.
Hazelnut, you have no business posting these sort of posts,as they are in direct violation of the forum rules: "Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."

Why is it that I have to constantly defend myself on this forum???
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-21-2008, 06:24 AM   #73
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.
This goes back to the drawn out debate about how many non-powered boats have been hit by a speeding powerboat on Winni? In NH? In New England?

How many powerboats have been hit by a powerboat on Winni where the operator had not consumed alcohol?

I think tipping and drowning seem to be the issues that are claiming kayakers across the region. I know I've read of at least 2 in the past few weeks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!
So, if I'm going over 45mph and enter somebody's 150' zone with a smile it's ok?
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-21-2008, 06:33 AM   #74
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Evenstar: First your point about you getting hurt more in your boat then me in mine if we get hit by the same boat I am sure you can see is very flawed. It is the low stance of the boat that allows the other boat to travel up and over our boats should we ever be hit. It has nothing to do with the weight. Now your boat may break in half and mine may not but I assure you the damage to the occupants and boats would be substantial.

Now your point about the Squam incident... First back in 04 or when ever it was you pointed out that the guy was laughing at you as he passed. Well how are you sure that the other people that have come close to you (violated your 150 foot rule) also did not have the same mentality. When I first went up to the lake I did not know about the 150 foot rule and did go to close to a friend of mine. He explained the rule to me that I had no idea about and from then on I obayed the rule. You could also just be running into every jerk on a boat. They come in all shapes, sizes, powers, speeds. I was anchored at a beach and I had a sail boater hit me and actually claim that he had the right of way!! He actually said that since he was a sail boat that I had to get out of his way! Speed had nothing to do with that incident stupidity had everything to do with it. Again those same people are going to not know the laws and will still come way to close to you. Speed limits do not fix this problem for you.

Lastly let the owner of this board decide what is or is not against the rules of the board. Just about every post on this forum is moderated. He has read them all. I would assume that if he thought that they were against forum rules he would either edit them or not post them. Everyone needs to lighten up on this board and have a little more fun.
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 05-21-2008, 11:54 AM   #75
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
No I didn't. Others make it an issue by trying to us my signature against me.



I explained my signature. No member has the right to take another forum member's post and twist it in a way that pokes fun at the other member. That is hateful and it is trolling - which is in violation of the rules of this forum. I'll "give it a rest and move on," just as soon as others here do. I'm the one being made fun of, not you.


Size is more than just length. My kayak is only 22 inches wide and it weighs only 50 pounds. If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most? And it is speed when a high-speed powerboat unintentionally violates my 150 foot zone - because they are traveling too fast.


That is not true and you know it! You are just taking my post out of context again (just like you did in #251 in the "Life after speed limits" thread).

In my very next post,#43 (which was posted way back on April 4, 2005!), I wrote: "That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me!

I also explained this in my reply to your former accusation:


Hazelnut, you have no business posting these sort of posts,as they are in direct violation of the forum rules: "Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law."

Why is it that I have to constantly defend myself on this forum???
Spin spin spin spin spin I am soooo dizzy spin spin.

Evanstar you lied and said it never happened on Squam yet when I post YOUR words that clearly state somebody came within 40 feet of you VIOLATING YOUR 150 FOOT ZONE I am attacking you???????? Enough is enough. You are bordering on troll posting now. I move to have you moderated again because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-21-2008, 08:47 PM   #76
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,520
Thanks: 28
Thanked 347 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Let her talk, it only helps. If her argurements are all they have...
jrc is offline  
Old 05-21-2008, 10:58 PM   #77
Skipper of the Sea Que
Senior Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 572
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Arrow Error by omission

I'm not claiming that you made this stuff up Evenstar. I'm just saying that you left out an important portion of what Skip quoted which qualifies the "exact same language".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
"Absolute speed limits by definition on our State's 65 MPH highways and school zones are notable exceptions to the prima facie rule.
Skip was talking about the differences in how the violations are handled. If you don't understand what he is saying, don't dismiss him or try to change the meaning of his statements. The qualification you omitted, Evenstar, makes a big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
If you take a moment and read all my posts on this subject, particularly my post #15 in this particular thread, you will find that I have already clearly explained the relevance between the new boating legislation & the current applicable verbiage contained in most NH motor vehicle speed legislation.

Only by taking the information I have presented piecemeal or out of context can you imply than anyone in this thread was insinuating that the new legislation could be ignored or defeated in Court.
It is nice to be nice Evenstar. I did not say that you were making up stuff regarding this topic. I did suggest that you were dismissing or maybe I'll call it mis-clarifying, what Skip had said. Whatever you call it the omission can change the meaning of his message.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Look, I'm just trying to be nice by pointing out that the language in this lake speed limit bill is the same language that is used in highway speed limit laws. If you don't believe me, fine. I'm not dismissing anyone.

