PDA

View Full Version : more expert testimony on SB-27


Pages : [1] 2

ronc4424
02-01-2011, 02:31 PM
SB-27 would undermine commonsense speed limits on big lake

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110202/GJOPINION02/702029985/-1/CITNEWS

lawn psycho
02-02-2011, 06:20 AM
Anglers in the Broads? Yeah that's where they all shoot too during the fishing derby's isn't it? :laugh:

So a SL would have prevented the Blizzard collision? :laugh:

I'm glad to see the SL supporters are worried. Maybe I should ask to be a part of the WinnFabs team so I can toy with them:liplick:

AllAbourdon
02-02-2011, 09:39 AM
More and more families, kayakers, rowers, and slower family boaters have been sharing the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee safely, enjoyably and without any high speed accidents!


Why do I keep seeing this being said? What substantiates this claim?

Seaplane Pilot
02-02-2011, 01:16 PM
Why do I keep seeing this being said? What substantiates this claim?

Nothing substantiates this claim whatsoever. Just the liberal, self serving, selfish agenda of WinnFabs. Screw everyone else under the phony guise of "safety". Compromise? Hell no. They want it all, their way - period. The broads are for sailboats and kayaks...not powerboats.

Anyway, my signature says it all: :fire:

BroadHopper
02-02-2011, 03:52 PM
Who are the experts? Names please?

jarhead0341
02-02-2011, 09:10 PM
I think this might be a bit of sarcasm

LIforrelaxin
02-03-2011, 03:02 PM
SB-27 would undermine commonsense speed limits on big lake
Feb 01, 2011 12:00 am
To the editor,

.....

Also, we need to remember that the collision energy delivered by a boat traveling at 60 MPH is four times that of a boat traveling at 30 MPH in the event of a crash. The Blizzard accident before the 45/25 Law showed what can happen.

.....



Someone care to refresh my memory. What was the testified speed of the Blizzard accident?

Wolfeboro_Baja
02-03-2011, 04:59 PM
Someone care to refresh my memory. What was the testified speed of the Blizzard accident?I don't know about her speed as testified in her court trial, but this quote came from the Concord Monitor article, "Brakes On Boat Speed Limits (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/226932/brakes-on-boat-speed-limits)" dated 12/2/2010;

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

Rusty
02-04-2011, 05:50 AM
I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/files/pdfarchivenew/LaconiaPDF/2011/02_February/4L.pdf):

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach

jarhead0341
02-04-2011, 02:32 PM
A couple of problems I have with this letter written by Mr thurston if the lake is so congested that its hard to imagine not violating the 150 foot rule than existing laws say headway speed is he saying that its ok to be closer as long as you are under the 45 mph speed limit....... 150 feet is the same distance @ any speed ...... people where scared because people like him where telling them to be scared .... also isn't that the same thustons that have been renting boats to i would imagine very many inexperienced skippers , I am sure some know what there doing , that I have seen doing far more dangerous things than a boat by itself going 80 thru the broads . Like his its jmo.......... fire away

classic22
02-04-2011, 02:47 PM
I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/files/pdfarchivenew/LaconiaPDF/2011/02_February/4L.pdf):

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach

Other than getting his name right and the fact that he owns a marina, I dont see another fact in his poorly written letter.

Rusty
02-04-2011, 03:13 PM
A couple of problems I have with this letter written by Mr thurston if the lake is so congested that its hard to imagine not violating the 150 foot rule than existing laws say headway speed is he saying that its ok to be closer as long as you are under the 45 mph speed limit....... 150 feet is the same distance @ any speed ...... people where scared because people like him where telling them to be scared .... also isn't that the same thustons that have been renting boats to i would imagine very many inexperienced skippers , I am sure some know what there doing , that I have seen doing far more dangerous things than a boat by itself going 80 thru the broads . Like his its jmo.......... fire away


I have read your post ten times and I still don’t understand any of it. :confused: Is there a question or statement that you made that pertains to Mr. Thurston’s article?

Maybe it might help me understand what you are trying to say if you quoted Mr. Thurston’s exact comment/s, and then after that write your rebuttal.

Also if you a problem with the way Mr. Thurston runs his business (I think that’s what you’re saying…not sure though) could you please have some facts to back that up.

RTTOOL
02-04-2011, 03:53 PM
i would think that mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how lake winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's lds (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/files/pdfarchivenew/laconiapdf/2011/02_february/4l.pdf):

something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
to the editor,
an open letter to new hampshire
citizens:
My name is jeffrey thurston. My family and i have operated a marina and boat dealership on lake winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people i deal with as customers to go out on lake winnipesaukee.
someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
as many of you know, winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. Apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. Long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller pwc and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “fun” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy new hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and i’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
this law worked well in new hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. this speed limits law will not stop anyone from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of lake winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your senator and representatives to vote down sb-27.
Jeffrey thurston, president
thurston’s marina
weirs beach

jeffrey;
you say the law is working . Well here it goes . Is it bring you more business so people can rent your boats and you can make more.
Then the law is just for you. To get people that don't know how to drive a boat. What i mean is on summer day i was going down the channel and a boat you rented to sum expert cut across both lanes and smashed in wall across from your docks.
What a treasured achievement is how n.h. Went about how to get driver lic.to the day renter...

Wolfeboro_Baja
02-04-2011, 04:06 PM
This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, It may not stop anyone from boating, BUT.......

but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway.........I don't believe violation of the 150 ft rule, cutting off other boaters and speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed are "proper behavior" on the lake! So in that sense, a defined speed limit does nothing. :mad:

Rusty
02-04-2011, 04:16 PM
........I don't believe violation of the 150 ft rule, cutting off other boaters and speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed are "proper behavior" on the lake!

You are right Wolfeboro_Baja and I'm glad that you said that because IMHO that is what the SBONH members should be working on to make our beautiful Lake safer.

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....and what better way to do that then getting the SBONH to do just that.

The speed limit law has taken care of one problem, now we all need to get involved and fix what you stated.

Thank you for bringing that up! :)

Wolfeboro_Baja
02-04-2011, 04:47 PM
We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....We have been yelling and screaming about this since the very beginning of the speed limit debate and all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING and once again, the supporters are saying it didn't!! Wow, there's a surprise!

The speed limit law was just a law looking for a problem to fix and apparently it didn't fix anything! Wow, another surprise.... :mad:

jarhead0341
02-04-2011, 04:49 PM
I have read your post ten times and I still don’t understand any of it. :confused: Is there a question or statement that you made that pertains to Mr. Thurston’s article?

Maybe it might help me understand what you are trying to say if you quoted Mr. Thurston’s exact comment/s, and then after that write your rebuttal.

Also if you a problem with the way Mr. Thurston runs his business (I think that’s what you’re saying…not sure though) could you please have some facts to back that up.