Goodness, I can't even be nice on this forum, without being critized for it!

And I gave you the actual NH RSA - I'm not making this stuff up, but since you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm


And I asked you nicely to please stop using a distorted version of my signature. Continuing to do so is a trolling - which is in violation of forum rules.
You have accused me of trolling. That is your opinion but I don't agree. I am rather annoyed at various people in the speed limit discussion who seem to want to tell me what I think or what I know or what I pretend not to know or even tell me where my love goes.

Hmmm, you say I am violating forum rules. Well now, maybe we need "new and improved" rules that are sure to reduce violations... no wait, that's the speed limit con... never mind.

Some boaters love kayakers --- and some don't
__________________



Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works.
Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient.
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 05-21-2008, 11:33 PM   #78
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
This goes back to the drawn out debate about how many non-powered boats have been hit by a speeding powerboat on Winni? In NH? In New England?
To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.

Quote:
I think tipping and drowning seem to be the issues that are claiming kayakers across the region. I know I've read of at least 2 in the past few weeks.
And how many of those were on winni? Or on a NH lake? And were those victims wearing PFDs and were they wearing appropriate clothing? The thing is that I can protect myself from things like drowning, by being a good swimmer, wearing a PFD and usually going with a friend. And I own and use cold water gear like a wetsuit, a drysuit, and underarmor. What I have no control over are the powerboat operators who travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats. If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law.

Quote:
So, if I'm going over 45mph and enter somebody's 150' zone with a smile it's ok?
No, it’s not. And I never suggested that it was. That is dangerous and it is breaking a law. But these are two different violations – one is intentional and one is unintentional. It is my belief that a speed limit law will help reduce the unintentional violations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Craft View Post
Evenstar: First your point about you getting hurt more in your boat then me in mine if we get hit by the same boat I am sure you can see is very flawed.
When I wrote: “If a powerboat hits me, who do you think will be hurt the most?” The two boats here were my kayak and the powerboat that hit me. I was not talking about you and your boat. My point was that size is more than just length – mass is a major factor.

Quote:
Now your point about the Squam incident... First back in 04 or when ever it was you pointed out that the guy was laughing at you as he passed. Well how are you sure that the other people that have come close to you (violated your 150 foot rule) also did not have the same mentality.
Other boats have intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. I actually pull one violator over with my kayak – much to the amusement of the MP that I reported the incident to. My point is that some high-speed powerboats (boats going over 45 mph) have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone because they were going to fast to see me. And I’m 99% sure that this was not intentional, because I had a very good look at their expression when they did finally notice me.

Quote:
Lastly let the owner of this board decide what is or is not against the rules of the board. Just about every post on this forum is moderated. He has read them all. I would assume that if he thought that they were against forum rules he would either edit them or not post them. Everyone needs to lighten up on this board and have a little more fun.
The forum rules are something that all members agree to follow. I did not make up the rules – they are very clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I know what a personal attack is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
Evanstar you lied and said it never happened on Squam yet when I post YOUR words that clearly state somebody came within 40 feet of you VIOLATING YOUR 150 FOOT ZONE I am attacking you???????? Enough is enough. You are bordering on troll posting now. I move to have you moderated again because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.
I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation!

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.”

So please stop your personal attacks on me. You have no right to repeatedly accuse me of lying. Your attacks are personal – they are intentional – and they are done with malice.

The legal definition of slander is: “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
I'm not claiming that you made this stuff up Evenstar. I'm just saying that you left out an important portion of what Skip quoted which qualifies the "exact same language". Skip was talking about the differences in how the violations are handled. If you don't understand what he is saying, don't dismiss him or try to change the meaning of his statements. The qualification you omitted, Evenstar, makes a big difference.
I wasn’t even disagreeing with most of what Skip posted. I just was trying to clarify something that other members seemed to be misunderstanding. I honestly didn’t want people here getting in trouble because of a misunderstanding.

Quote:
You have accused me of trolling. That is your opinion but I don't agree. I am rather annoyed at various people in the speed limit discussion who seem to want to tell me what I think or what I know or what I pretend not to know or even tell me where my love goes.
Well it is not my just opinion - it is clearly stated in the forum rules: “No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!” I asked you to please not use a distorted version on my signature. Yet you continue to do so – even though you know that this upsets me. That is trolling, according to the definition given in the forum rules. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 08:39 AM   #79
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.
What, exactly is a "close call" is it a boat that travels within 149' of your kayak? 120'? 75'? And why aren't/can't these be reported?

Again, without proof (radar, laser) that these boats were going 46mph or faster, you seem to make great case for better enforcement of the 150' rule. The speed limit is not going to solve this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
And how many of those were on winni? Or on a NH lake? And were those victims wearing PFDs and were they wearing appropriate clothing? The thing is that I can protect myself from things like drowning, by being a good swimmer, wearing a PFD and usually going with a friend. And I own and use cold water gear like a wetsuit, a drysuit, and underarmor. What I have no control over are the powerboat operators who travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats. If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law.
You sound like you are very well protected and prepared in case of tipping. Since we're talking about being in an encounter with a high speed motorized vessel travelling at speeds that make the captain inattentive, unable to slow his vessel due to his/her inability to clearly identify your sea kayak and bright paddles in a manner timely enough to change course and avoid a potentially fatal accident - maybe a kayak flag would make a sensible addition to your equipment?

Few members of the forum have posted that their boats are capable of reaching 45mph. Of those, many admit that they reserve pushing their boats to speeds of 45mph in open areas, such as the broads. Let's say 10% of the boats on the lake are going 45mph or higher at any point in time (0.29%, speed survey, blah, blah, blah - we know those numbers are just totally fictional and serve no relevance about speeds on the lake) but applying this logic - it seems like you'd have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, involved in an airplane crash, or winning the lottery (might be a good night to buy a ticket) than having MULTIPLE incidents with a "Speeding" vessel on the lake. But that is just my opinion (except for the lottery ticket thing - you seem to be able to beat the odds time after time!!!!!).
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 11:02 AM   #80
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post


I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation!

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.”

So please stop your personal attacks on me. You have no right to repeatedly accuse me of lying. Your attacks are personal – they are intentional – and they are done with malice.

The legal definition of slander is: “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.”
Will you give it a rest already. I never attacked you. You absolutely can not stand it when anyone disagrees with you so you get all defensive and cry attack? This post in itself is an absolute personal attack. A LAWSUIT?!? Are you for real. I have not once spoken an untruth about you.

You posted a while back about a close call on Squam. Whether he saw you before he violated your 150 foot zone or not or unintentionally or intentionally came at you was not referenced in any of my posts. You pointed to a 40MPH limit on Squam as the reason nobody ever infringed upon your 150foot zone. I used YOUR WORDS to remind you that in fact it had happened to you.

If you just stopped the whoa is me attitude and stuck to your arguments you may be a bit more well received here. This isn't personal and it never will be. I absolutely 100% disagree with everything you say. Oh well move on. I don't dislike you, I don't wish you ill will, I don't know you. Unfortunately you fail to see where you have been extremely condescending and negative to just about every poster on this forum. Maybe you don't mean to be, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't. Unfortunately most here and most I've spoken to personally or have PM'ed me think that you do mean it and that you are being smug and or arrogant. Sometimes the written word does not accurately reflect the true personality of somebody. I have but one request. Please stop playing the victim.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 06:06 PM   #81
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Will you give it a rest already. I never attacked you. You absolutely can not stand it when anyone disagrees with you so you get all defensive and cry attack?
I have no problem when people disagree with me – that’s called debating. The problem is that too many members here - like you, can’t seem to debate anything without resorting to personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with them – and THAT I do have a problem with.

You falsely accused me of lying, again. You completely misunderstood what I posted – even though I made the distinction very clear. And even after I had pointed out what I actually wrote. That is very much a personal attack. Before accusing someone of lying, you really should make sure that they actually posted what you think they posted.

Quote:
This post in itself is an absolute personal attack. A LAWSUIT?!? Are you for real. I have not once spoken an untruth about you.
You have repeatedly called me a liar, even though I provided clear evidence that proved that I didn’t lie. Your act was intentional, it was done with malice, and you did it on a public forum – which makes it libel (I mistakenly used the definition for slander earlier – I make mistakes when I get upset).

Quote:
You posted a while back about a close call on Squam. Whether he saw you before he violated your 150 foot zone or not or unintentionally or intentionally came at you was not referenced in any of my posts. You pointed to a 40MPH limit on Squam as the reason nobody ever infringed upon your 150foot zone. I used YOUR WORDS to remind you that in fact it had happened to you.
What you did is take my words out of context to use them against me. I NEVER stated that no one on Squam ever infringed on my 150 foot zone. I clearly stated that no one on Squam has UNINTENTIONALLY ever violated my 150 foot zone – BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T SEE ME. That is not the same thing as what you have now repeatedly accused me of posting! Read my post – and read my entire post this time.

If you and others think that I’m coming across as “smug and or arrogant,” perhaps that is due to that fact that I have to provide credentials for every single ability, for every bit of experience, and for every statement that I make on this forum. I am not a smug or arrogant person. I can not even make a helpful post or make a joke without someone here criticizing me.