You got the point you just don't want to admit it I gave an opinion just as he did all opinion no facts given in either case......... I have no problem with atone or the way they run their business just a little issue with the hypocrisy

AllAbourdon
02-04-2011, 05:43 PM
You are right Wolfeboro_Baja and I'm glad that you said that because IMHO that is what the SBONH members should be working on to make our beautiful Lake safer.

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....and what better way to do that then getting the SBONH to do just that.

The speed limit law has taken care of one problem, now we all need to get involved and fix what you stated.

Thank you for bringing that up! :)

People feel this way on both sides. I personally feel that the general public was sold on the idea of the 45MPH limit making the lake safer in general.

It only "fixes" one issue. It was just the easiest way to pass a new regulatory law on the lake because it is so cut and dry.

The accidents that occur would be avoided if the other rules/laws were enforced and obeyed.

The SL doesnt help with the 150ft rule, it doesnt help with right of way, safe passage, BWI, being courteous of your wake, and just proper education. It was the EASY way out. "Dont go over 45mph" everyone can understand that rule, its black and white and you dont need to think. It's simply an example of the government making a regulation rather than having people think for themselves.

From what I gather, most of the Anti SL crowd simply feel that an unjust regulation was slapped into place without fully asessing what the situation was.

I saw Pro-SL supporters walking around and getting signatures from people in Portsmouth, NH. Most of the people probably never even have been on the lake, own or operate a boat (power or not) They were getting signatures from college kids and people who had NO IDEA what the real issues were.

That is what I have issue with. My boat goes 41MPH on GPS at maximum speed and probably never will own a "go fast" type of boat.

Everyone seems to long for the days of yesteryears when people were more respectful and courteous. With so many regulations being in place nobody had to learn courtesy and respect, they just follow the law or they dont. You can't impose laws and have the result be more courteous people.

Sorry for the ramble, i am in a rush to get out of work and enjoy a weekend of shoveling my roof. Good weekend to pro and anti SL folks alike!!

Rusty
02-04-2011, 06:06 PM
People feel this way on both sides. I personally feel that the general public was sold on the idea of the 45MPH limit making the lake safer in general.

It only "fixes" one issue. It was just the easiest way to pass a new regulatory law on the lake because it is so cut and dry.

The accidents that occur would be avoided if the other rules/laws were enforced and obeyed.

The SL doesnt help with the 150ft rule, it doesnt help with right of way, safe passage, BWI, being courteous of your wake, and just proper education. It was the EASY way out. "Dont go over 45mph" everyone can understand that rule, its black and white and you dont need to think. It's simply an example of the government making a regulation rather than having people think for themselves.

From what I gather, most of the Anti SL crowd simply feel that an unjust regulation was slapped into place without fully asessing what the situation was.

I saw Pro-SL supporters walking around and getting signatures from people in Portsmouth, NH. Most of the people probably never even have been on the lake, own or operate a boat (power or not) They were getting signatures from college kids and people who had NO IDEA what the real issues were.

That is what I have issue with. My boat goes 41MPH on GPS at maximum speed and probably never will own a "go fast" type of boat.

Everyone seems to long for the days of yesteryears when people were more respectful and courteous. With so many regulations being in place nobody had to learn courtesy and respect, they just follow the law or they dont. You can't impose laws and have the result be more courteous people.

Sorry for the ramble, i am in a rush to get out of work and enjoy a weekend of shoveling my roof. Good weekend to pro and anti SL folks alike!!

For someone who is in a rush that was very well written. :)

The speed limit law was never intended to fix all the problems on the Lake. It was put in place so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer. It serves no other purpose than that.

AllAbourdon
02-04-2011, 07:22 PM
That being said. I have friends running around in hydrostreams, apaches and allisons which are certainly capable of running well over the speed limit. Some of them at triple digit speeds.

I don't think it is fair to limit this group of boaters, it is their absolute lifestyle to wrench on and run these types of boats. I thorougly enjoy having my rear end planted on the floor of a 19 foot boat that is running 90+ mph. These boats are NOT ocean boats, they are lake and river boats doing what they were built to do. It is possible to operate a fast boat safely without putting OTHER PEOPLE in danger. I am more afraid of captain bonehead at 45mph than one of these guys at 75mph.

Go fast, hurt yourself, dont hurt other people. That's where education comes into play and understanding boundaries.

Rusty
02-04-2011, 07:49 PM
That being said. I have friends running around in hydrostreams, apaches and allisons which are certainly capable of running well over the speed limit. Some of them at triple digit speeds.



I hope your friends have found a body of water that will allow them to go as fast as they want......however on Lake Winnipesaukee they will have to obey the speed limit of 45/30.

If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

BroadHopper
02-04-2011, 09:57 PM
I find the renters more scary than those who drives fast boats. I seen too many of them traveling the Weirs Channel NWZ at above no wake speed. One year a pontoon boat pulled right out of Thurston directly in front of a cruiser. The cruiser had to steer in front of me to avoid the renter. I put my craft into reverse and hit the rocks damaging a $600 SS prop. Several boaters pulled into Thurstons to complain. I guess this has happened before as Thurston already called the police and the MP. He was sitting behind his desk chuckling when the police told us to file a report and leave.

This is why I am strongly against temporary permits. I actually saw one guy fill out the test. The rental agent told him the answers. Not fair.

VtSteve
02-04-2011, 10:59 PM
I think they should end the temporary permits now. Catering to a local business for short term profits and convenience is no way to manage safety.

Seaplane Pilot
02-05-2011, 09:21 AM
I think they should end the temporary permits now. Catering to a local business for short term profits and convenience is no way to manage safety.

Bingo! Another hypocrite profit taker. Well for me this is just another on the list of businesses to boycott (along with Alex Ray's restaurants (Common Man, Camp, Lago, Lake House) and Rusty McLear's establishments (Church Landing, Mill Falls, Inn at Bay Point) ). I'll pay double for gas before I fill up at Thurston's now.

Once again, my signature says it all.... Repeat after me:

jarhead0341
02-05-2011, 01:51 PM
It's pathetic all about safety as long as my wallet is not effected

pm203
02-05-2011, 03:16 PM
I hope your friends have found a body of water that will allow them to go as fast as they want......however on Lake Winnipesaukee they will have to obey the speed limit of 45/30.

If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

As Jack Nicholson stated in one of his movies, "You Can't handle the truth".:D

Bear Islander
02-05-2011, 04:55 PM
...all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING...

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

VitaBene
02-05-2011, 07:02 PM
I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

Bear Islander
02-05-2011, 09:37 PM
BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

Sorry, I know nothing of the kind. The speed limit has most often been called a "tool" that the Marine Patrol can use.

I am unaware speed limits ever been refereed to by supporters as a "panacea" or any word that is even roughly synonymous with panacea. I am not the one over-reaching here.