You blatantly attacked me by calling me a liar again and demanding that I be moderated for my actions – and then you tell me to “give it a rest!!!” If you would just back off and quit attacking my posts and falsely accusing me, I wouldn’t have to spend nearly as much time defending myself here. I am “the victim” because people like you have made me “the victim.” I am not playing anything – but have merely tried to defend myself from some really hostile attacks, that I don’t feel like I deserved. You seem to wait around for me to post just to rip my posts apart – and whenever anyone else criticizes me, you are one of the first ones to chime in and add to the feeding frenzy. You claim that you don’t hate me, but your actions say otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
What, exactly is a "close call" is it a boat that travels within 149' of your kayak? 120'? 75'? And why aren't/can't these be reported? Again, without proof (radar, laser) that these boats were going 46mph or faster, you seem to make great case for better enforcement of the 150' rule. The speed limit is not going to solve this.
Ryan, I’m been through this many, many, many times on this forum. You and others should really go back and read my posts, rather than just keep asking me the very same questions over and over again.

I’ve stated more than once that my sea kayak is nearly 16 feet long, so when a powerboat gets within 3 or 4 of my kayak lengths from me, they are much closer than 150 feet. Being less than a second away from a likely fatal collision is what I consider to be a close call.

Close calls can be reported – but, as far as I know, no one actually keeps track of them. Have you ever seen a published report that gives the number of close calls on NH lakes?

How do you enforce a violation that wasn’t intentional? Sure, the MP can cite they operator, but how does that prevent an unintentional violation from happening again. And that’s not going to do the paddler any good, after a powerboat collides with them.

Again, I’ve stated this over and over – so, either you guys are not getting this, or you’re just choosing to ignore what I post. It is my belief that unintentional violations happen because the operator is traveling beyond his abilities to see smaller boats in time, so if he is forced to slow down, he will be traveling at speeds that are now closer to his abilities. Plus when you are going slower, you have more time to react. That is a fact. Therefore the speed limit should greatly reduce the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

Quote:
. . .maybe a kayak flag would make a sensible addition to your equipment?
I’ve already explained over and over why this is not a helpful suggestion. Go HERE and read for yourself, if you somehow missed my numerous posts of this.

I’ve been 100% truthful in my accounts of close calls on the lake. The main reason that I’m supporting enacting a speed limit on the lake is based of my own personal experiences on the lake. And I’m not the only person who has recounted numerous close calls from high-speed powerboats while paddling.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 07:10 AM   #82
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,346
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 487
Thanked 457 Times in 160 Posts
Default

So go ahead and sue me then.

I've seen several people here try to help you in your posting to no avail. I stand by my post regarding the Squam incident. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to bury that incident and pretend it did not happen fine. It happened, the circumstances surrounding it are not what I am debating. My point was and is that careless boating is the problem regardless of speed limit. Your incident proves that. You can not understand that, too bad I guess. Jerks boat everywhere.

I guess "the victim" act will continue, oh well everyone here has tried. It is what it is.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:48 AM   #83
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Can I get the cliffs notes version of all these long posts please
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 09:38 AM   #84
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Ryan, I’m been through this many, many, many times on this forum. You and others should really go back and read my posts, rather than just keep asking me the very same questions over and over again.
I want you to know, I respect your opinions. I did not join this forum to just "Debate Evanstar". The forum is a means for debate and when I see a flaw in one's logic, I feel the need to debate.

Honestly, I've read all of the posts surrounding this debate.
It was only recently that I felt the need to sign up and voice my concerns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I’ve already explained over and over why this is not a helpful suggestion. Go HERE and read for yourself, if you somehow missed my numerous posts of this.

I've also read your extreme opposition to the kayak flag, which IMHO is a pretty poor decision for somebody who is concerned about visibility with power boats travelling at Ludicrous Speed. (the way you describe captains travelling at 46mph reminds me of the "Spaceballs" scene where they are going "Ludicrous speed". [/Sarcasm]At least that's how my vision gets when I hit 46mph.[Sarcasm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
I’ve stated more than once that my sea kayak is nearly 16 feet long, so when a powerboat gets within 3 or 4 of my kayak lengths from me, they are much closer than 150 feet. Being less than a second away from a likely fatal collision is what I consider to be a close call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Again, I’ve stated this over and over – so, either you guys are not getting this, or you’re just choosing to ignore what I post. It is my belief that unintentional violations happen because the operator is traveling beyond his abilities to see smaller boats in time, so if he is forced to slow down, he will be traveling at speeds that are now closer to his abilities. Plus when you are going slower, you have more time to react. That is a fact. Therefore the speed limit should greatly reduce the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.
At 50MPH (~1% of the boats on any given day) one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.

The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

How are you possibly going to feel any safer?

No further questions.....today.
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 05:37 PM   #85
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,707
Thanks: 198
Thanked 339 Times in 239 Posts
Default

Chris Craft. I am with you. I just can't read all the long posts. I skim them. I was taught that people lose you when you are not concise. Somehow that always stuck in my mind. But I have to admit, I admire those who take the time to read and write that much.
tis is offline  
Old 05-23-2008, 06:21 PM   #86
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

All you need to know is this.

Some people have drowned while boating, even falling off the Mount.

Some people have hit docks, rocks, even islands (they might be a bit drunk)

Some boaters are lax in their attention span, and don't pay attention to their proximity to others on the lake

PWC's, well the buzz around like little sea lice, many times coming way too close to boats to get a bigger wake. Many fall off them and get boo boos

There are several No Wake Zones on the lake. They are there for a reason, but some just ignore them.

While all of this is going on, the marine patrol apparently doesn't see any of it. BI sees the people going 90 in a NWZ and says we need speed limits.

What we need all over is enforcement, it really does work.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 05-24-2008, 01:36 PM   #87
Gilligan
Senior Member
 
Gilligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 10 Times in 4 Posts
Arrow Misleading spin from the pro speed limit side

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Lover View Post
Interesting how many opponents didn't understand until today what the law says and means. Skip has posted this before. The proponents on this forum have pointed out many times that boats will be able to go faster that the numbers and "get away with it". If you want to open it up on the broads when nobody is around, I don't care. And I doubt the Marine Patrol will either. Just one more thing we have been saying, but nobody was listening.

BI where were you last night?
You are giving the public the wrong impression about the information posted by Skip. You expect MP to selectively ignore laws. Only you are suggesting that you can "get away" with going over the proposed new limit because of the wording of the law. Skip is saying that you can defend yourself in court a different way than a car speeder can.

Boaters often "get away" with breaking the law now. Violating the 150 foot law is one we all know. That does not mean they can "get away" with it if they get a ticket and go to court. You know that MP can't enforce every rule 100% of the time. It will be the same when a speed limit rule is in effect. Do not diminish the potential of that speed limit law.

What you are suggesting is that you can violate the new law. You can speed and get away with it. If you get a boating speeding ticket you will not get away with it. You will be allowed to present a defense different than what you could say if it was a car speeding ticket. You still have to face a judge or plead nolo or guilty.

Bear Islander has said that boaters behave when the MP are around. I believe we all agree on that point. They will be around more if they do not have to have 2 officers in one boat with a radar gun. Those 2 officers could be in 2 separate patrol boats potentially causing twice as many boaters to behave. No new law required for twice the safety.

As has been said many times. More enforcement of the current laws works. You can't spin that.
__________________
Gilligan is offline  
Old 05-25-2008, 06:53 AM   #88
Commodore
Member
 
Commodore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 45
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Unhappy Weird logic repeated over and over.

My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
To which I’ll ask: How many close calls have there been on winni? The problem is that no one keeps any record of close calls. It seems that you keep tabs on close calls. I’ve had more than my share on the lake. And I know other paddlers who have had close calls with powerboats on NH lakes.


How many times will you claim faster than their ability to see smaller, slower boats.

If all powerboat operators had more sense, we wouldn’t need this law. More sense or a sense that the Marine Patrol will catch them boating improperly?

It is my belief that a speed limit law will help reduce the unintentional violations. We know what you believe, we don't agree with you.


Other boats have intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. I actually pull one violator over with my kayak – much to the amusement of the MP that I reported the incident to. And you got bow numbers and the MP did what?

My point is that some high-speed powerboats (boats going over 45 mph) have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone All together now, because they were going to fast to see me. You know this because of the look on their face. And I’m 99% sure that this was not intentional, because I had a very good look at their expression when they did finally notice me. We are not 99% sure.


The forum rules are something that all members agree to follow. I did not make up the rules – they are very clearly spelled out in the FAQ. I know what a personal attack is.


I did not lie. Read my posts again! I clearly explained the fact that the operator on Squam saw me. You know this because you read people's faces. You know what they think by their facial expression That is not the same thing as an unintentional violation! A violation is a violation.

My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it):

“I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone Once again, why do you think we need this speed limit because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. Boater is violating a current law. No need to add another law. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. There could be no other reason for the look on their faces?

This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). Excellent visibility where you can spot a kayak a mile away but other boaters can not see you if they boat over 40 or 45 mph? This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.” That is not a logical conclusion.

Well it is not my just opinion - it is clearly stated in the forum rules: “No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!” I asked you to please not use a distorted version on my signature. Yet you continue to do so – even though you know that this upsets me. It upsets me the way you continue to say boats go faster than their ability to see. It upsets me to constantly hear the same irrational reasoning for this speed limit. Now you know it upsets me you will stop because That is trolling, according to the definition given in the forum rules. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
What I believe is that, unfortunately, you believe everything you say and you keep saying it over and over again.