In any event, you should remember the Governor signed this bill into law only 7 months ago. Do you REALLY think he is going to sign a repeal this soon? Politicians hate the flip-flopper moniker.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 12:00 AM
I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me;)

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat:laugh:

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.:rolleye1:

Rusty
02-06-2011, 07:17 AM
Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me;)

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat:laugh:

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.:rolleye1:

Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management". ;)


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!
:confused::confused::confused::confused:

jarhead0341
02-06-2011, 07:27 AM
Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management". ;)


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!
:confused::confused::confused::confused:

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

Rusty
02-06-2011, 07:45 AM
just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions! :)

jarhead0341
02-06-2011, 08:02 AM
This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions! :)

thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %

Bear Islander
02-06-2011, 12:14 PM
thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %


David Barrett the head of the Marine Patrol is opposed to the speed limit yet admits it is being followed. He doesn't say it works 100%. After all very few things work 100%. Below are some quotes from Mr. Barrett from a recent interview in the Concord Monitor.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 12:58 PM
Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!
:confused::confused::confused::confused:


Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 01:03 PM
Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

Rusty
02-06-2011, 01:17 PM
Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in. :)

Bear Islander
02-06-2011, 01:21 PM
Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

Wrong again. There were plenty of boats going over 30 mph at night. That is where the speed limits has had the greatest impact.

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.



The current law was 6 years in coming and involved many public meetings around the lake area and many legislative debates. That does not meet my definition of "rammed through".

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 02:39 PM
Wrong again. There were plenty of boats going over 30 mph at night. That is where the speed limits has had the greatest impact.

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.



The current law was 6 years in coming and involved many public meetings around the lake area and many legislative debates. That does not meet my definition of "rammed through".

Agreeing to a 2 year study to gather data and then pushing it through a year early is ramming it through IMO.

I'm still waiting for you and other SL supporters to present objective data showing benefits of the speed limit.

Here's a a little tidbit. There are hyrdologic studies that demonstrate slow speeds through shallower depths increase the amount of sediment that is kicked up from the bottom.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 02:59 PM
Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in. :)

When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

Rusty
02-06-2011, 03:53 PM
When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.


You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 04:02 PM
You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

I'm not missing anything. The logic is quite simple to follow. The SL proponents argument is that a speed limit is the catch-all for what they infer are inherent problems with existing laws. So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.:laugh::laugh:
We didn't hear that in the testimony supporting the SL law did we?:confused:

Regarding my objectivity, I don't see many others willing to hear both sides and looking for data. I've stated many times I would support a SL if someone could show me objective data that the SL does anything of value. So, I would disagree with you.... Lack of evidence plus my own personal experiences on the lake is how I've based my decision.

Bear Islander
02-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Agreeing to a 2 year study to gather data and then pushing it through a year early is ramming it through IMO...



Wrong another time. Speed limit supporters NEVER wanted or agreed to the so called "speed study". In fact they were totally opposed to it.

That was a sham of a last minute move to delay enactment of a the speed limit. Barrett pulled that rabbit out of his hat at almost the last moment to delay the bill. It was never taken seriously by the Marine Patrol that did it as evidenced by the fact the didn't log very pertinent data.

Where do you people get your information? It's almost all wrong.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 04:14 PM
Wrong another time. Speed limit supporters NEVER wanted or agreed to the so called "speed study". In fact they were totally opposed to it.

That was a sham of a last minute move to delay enactment of a the speed limit. Barrett pulled that rabbit out of his hat at almost the last moment to delay the bill. It was never taken seriously by the Marine Patrol that did it as evidenced by the fact the didn't log very pertinent data.

Where do you people get your information? It's almost all wrong.

So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

Rusty
02-06-2011, 04:18 PM
So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.:laugh::laugh:


All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.:)

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 04:35 PM
All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.:)

So where do you draw the line? My boat is pushing 5000+ pounds with a 320 HP V-8 and does a whisper over 45 MPH on a good day. So what is too big? Too fast?

BI has mentioned HP limits. Apparently what was good for him prior to owning lake front property is not good enough for others to enjoy.

Look at the progression. 150 ft rule, rafting restrictions, mandatory education, now a SL. So what's next? Time to push back!!

Rusty
02-06-2011, 04:42 PM
So where do you draw the line? My boat is pushing 5000+ pounds with a 320 HP V-8 and does a whisper over 45 MPH on a good day. So what is too big? Too fast?

BI has mentioned HP limits. Apparently what was good for him prior to owning lake front property is not good enough for others to enjoy.

Look at the progression. 150 ft rule, rafting restrictions, mandatory education, now a SL. So what's next? Time to push back!!

Thanks lawn psycho! I do understand your frustration.

BroadHopper
02-06-2011, 05:00 PM
And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.

I personally barefoot ski at around 53 mph. Since the speed limit passed, I still do. My neighbors and others says if the MP ever pick me up for speeding there will be one hell of a demonstration at the court house. I didn't see that coming, but if it happens I have no control. Everyone loves to see me ski.

There was a social meeting last summer about restarting the Winnipesaukee Water Ski races. Mainly because the teenagers around the lake are bored and getting into all kinds of mischief. During the racing years many teenagers were busy practicing for the races. Very little mischief going on. After talking with Dunleavy, it won't be practical with the speed limits. Everyone would have to fill out forms in advanced to practice. Causing a huge paper shuffle at MP headquarters.

Bet the SL supporters didn't see that coming. They just don't give a damn!

Bear Islander
02-06-2011, 05:58 PM
So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 06:19 PM
There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

Bear Islander
02-06-2011, 07:02 PM
Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

lawn psycho
02-06-2011, 07:32 PM
Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

So your answer is what I suspected in that no amount of data would satisfy you.

As far as speed limits based on childrens camps, I think the number of boats on a busy day is a far, far a greater factor than speed. And that's just the facts of life. There are tons of places for camps to have small boats unfestered by motor boats. Do you think a speed limit would change your mind when traveling in the Weirs area on a busy weekend with a kayak?

It's no different then when I avoid traffic areas while on the road. So the bikers ruin the Laconia/Meredith area for me during bike weeks so should that mean they cancel the event for those who don't participate?

Comparing roads to the water is apples and oranges. We set road speed limits on OBJECTIVE data such as traffic volume, accident occurance, population densities, lane widths, number of egress points, sight lines, elevation changes, pavement type, amount of development, and a whole plethera of other criteria. Ever notice in certain areas where the speed limit miraculously changes from 65-55 seemingly for no reason? Now you have your answer..... And if you insist on comparing the water to the road, then do like the NHDOT (and all other States) and complete engineering studies before placing an arbitrary speed limit on the lake. And be careful what you wish for as the data is not likely to be in your favor.

Yankee
02-06-2011, 08:34 PM
lawn psycho,

When BI cannot "spin" his way out of a dabate--especially when confronted with facts, he will invariably pull out the "I'm afraid for the campers routine."

AllAbourdon
02-07-2011, 08:55 AM
If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

The merrimack river, newfound, highland, webster, etc.