Comments in red by The Commodore.
__________________
The Commodore
Commodore is offline  
Old 05-25-2008, 08:26 AM   #89
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 362 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Craft View Post
Can I get the cliffs notes version of all these long posts please
I found one on my computer. The down arrow on the lower right corner gets me right past the manifesto in no time. I have found that the shorter a post is the more it draws my attention to read it. Somebody has a point and they make it quickly. Maybe it's me but the post with 15 quotes in them are seldom worth the time it took to write or read them. IMHO.
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 05-25-2008, 10:17 PM   #90
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
I've also read your extreme opposition to the kayak flag, which IMHO is a pretty poor decision for somebody who is concerned about visibility with power boats travelling at Ludicrous Speed.
fficeffice" />>>

>>
My decision is based on what is actually safest for me – which is based on hundreds of hours of experience on large lakes in my sea kayak. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Because if you had, you would understand the importance of balance and the effect of wind on a boat like mine. These are little tiny flags, on a short pole, with a surface area that is much less than one of my paddle blades – so they would not increase my visibility appreciatively from a distance. A flag that would be large enough and high enough out of the water to actually increase my kayak’s visibility would make my kayak totally unstable and would make self-rescues extremely difficult if not impossible.>>
> >
Most of the members of this forum could not even get into my kayak without tipping it over. You need to fit though a 19 inch wide cockpit hole (that’s the widest end), just to get into the seat – and then you need to figure out how to get your legs in there with you.>>


[quote=Commodore;71244]My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar. What I believe is that, unfortunately, you believe everything you say and you keep saying it over and over again.
quote]
And your post isn’t any shorter than mine. As I explained, I am limited to the number of post I can make per day and I often have 6 of 8 posts that are directed at me – so this is that only way that I can respond to everyone. If you don’t like long post, don’t read mine. >>
> >
Look, I’m the one who was there and I know what I saw. And my best friend was with me, so I do have a witness for all the above events. It’s really annoying that guys like you complain about me repeating myself, while you and others keep questioning everything that I post. I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself if you guys didn’t keep ripping my posts apart.>>
> >
You guys refuse to believe me because doing so would be an admission that perhaps we do need a speed limit. So you continue to attack my ability to tell that a boat is traveling at high speed, claim that I can’t tell when a boat is within my 150 foot zone, or now you’re claiming that I can’t read anyone’s expression. Again, I was there and you were not. And my best friend, who was paddling just a few feet from me, saw the same thing as I did and came to the exact same conclusions.>>
> >
Power boats HAVE entered our 150 foot zone at high speeds – sometimes getting within 50 or 60 feet of us before they gave any indication that they saw us. And then their reaction made it very obvious that they finally did notice us. This is not like we were using our intuition, or the force, or anything else. It was extremely obvious to both of us!>>
> >
The other thing (and yes, I’m repeating myself again, because you’re ignoring this part again) is that we are not the only ones who have experienced this type of dangerous close encounter with high-speed boats. At the House Transportation Committee hearing last March, a number of other paddlers recounted nearly identical experiences. >>
> >
Speed is a factor. How can you state that it isn’t? Where is your proof that what I and many others state is not true?>>
> >
I never posted that you have traveled faster than your ability to see small boats in time to not violate their 150 foot zone, so I’m not attacking you in any way. But there are people who do operate powerboats beyond their abilities, and these people have made the lake very dangerous for smaller boats. >>
> >
I am not trying to start an argument with you or with anyone – I am merely giving my opinion why I feel that a speed limit is needed on all NH lakes. That is not trolling.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-27-2008, 07:33 AM   #91
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,036
Thanks: 183
Thanked 561 Times in 328 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
You guys refuse to believe me because doing so would be an admission that perhaps we do need a speed limit.
No,here's why we don't believe you.You make statements like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
Most of the members of this forum could not even get into my kayak without tipping it over.
How arrogant is this statement?I know you think your extremely smart because you've told us many times but now you are going to tell us that you know the ability of everyone on this forum.You are your own worst enemy.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 05-27-2008, 09:56 AM   #92
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Question So you're an experienced sea kayaker?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIKSUKR View Post
How arrogant is this statement?I know you think your extremely smart because you've told us many times but now you are going to tell us that you know the ability of everyone on this forum.You are your own worst enemy.
No, my worst enemies are people who don't understand what I am posting, because they are in too much of a hurry to find fault with what I post.

Look, the only reason that I defended my intelligence, is because some members suggested that I was less than intelligent and that I'm a poor student. Neither is true. I'm a strawberry blonde, but that doesn't mean that I'm a dumb blonde. But I don't consider myself to be "extremely smart" either.

And there is nothing arrogant about my statment - it's just a very logical statement for two reasons:

1.) Most members of this forum are not experienced sea kayakers - and getting into a sea kayak without tipping it over takes some skill and practice. Sea kayaks are very narrow boats - it is nothing like sitting in a much wider recreational kayak.