VtSteve
02-07-2011, 10:42 AM
We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.

http://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/30/ask-the-traffic-engineer-how-are-speed-limits-set/


Since speed limits do not have a measurable influence on actual speeds, it makes sense to set speed limits so as not to make lawbreakers out of a large fraction of motorists. Speed limits that are set too low makes law enforcement more difficult and leads to a disrespect for speed limits.

Shown here is a speed distribution on a rural road. Notice that the distribution is quite narrow, meaning that most motorists drive at nearly the same speed. You will see that changing the speed limit by just 5 mph will make a big change in the number of violators.

So the 85th percentile rule is simply a recognition that speed limits are set for the purposes of enforcement. And since law enforcement only has the resources to cite the most egregious violations, the speed limit is established at or near the 85th percentile, making only about 15% of free-flowing motorists violators.

You may also notice that motorists who go a few mph over the speed limit are not cited. That occurs for two reasons. The first is the lack of law enforcement resources. But where the system really falls down is at the judicial level. Traffic court judges routinely give a 10-12 mph leeway on speeding tickets out of a false belief that radar is inaccurate. So even if some motorists do base their speeds on the speed limit, they routinely go about 10 mph over and almost never get a ticket.

Bear Islander
02-07-2011, 11:13 AM
If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.


If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 12:02 PM
If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

Actually he does disagree with you. He prefaces the article by saying he removes his opinion and relies on the data. That's what an engineer is supposed to do.

VtSteve
02-07-2011, 12:07 PM
If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

http://livermore.patch.com/articles/new-speed-limits-coming-to-town

Try this, and many more. I know for sure that almost every roadway on the country used this method for many decades. But I'm just addressing roadway SL. On the water is quite a bit different, and arbitrary limits plucked out of a hat are not really meaningful.

Rusty
02-07-2011, 01:25 PM
So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

I have found that arguing with a statistician is a lot like wrestling with a pig, after a few hours you begin to realize the pig likes it.;)

Bear Islander
02-07-2011, 02:07 PM
Hey guys,

Instead of picking apart every minor comment I have posted, and then scouring the Internet for hours to try and find an expert opinion that differs from mine, why don't we talk about SB-27.

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 02:27 PM
Hey guys,

Instead of picking apart every minor comment I have posted, and then scouring the Internet for hours to try and find an expert opinion that differs from mine, why don't we talk about SB-27.

*COUGH, COUGH* Where in my posts do you see my scouring the internet? WinnFabs site is germaine.

The editorial above uses this argument against SB-27[...The proposed change to the law would replace hard and fast numbers with the words "reasonable and prudent...]

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening:laugh:

Rusty
02-07-2011, 02:58 PM
And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening:laugh:

Here is something that I don’t understand: Why are the supporters of SB-27 asking people on this forum for data that supports a 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? :confused:

We didn’t sign the bill that has imposed the speed limit. I think most of us have told you why we think that a speed limit is necessary (and you won’t accept that) and evidently Governor Lynch thinks there should be one also.

So Mr. lawn psycho, why don’t you write the Governor and ask him to show you data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. When you get his response it would be nice if you shared that with all of us.

Tell him that "Rusty" gave you an assignment, he knows who I am. :)

One other thing lawn psycho: Because you “have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis”, what are the odds that Governor Lynch will supply you with the hard data that you are looking for?

Pineedles
02-07-2011, 03:40 PM
Tell him that "Rusty" gave you an assignment, he knows who I am. :)



Did you provide any direct input to Governor Lynch prior to him signing the bill? Like a phone call or personal letter. Just curious.:)

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 03:54 PM
Here is something that I don’t understand: Why are the supporters of SB-27 asking people on this forum for data that supports a 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? :confused:

We didn’t sign the bill that has imposed the speed limit. I think most of us have told you why we think that a speed limit is necessary (and you won’t accept that) and evidently Governor Lynch thinks there should be one also.

So Mr. lawn psycho, why don’t you write the Governor and ask him to show you data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. When you get his response it would be nice if you shared that with all of us.

Tell him that "Rusty" gave you an assignment, he knows who I am. :)

One other thing lawn psycho: Because you “have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis”, what are the odds that Governor Lynch will supply you with the hard data that you are looking for?

Rusty, you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that supports ANY numerical limit. The governor won't have it because it DOESN'T EXIST:)

Let me clue you in on the legislative process, the Governor merely signed something that was passed to him. The Gov. did not initiate the bill.

And if you want me to believe that you personally had the ear of the Governor to be the hedge point to get him to sign the bill, I have a needle to pop the air within your big head:laugh:

Rusty
02-07-2011, 04:53 PM
Let me clue you in on the legislative process, the Governor merely signed something that was passed to him. The Gov. did not initiate the bill.



Thank you professor psycho for the lesson about the "legislative process".

What you could do in your letter to the Governor is to tell him that you know that he doesn't have any hard data but that you were asked to inquire about it. I would like to see what his response will be. :emb:

I'm going to let you have the last word on this subject because you know what I said about statisticians. :D

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 05:17 PM
Thank you professor psycho for the lesson about the "legislative process".

What you could do in your letter to the Governor is to tell him that you know that he doesn't have any hard data but that you were asked to inquire about it. I would like to see what his response will be. :emb:

I'm going to let you have the last word on this subject because you know what I said about statisticians. :D

I'm still waiting for you to actually provide me data! I need data in order to wrestle ;)

Bear Islander
02-07-2011, 05:47 PM
*COUGH, COUGH* Where in my posts do you see my scouring the internet? WinnFabs site is germaine.

The editorial above uses this argument against SB-27[...The proposed change to the law would replace hard and fast numbers with the words "reasonable and prudent...]

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening:laugh:

I have answered that question many times. Look back at the old speed limit threads and you can read all about it.

However if you look back at post 35 you will see a quote from the Marine Patrol Director.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."


That one piece of DATA is all you should need.

Rusty
02-07-2011, 06:08 PM
I'm still waiting for you to actually provide me data! I need data in order to wrestle ;)

Wrestle with this probability question:

Each of the letters of the word Winnipesaukee are written on separate pieces of paper that are then folded, put in a hat, and mixed thoroughly.

One piece of paper is chosen (without looking) from the hat. What is the probability that it is an i?

jarhead0341
02-07-2011, 06:12 PM
I have answered that question many times. Look back at the old speed limit threads and you can read all about it.

However if you look back at post 35 you will see a quote from the Marine Patrol Director.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."


That one piece of DATA is all you should need.

I'm sure the booze wasn't the problem. 3 mph slower would have made a difference or perhaps if they where all traveling at reasonable or prudent speed the outcome would have been different

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 06:28 PM
I have answered that question many times. Look back at the old speed limit threads and you can read all about it.

However if you look back at post 35 you will see a quote from the Marine Patrol Director.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."


That one piece of DATA is all you should need.

BI, do you really believe that a speed limit would have yielded ANY change in the outcome of the Blizzard crash? Seriously?

I'll go with your logic however and apply it too you. So since more than three shorefront owners around the lake probably have a dock or beach violation, then all private docks and beaches should be banned. Less docks would also mean less boats to make way for the campers too!

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 06:32 PM
Wrestle with this probability question:

Each of the letters of the word Winnipesaukee are written on separate pieces of paper that are then folded, put in a hat, and mixed thoroughly.

One piece of paper is chosen (without looking) from the hat. What is the probability that it is an i?

Come on, you can do better than that. Here's a simple one that is counterintuitive to people. What is the probability that two people share the same birthday (only needs to be the same month/day and can ignore year). Hint: Not as common as you would think.

Bear Islander
02-07-2011, 06:41 PM
BI, do you really believe that a speed limit would have yielded ANY change in the outcome of the Blizzard crash? Seriously?

I'll go with your logic however and apply it too you. So since more than three shorefront owners around the lake probably have a dock or beach violation, then all private docks and beaches should be banned. Less docks would also mean less boats to make way for the campers too!

So now you are equating "dock or beach" violations with speed related deaths. Really!

Rusty
02-07-2011, 06:45 PM
Come on, you can do better than that. Here's a simple one that is counterintuitive to people. What is the probability that two people share the same birthday (only needs to be the same month/day and can ignore year). Hint: Not as common as you would think.

The first person can have any birthday. That gives him 365 possible birthdays out of 365 days, so the probability of the first person having the "right" birthday is 365/365, or 100%.
The chance that the second person has the same birthday is 1/365. So the probability that both people have this birthday, you multiply their separate probabilities. (365/365) * (1/365) = 1/365, or about 0.27%.

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 06:50 PM
So now you are equating "dock or beach" violations with speed related deaths. Really!

No, my logic is that if ONE person is violating then we must pass legislation so NONE can violate.

lawn psycho
02-07-2011, 06:56 PM
The first person can have any birthday. That gives him 365 possible birthdays out of 365 days, so the probability of the first person having the "right" birthday is 365/365, or 100%.
The chance that the second person has the same birthday is 1/365. So the probability that both people have this birthday, you multiply their separate probabilities. (365/365) * (1/365) = 1/365, or about 0.27%.

I should have made it the classic birthday problem and given you a group of people and asked the same question. Then you have to handle the different conditional probabilities.

When I was in college, my undergrad prof started out a random processes class with a similar problem trying to prove a point. The funny part is we had a pair of twins in the class. Completely spoiled his thunder :laugh:

Rusty
02-07-2011, 07:05 PM
I should have made it the classic birthday problem and given you a group of people and asked the same question. Then you have to handle the different conditional probabilities.

When I was in college, my undergrad prof started out a random processes class with a similar problem trying to prove a point. The funny part is we had a pair of twins in the class. Completely spoiled his thunder :laugh:

The professor that I had (many years ago) was educated way beyond his intelligence. I couldn’t stand him…he acted sorta like you! However you do have some good traits and he had absolutely none!!!

NoBozo
02-07-2011, 07:16 PM
What you could do in your letter to the Governor is to tell him that you know that he doesn't have any hard data but that you were asked to inquire about it. I would like to see what his response will be. :emb:

:D

There was a thread awhile ago about "Illegal" Float Plane operations on Pickeral Pond. It was started by Shedwanabe.

Being a Private Pilot, I volunteered some information based on my avaition knowledge. I was challenged by Skip to write a letter to the FAA to resolve the matter. WHAT..? Who am I to write a letter to resolve a LOCAL matter, as to whether a Float Plane can land on Pickeral Pond.?

This challenge by Rusty... seems eerily similar to my experience with Skip.

BTW: Shedwanabe. ...to his credit..did his own investigating and found that the Float Plane operations on Pickeral Pond were indeed legal.

SO: Is Rusty ...another screen name for Skip. ..?? :D NB

Rusty
02-07-2011, 07:48 PM
SO: Is Rusty ...another screen name for Skip. ..?? :D NB

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/emotions/thinking/ummm.gif I wonder what the probability is that I am Skip? :laugh:

Skip
02-08-2011, 06:15 AM
http://www.myemoticons.com/images/emotions/thinking/ummm.gif I wonder what the probability is that I am Skip? :laugh:

Hmmm....I wonder too.

Well, at least you are no Bozo! :laugh:

fatlazyless
02-08-2011, 10:47 AM
With so many Republicans now in both the NH state senate and house, it seems like SB-27 could get passed because they want to "bring freedom to the waters," or some reason like that as candidate John Stephen said last October.

So, what's the procedure for a bill like this that gets started in the senate? Does it start in a senate committee, then go over to the house for a full house vote, and then back to the senate for a full senate vote, and then go to the governor's desk?
...........................

150' of safe passage space is just the blink of an eye in time when speeding around in a 27'-1200hp-8000lb GO-FAST going 70-mph, and that's why they like to refer to kayaks as "SPEED-BUMPS." .....ka-chunk.....hey did we just hit something? .....don't know....and don't care.....see you later!

Erica was smart enough to have a quart of vodka and a 38 handgun stored away on-board, but not smart enough to slow down to a very slow speed because she was "in a black hole" at the time. ....ka-chunk! ....goodbye Nicole....see you later!

Rusty
02-08-2011, 01:05 PM
Reading this new Bill is making me sea sick.:D

Below is some of the wording in SB-27 (http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/SB27)that I don't understand:
... shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights?
... The state of wind, sea, and current?
... The draft in relation to the available depth of water?
... The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment?
... The effect on radar detection of the sea state?

I know I'm not the brightest bulb in this forum but could someone who helped write this Bill explain these things to me.

This is how some of it is written:

(1) By all vessels:
(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(D) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(2) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(A) The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment.
(B) Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
(C) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather, and other sources of interference.
(D) The possibility that small vessels, ice, and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range.
(E) The number, location, and movement of vessels detected by radar.
(F) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Bear Islander
02-08-2011, 01:47 PM
Les

Going after Erica is one thing.

But I think you should leave the victims alone.

Woodsy
02-08-2011, 03:15 PM
Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatingnavigation/tp/NavigationRules-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Seaplane Pilot
02-08-2011, 04:08 PM
Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatingnavigation/tp/NavigationRules-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Apparently we in NH are not smart enough to follow the same rules as the rest of the universe. Instead, we must be governed like children (or idiots), and subjected to the false agendas of the elitists like WinnFabs.

Repeat after me:

Rusty
02-08-2011, 05:41 PM
Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatingnavigation/tp/NavigationRules-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Most of the additions in this Bill are not measureable (they are guidelines only) and will just add confusion to the RSA.

Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA’s) are not guidelines, they are the law!

Guidelines didn’t control the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee before the law was put into place and they won’t if the speed limit is replaced.

The NH Marine Patrol can measure the speed of a boat but they cannot measure guidelines.