2.) Purchasing a sea kayak is like buying jeans - and I'm a size 8. So I'm guessing that there many members here who could not fit into a pair of my jeans any better than they could fit into my sea kayak.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 06:41 AM   #93
Chris Craft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I have to agree with Evenstar (oh boy did I just say that!! LOL) I think that the flag is not going to help and I can see how it can make it more dificult for a recovery. That is however just the products that I have seen posted on this site. That is not to say that there is not a better product out there that may work better then the stuff that has been posted. Maybe this is an oportunaty for some one to come up with a better mouse trap and then patition concord for yet another new law that requires what you have made and you are RICH!!!

My problem with the law is that quite honestly it does not solve any issues. I have driven boats fast, very fast. I have ridden in boats over 100 MPH. Not once have I come close to another boat at speed (except in poker runs). I can easily see anything and everything around me. The problem with people breaking the 150 foot rule is not speed it is either lack of knowledge of the rule OR innatention behind the wheel OR they just do not care. No speedlimit is going to solve either of those problems.
Chris Craft is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 08:47 AM   #94
Skipper of the Sea Que
Senior Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 572
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Thumbs down Evenstar's invitation is so inviting - NOT

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
No, my worst enemies are people who don't understand what I am posting, because they are in too much of a hurry to find fault with what I post. ...

And there is nothing arrogant about my statment - it's just a very logical statement for two reasons:

1.) Most members of this forum are not experienced sea kayakers - and getting into a sea kayak without tipping it over takes some skill and practice. Sea kayaks are very narrow boats - it is nothing like sitting in a much wider recreational kayak.

2.) Purchasing a sea kayak is like buying jeans - and I'm a size 8. So I'm guessing that there many members here who could not fit into a pair of my jeans any better than they could fit into my sea kayak.
You have enemies here? Questioning and debating is not a battle. I'm in no hurry to find the faults in your posts. I understand the words you use but don't always agree with you or follow the logic of your posts. Some of us may be in a hurry to point out inaccuracies for clarity not unjustified fault finding.

We do agree on some things. I'm too big, I could not get into your jeans or your kayak (even if I wanted to).

You've mentioned how sensitive your kind of kayak is and how much physical prowess and skill is needed to stay afloat and keep up with you on a paddling outing. Balance is very important to enjoy the sport as you do.

And you wonder why no one (other than Mee-n-Mac) has come forward to take you up on your offer to go kayak with you. You make it sound so un-inviting to the average person and I'm not referring to fear of fast boats.

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love love
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:15 AM   #95
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

I just wanted to repost this for ES:

At 50MPH one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.
The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

I sat on the beach this weekend watching all of the reckless, speeding watercraft zipping across Saunders Bay. I even saw a few GFBL's polluting the environment and eroding the shorelines as they (expensively) got on plane.

With the above sarcasm aside, I also saw kayakers enjoying the lake simultaneously with all of these big "wild west" style bullies. I noticed, that from my chaise lounge I could easily spot kayakers off the shoreline. I could also spot kayakers probably close to 3/4 mile off the shore. Granted, I was not operating a vessel at speeds where my vision becomes all blurry and my better judgement compromised, but I think the point stands.

What I did not see all weekend was a single MP. Very surprising for a busy holiday weekend...It has been mentioned that MP presense makes boaters behave. (this was even listed as a reason to invalidate the speed study) It's possible they were doubled up at a post in the broads testing their radar equipment for 2009.
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 10:03 PM   #96
Evenstar
Senior Member
 
Evenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
You have enemies here? Questioning and debating is not a battle. I'm in no hurry to find the faults in your posts. I understand the words you use but don't always agree with you or follow the logic of your posts. Some of us may be in a hurry to point out inaccuracies for clarity not unjustified fault finding.
I was just responding to SIKSUKR’s accusation that I’m supposedly “my own worst enemy.”

Yet, on this forum I have been treated with so much hostility, that I often feel like others here see me as the enemy. Personal attacks are not allowed in debates – yet that hasn’t stopped many here from resorting to them, when they can’t out debate someone. For instance, I have repeatedly asked you to not use a distorted version of my signature, yet you continue to do so, even though you know that it upsets me – which is a direct violation of forum rules – but no one is enforcing those rules. So this is not a debate – it is more of a free-for-all, where some members are permitted to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

Quote:
You've mentioned how sensitive your kind of kayak is and how much physical prowess and skill is needed to stay afloat and keep up with you on a paddling outing. Balance is very important to enjoy the sport as you do. And you wonder why no one (other than Mee-n-Mac) has come forward to take you up on your offer to go kayak with you. You make it sound so un-inviting to the average person and I'm not referring to fear of fast boats.
What I stated was that sea kayaks can easily tip over if you are not skilled in how to balance them properly. My offer was to rent or borrow a kayak and I’ll take you out on the main lake – I never said that you had to borrow a narrow sea kayak like mine and I never said that I wouldn’t wait for you. I just told Mee-n-Mac that I wouldn’t be staying near the shoreline and that he should expect a real workout. And I did state that we should wait until the water warms up, as I don't expect him or anyone else to own the cold water clothing that I use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
I just wanted to repost this for ES:
At 50MPH one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.
The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.
And I need to repeat my question, because my last reply on this never made it past the moderator: “Why are you using 50 mph, when boats on winni travel much faster than that?” Even the MP speed study recorded boats traveling faster than 50 mph.