IMO absolutely no thought was put in SB-27 before it was written….it was just a cut and paste job that took about 5 minutes to do. The state of wind, sea, and current…. The draft in relation to the available depth of water….. The effect on radar detection of the sea state??? What a joke this is to put in a NH RSA. How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

This Bill cannot and should not replace what is written in RSA 270-D:2.

AllAbourdon
02-08-2011, 06:00 PM
The draft in relation to the available depth of water….. The effect on radar detection of the sea state??? What a joke this is to put in a NH RSA. How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

This Bill cannot and should not replace what is written in RSA 270-D:2.

Are the Coast Guard Navigation rules written so that they are incomprehensible? Figured they had been around and used for a lot longer.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among
those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels;
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing
vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to
stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) at night, the presence of background light such as from shore
lights or from back scatter of her own lights;
(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of
navigational hazards;
(vi) the draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the
radar equipment;
(ii) any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
(iii) the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather
and other sources of interference;
(iv) the possibility that small vessels, ice and other
floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
(v) the number, location and movement of vessels detected by
radar;
(vi) the more exact assessment of the visibility that may be
possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or
other objects in the vicinity.

Rusty
02-08-2011, 06:13 PM
Are the Coast Guard Navigation rules written so that they are incomprehensible? Figured they had been around and used for a lot longer.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among
those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels;
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing
vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to
stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) at night, the presence of background light such as from shore
lights or from back scatter of her own lights;
(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of
navigational hazards;
(vi) the draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the
radar equipment;
(ii) any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
(iii) the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather
and other sources of interference;
(iv) the possibility that small vessels, ice and other
floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
(v) the number, location and movement of vessels detected by
radar;
(vi) the more exact assessment of the visibility that may be
possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or
other objects in the vicinity.

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

NoBozo
02-08-2011, 07:49 PM
What does Skip think...Just wondering...:D NB

PS: If I keep talkin like this I'm gonna be moderated..Been There..Done That....YUP: Maybe I'm just kidding...:)

lawn psycho
02-08-2011, 08:00 PM
How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

And what data exists to show that 45 MPH is too fast??????

lawn psycho
02-08-2011, 08:06 PM
Hey Rusty, I think the WinnFlabs supporters must feel like they are standing on the deck of this ship. MUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVRxvOTB0pA&feature=related

Wolfeboro_Baja
02-09-2011, 12:22 AM
Reading this new Bill is making me sea sick.:D

Below is some of the wording in SB-27 (http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/SB27)that I don't understand:
... shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights?
... The state of wind, sea, and current?
... The draft in relation to the available depth of water?
... The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment?
... The effect on radar detection of the sea state?

I know I'm not the brightest bulb in this forum but could someone who helped write this Bill explain these things to me.

This is how some of it is written:

(1) By all vessels:
(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(D) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(2) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(A) The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment.
(B) Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
(C) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather, and other sources of interference.
(D) The possibility that small vessels, ice, and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range.
(E) The number, location, and movement of vessels detected by radar.
(F) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.I'm sorry but if you can't understand those statements, then you should NOT be operating a boat and that goes for anyone else that can't understand them!! You people that are so confused by those statements, do everyone else a favor and STAY OFF THE LAKE; YOU'RE THE REASON THE LAKE IS UNSAFE!! It's not unsafe just because a boat can travel faster than 45mph. :eek:

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!There's more than just the literal interpretation of the word "rule" that can be considered. You've never heard of "rules of the road" when driving a car? Perhaps you shouldn't be operating a car either!! :eek:

Rusty
02-09-2011, 07:31 AM
I'm sorry but if you can't understand those statements, then you should NOT be operating a boat and that goes for anyone else that can't understand them!! You people that are so confused by those statements, do everyone else a favor and STAY OFF THE LAKE; YOU'RE THE REASON THE LAKE IS UNSAFE!! It's not unsafe just because a boat can travel faster than 45mph. :eek:

There's more than just the literal interpretation of the word "rule" that can be considered. You've never heard of "rules of the road" when driving a car? Perhaps you shouldn't be operating a car either!! :eek:


NH RSA’s are not meant to be training manuals. If you want to know what the Boating Safty Rules are then go here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/state_agencies/saf-c6100.html


These signs will take the variables out of my calculations when I need to know how fast I can go.


http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/images/R2-1-45mph-small.png

http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/images/R2-1-30mph-small.png

BroadHopper
02-09-2011, 07:41 AM
Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

Maybe you should throw out all the rules governing small business in NH. That will be a huge relief. How about it?

Also all the rules for NH insurance industry. Maybe we can have some competition to drive down the premiums. What do you think?

Rusty
02-09-2011, 07:46 AM
Maybe you should throw out all the rules governing small business in NH. That will be a huge relief. How about it?

Also all the rules for NH insurance industry. Maybe we can have some competition to drive down the premiums. What do you think?

Works for me! ;)

Woodsy
02-09-2011, 12:30 PM
Rusty...

Not sure what your backround is, but rest assured the Coast Guard "Rules" carry the full weight of law behind them.... You can and will be cited by the USCG for breaking any of them! Violation of any of these "rules" in the wrong circumstances can and will result in death or serious injury! Most of our existing boating RSA's take thier language DIRECTLY from USCG Rules & Regulations and the COLREGS!

International Maritime Law has been around alot longer than this country has existed! Most of the laws we have on the book in NH and the rest of the US regarding safe boating operation come directly from COLREGS!

http://www.boatingsafety.com/colregs.htm

If you notice, the COLREGS (also adopted by USCG) are broken off into numbered sections.... Rules 1-3 define the terms used. Rule 4 on defines the actual Rule of Law.

Also... last I checked there are no "signs" bobbing in the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee telling you what speeds are allowed. In fact I dont recall any signage at the boat launch either!

Woodsy

lawn psycho
02-09-2011, 03:22 PM
http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/images/R2-1-45mph-small.png

http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/images/R2-1-30mph-small.png

Why not just make one huge sign that says BOAT NOT PERMITTED and then all the problems go away. It would even stop the people from griping about shorefont property taxes as the house values drop, island properties would become worthless and less people would mean improved water quality, there would be no risk to humanity of getting hit by a boat, the docks would not need to be in the water and impacting fish species, no need for marine patrol expenses and maintaining all the markers, there would be no BUI, no need for the legislature to come up with endless laws to appease a small number of people who happen to own on Winni. Those are all just ideas from the 1st 1 um into my frontal lobe I'm sure there are many other ills that the banning ALL people from the lake would solve.

See, don't tell me I can't solve problems! Be careful what you wish for Rusty.

ApS
02-10-2011, 08:17 AM
SB-27 would undermine common sense speed limits on big lake...From our own experience, boats used to be able to legally go 85 MPH just 150 feet off shore near where we stay.
1) "Common sense" is the rarity we have all been striving for: "reasonable and prudent" is not.

2) "Near where we stay" is the language of a visitor to the lake: Winnipesaukee's lakefront residents aren't the only complainants. :(

I'm sure the booze wasn't the problem. 3 mph slower would have made a difference or perhaps if they where all traveling at reasonable or prudent speed the outcome would have been different

Come to think of it, under 45 is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. The vast majority of PFDs aren't capable of water impact at any greater speeds: If your PFD was purchased recently, look inside yours—you'll see that disclaimer! :eek2:

ApS
02-11-2011, 05:41 AM
These signs will take the variables out of my calculations when I need to know how fast I can go.

http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/images/R2-1-45mph-small.png

http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/images/R2-1-30mph-small.png
One of my winter visitations includes about 40 square miles of mostly woodlands and a few hundred residences. The speed limit is 25-MPH, and in a few places, 20-MPH.

With a hundred miles of dead-straight roadways, why is the speed limit set at 25?

Because these roadways pass through about 40 square miles of a Federal Wildlife Preserve set aside to save an endangered sub-species of deer!
:eek2:

jarhead0341
02-11-2011, 06:00 PM
1) "Common sense" is the rarity we have all been striving for: "reasonable and prudent" is not.

2) "Near where we stay" is the language of a visitor to the lake: Winnipesaukee's lakefront residents aren't the only complainants. :(



Come to think of it, under 45 is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. The vast majority of PFDs aren't capable of water impact at any greater speeds: If your PFD was purchased recently, look inside yours—you'll see that disclaimer! :eek2:

So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations

ApS
02-12-2011, 05:39 AM
So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations
1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord: "Take it to the ocean, it's only 1½-hours away."

3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response (http://artofmanliness.com/2010/07/25/our-disembodied-selves-and-the-decline-of-empathy/).

Our peaceable boaters are not getting empathy.

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

Our Speed Limit comes with a points system.

Rusty
02-12-2011, 09:52 AM
This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mD_FQvf-5CE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Sue Doe-Nym
02-12-2011, 10:28 AM
Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

Rusty
02-12-2011, 10:45 AM
Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

lawn psycho
02-12-2011, 11:43 AM
This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mD_FQvf-5CE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?

lawn psycho
02-12-2011, 11:57 AM
One of my winter visitations includes about 40 square miles of mostly woodlands and a few hundred residences. The speed limit is 25-MPH, and in a few places, 20-MPH.

With a hundred miles of dead-straight roadways, why is the speed limit set at 25?

Because these roadways pass through about 40 square miles of a Federal Wildlife Preserve set aside to save an endangered sub-species of deer!
:eek2:

APS, every time someone steps on the lake bottom they cause water quality to decline as sediment that gets kicked up reduces clarity. If you were to sample the beach in front of shorefront houses during weekend play you would likely see an increase on phosphorus and N2 in the water.

Did you know that slower speeds in no-wake zones can churn up a lot of sediment than would be the case at higher speed?

The placement of docks and boathouses impacts fish species.

There is hard science to back-up what I am discussing. So since you are one of the people who promotes these kinds of things, are you willing to forgo your dock and shorefront properties from having beaches?

How about allowing faster speeds through NWZs to correspond to the average depth? Could be 8-12 MPH instead of a blanket 6 MPH.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you they typical Winni "as long as I have mine" type of guy?

Rusty
02-12-2011, 12:34 PM
Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?


Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

http://localhostr.com/file/3kl0oDP/GFBS%20sailboat.JPG

lawn psycho
02-12-2011, 12:52 PM
Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

http://localhostr.com/file/3kl0oDP/GFBS%20sailboat.JPG

I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

Rusty
02-12-2011, 12:58 PM
I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

NO!!!! You go to Sebago.....I like Lake Winnipesaukee just the way it is thank you. :)

The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building, which is the building across the street behind the Statehouse in Concord.

See you there lawn psycho ;)

lawn psycho
02-12-2011, 01:09 PM
See you there lawn psycho ;)

Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.

Rusty
02-12-2011, 01:59 PM
Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.


Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng! :)

lawn psycho
02-12-2011, 02:13 PM
Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng! :)

Lee is more common in Korea (as is Kim):) It's Mr. Liu in China....

Dave R
02-12-2011, 06:57 PM
This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mD_FQvf-5CE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

Rusty
02-12-2011, 07:21 PM
Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

lawn psycho
02-12-2011, 07:37 PM
You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

Rusty
02-12-2011, 07:48 PM
Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

Dave R
02-12-2011, 08:06 PM
Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

I've been boating on Winnipesaukee for 36 years. I don't believe you.

Here's a video that just as unrelated as the one you posted, but more entertaining.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Nj6SO_yKMe8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ApS
02-13-2011, 06:03 AM
Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....
Sebago has adequate line-of-sight nearly everywhere. Immediately adjacent is a lake where the world ended for two peaceable boaters. :(

(That perpetrator—described as "unremorseful and perjurous" by the judge—will be out of jail just in time for this 4th of July holiday-weekend.) :eek2:

APS, every time someone steps on the lake bottom they cause water quality to decline as sediment that gets kicked up reduces clarity. If you were to sample the beach in front of shorefront houses during weekend play you would likely see an increase on phosphorus and N2 in the water.

Did you know that slower speeds in no-wake zones can churn up a lot of sediment than would be the case at higher speed?

The placement of docks and boathouses impacts fish species.

There is hard science to back-up what I am discussing. So since you are one of the people who promotes these kinds of things, are you willing to forgo your dock and shorefront properties from having beaches?

How about allowing faster speeds through NWZs to correspond to the average depth? Could be 8-12 MPH instead of a blanket 6 MPH.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you they typical Winni "as long as I have mine" type of guy?
I've "had mine" for 55 years, so I can advise you that some visitors reversed Winnipesaukee's "relax-coefficient". :( Things got tense if you were a peaceable boater.

The situation got steadily worse until the Speed Limit came to the lake. :coolsm:

1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them. :rolleye2:

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me. :laugh:

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure". :)

My money is on the Speed Limit. :cool:

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27.
1) In some ways, you are correct. :(

Rob LaPointe established a horrendous driving record before committing his double-homicide upon two peaceable boaters. The "points" gathered in the 22 convictions on his driving record meant nothing to him. Like Lake Winnipesaukee's most recent "celebrity", he retains "good" lawyers. :mad:

2) Last season, I watched as a GFBL passed a Marine Patrol at double the speed limit; at the time, the NHMP boat was towing a PWC, and unable/unwilling—to enforce noise- or speed- limits.

I've watched many summers as many other over-sized boats chose to ignore the laws they didn't like.

3) That Director Barrett is only lukewarm into enforcements, just may mean his time is up! (Just as former Commissioner Richard Flynn's backroom "monkeying" with Speed Limits led to his eventual replacement.)