And, even the difference between 40 mph and 50 mph is nearly a second – which could easily be the difference between a close call and a fatality. On Squam a 40 mph speed limit has never resulted in my 150 foot zone being violated unintentionally by a powerboat – that has only happened on large lakes that do not have a speed limit.

Quote:
With the above sarcasm aside, I also saw kayakers enjoying the lake simultaneously with all of these big "wild west" style bullies. I noticed, that from my chaise lounge I could easily spot kayakers off the shoreline. I could also spot kayakers probably close to 3/4 mile off the shore. Granted, I was not operating a vessel at speeds where my vision becomes all blurry and my better judgement compromised, but I think the point stands.
And I have been out in my kayak the past two weekends (not on winni) and didn’t have any close calls with a single powerboats. But that doesn't prove anything and it doesn’t mean that I won’t have any close calls this summer, nor does your observation prove that there won’t be close calls on winni between kayakers and high-speed powerboats.

I never stated that all powerboat operators were a dangerous threat to paddlers – but some are. And there will likely be more close calls this summer, because some powerboat operators will be traveling faster than they should be.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
Evenstar is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 11:31 PM   #97
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 362 Times in 174 Posts
Default

I will have to join Skipper in agreeing with ES. I am quite sure that even if I could fit in your Kayak the center of gravity would be about a foot above the water line. Three seconds later the laws of physics would equalize the situation.

ES, is the flag issue with the interference the the device imposes to a righting event? I am not suggesting that you should ever use one but if the pole pivoted in a way so that if the boat tipped over it would point straight back so it was both out of the way and rotationally neutral, would that open the option for more users?
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 09:00 AM   #98
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 234
Thanks: 205
Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
And I need to repeat my question, because my last reply on this never made it past the moderator: “Why are you using 50 mph, when boats on winni travel much faster than that?” Even the MP speed study recorded boats traveling faster than 50 mph.
I used 50 as a speed that is above the 2009 speed limit. I used 40 as a speed that is below the 2009 speed limit.
To utilize real life examples, I'll use 62MPH which was the maximum speed recorded on (only) 3 separate boats in the speed survey.

At 62 MPH the powered vessel collides w your kayak in 1.64 seconds.
At 40 MPH the powered vessel collides w your kayak in 2.55 seconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
And, even the difference between 40 mph and 50 mph is nearly a second –
Actually, it's nearly 1/2 second.
The difference between 62mph and 40mph is nearly 1 second.
IMHO I'm not sure 1/2 second or even 1 second is enough time to perform an evasive maneuver to avoid a 16 foot kayak while travelling faster than one's 'ability to see'.
You have no idea what that operator's intentions were when you were swamped on Squam. Please stop trying to convince me otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar View Post
And I have been out in my kayak the past two weekends (not on winni) and didn’t have any close calls with a single powerboats. But that doesn't prove anything and it doesn’t mean that I won’t have any close calls this summer, nor does your observation prove that there won’t be close calls on winni between kayakers and high-speed powerboats.
My observations had more to do with the fact that I could spot small vessels nearly 1 mile away. So even at 'unlimited speeds' it is not one's ability to spot smaller vessels, it's not speed, it's either ignorance of the rules or alcohol, which make up 'nearly' 100% of the causes of accidents on lakes in NH.
Ryan is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 10:39 AM   #99
2Blackdogs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Evenstar,

Are you aware that the Speed Limit forum would be silent without your defense of sea kayaks?

The issue isn't sea kayaks. You could give it a rest.
2Blackdogs is offline  
Old 05-29-2008, 11:19 AM   #100
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,349
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 156
Thanked 240 Times in 165 Posts
Default

There's probably plenty people who choose to read this forum without making any comments. Knowing that making a pro-speed limit comment will be micro-anaylzed, dissected, inspected, wrung-out, and rebutted with the usual high speed rap of spin-spin-spin, many have other things to do. Then again, some just like to argue endessly.

Question of the day: What's the latest on HB 847 as it oh so very slowly seems to be travelling at a snail's pace from the May 15 NH Senate vote of 14-10 to the Governor's desk.

Apparently, while the Governor has five business days to act on a bill once it reaches his desk, there is no time limit assigned to HB 847, as it now awaits its next do or die step in the legislative process.

So, what's happen'n Captain....whut's up w/ HB 847? Behind closed doors at NH's executive office, is the pressure being turned up on this political hot potato?

Like, what do we have to do to make HB 847 just go away?
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

This page was generated in 0.74893 seconds