Why don't you [Rusty] show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?
I am now "out" of this discussion until Wednesday—but:

You can never beat "The Longest and Safest Season in Anyone's Memory". :cool:

1) SB-27 removes the speed limits, the points system, and any chance of ridding BWI through NHMP use of RADAR. (Especially RADAR after dark, when NHMP patrolboats are nearly indistinguishable from other night boat traffic).

2) Since these changes apply throughout the state, does Squam Lake risk losing its "kinder" (http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.aspx?trailid=XAC017-040) reputation as well? :eek2:

3) A Tuftonboro family—who remain unknown to me—tried to hand me their video camera—right from their dock! :eek2: I had to turn down that offer, as there was great risk in being a small boater near this airborne ocean-racer, so this photo must substitute for the video. :eek:

BTW: This photo accompanied every letter I've mailed to those Representatives and Senators who were wishy-washy on Speed Limits. :confused:

'Guess I'll need to mail those again—just to make sure. :look:

VitaBene
02-13-2011, 08:14 AM
YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

Rusty

The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

Rusty
02-13-2011, 09:26 AM
The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

I know I said I wouldn't post again in this thread but I think Vitabene's comment should be addressed.

In the “Posting Guidelines (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/faq.php?s=&do=search&q=moderate&match=all&titlesonly=0)” that are in the FAQ section it states the following: “Don't post excessive numbers of messages or comments. Posting more than a few messages or comments in a day is excessive and may get you moderated or restricted.”

I know there are a lot of members (including me) who post more than “a few” in a day but I just don’t want to be moderated if I over post.

lawn psycho
02-13-2011, 10:45 AM
YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

Rusty, my issue with that video is there is what I would consider reckless operation which had a MP boat been in the area I suspect they would have been stopped. However, I think it's the sound that really draws the attention too them and why people oppose them.

Last summer we were at the West Alton sandbar and one of the super shiny old-school wooden boats picked up anchor. When he started the motor I swear it must have regsitered as a mini-quake. As he pulled away, he headed somewhere towards Wolfeboro at what appeared crusing speed probably around 20-25 MPH. That boat was loud and my wife's comment was, "why does he have to drive it so fast"?

Keep in mind that most basic bowriders can reach 50 MPH so making every boat on the water into law breakers isn't fair either. The speed limit doesn't change a single thing on the lake.

If you think the dumb moves are isolated to high performance boats you don't boat on the same Winni I do. However, I do find most people respectful of other boats and it's not pandamonium as the SL supporters would like to mislead the non-boating public to believe.

lawn psycho
02-13-2011, 03:36 PM
[1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them. :rolleye2:

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me. :laugh:

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure". :)

My money is on the Speed Limit. :cool:



Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdf/moorage_e.pdfS

A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded.

The biggest threat to the lake are those who on shorefront property. How many things from their properties and docks end up in the lake. You talk about stuff making into the lake. Let's talk about run-off from clearings and the 100s and 100s of septic fields that are nowvery close to the lake.

So keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem.

Too busy to play scientist right now.

jarhead0341
02-13-2011, 03:42 PM
1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord: [/CENTER]

3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response (http://artofmanliness.com/2010/07/25/our-disembodied-selves-and-the-decline-of-empathy/).

Our peaceable boaters are not getting empathy.



Our Speed Limit comes with a points system.

#1 your opinion sorry I and I'm sure many others don't share.
#2 his opinion I promise I won't take a fast boat to concord
#3 put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference
#4 by the way I am a passenger on 93 south as I type and wait isn't there a speed limit...... with a point system that must be why everyone is going 55

Bear Islander
02-13-2011, 11:11 PM
...put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference...


It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

jarhead0341
02-14-2011, 06:22 AM
It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

chipj29
02-14-2011, 08:51 AM
It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

It's unbelievable how people can equate "high speed accidents" with accidents "attributed to speed".

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 09:21 AM
One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 10:00 AM
......The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

jarhead0341
02-14-2011, 11:17 AM
The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.


Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

really I should do my research....... who was decapitated on lake winni and when did related to speed become high speed ......you believe your opinion to be fact and all else as garbage so why don't we stick to winni issues and stop drawing photos and stories from all over the world into this .......... I just want you to give me an example of your claimed many high speed accidents from this lake

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 11:19 AM
When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanket statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 11:33 AM
You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanked statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

Seaplane Pilot
02-14-2011, 12:00 PM
Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 12:19 PM
Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

I think we should do a poker run with APS and BI's places as waypoints. Maybe even have a swim call/rafting party out there as well!! :laugh::devil::banana:

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 12:28 PM
BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

Woodsy
02-14-2011, 02:52 PM
I think there should be.... get this.... a COMPROMISE!

IMHO, all of the FATAL accidents have occured at NIGHT and ALCOHOL was involved! In EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT there was a violation of the COLREGS! EVERY SINGLE ONE! It can be argued that all accidents are violations of the COLREGS. But in the last 2 accidents, both accidents occured at NIGHT, several of the COLREGS were violated, quite possibly some BWI laws as well. Niether of the last 2 accidents occured over the current night time speed limit of 30 MPH.... however they were both grossly in violation of Rule 6, namely too fast for the conditions at the time of the accident and failure to keep a proper lookout. Add in booze and you have recipe for disaster. No speed limit would have prevented these accidents from occuring!

I personally think a COMPROMISE is in order! I get that there are extremeists on either side, but I think there can be middle ground!

I propose the adoption of the COLREGS, an unlimited DAYTIME limit (when visibility can be measured in MILES) and keep the current night time limit of 30 MPH.

My logic is this, we have had NO hi-speed collisions during the daytime. The reason being visibilty is measured in miles, and we have the 150' rule! That rule does more to prevent accidents than many people realize!

Most of the major accidents occur at night, and usually alcohol is involved. Given the inherent lack of depth perception at night, lower visibilty, and increased possibility of intoxicated skippers... I think the current night time limit of 30 MPH is appropriate!

Woodsy

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 03:24 PM
It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

Dave R
02-14-2011, 03:55 PM
How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 04:04 PM
I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 04:28 PM
Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.

But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.

And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.

The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum.

jarhead0341
02-14-2011, 04:29 PM
It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 05:30 PM
The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

jarhead0341
02-14-2011, 05:51 PM
Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 06:52 PM
What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

Testimony before a legislative committee, by a professional accident investigator, is not "forum chatter".

For a third time I will point out that it is not by duty to educate the anti-SL side about accident data. You want me to do all the leg work and post it here so you can pick it apart and come up with reasons why it is not relevant.

My point is that you need to educate yourself about the facts BEFORE you start making blanket statements about the history of boat accidents on Winnipesaukee.

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 07:00 PM
Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.

But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.

And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.

The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum.

BI, given that alcohol was a key factor do you honestly think a speed limit would have done anything to change the drivers thought process that night?

And if you need to bring up something from the 70s to maintain relevance to today's current problems then I will call you out on it. The article does not say how fast they were going but it would appear the chain of events that led to the crash is too much to drink.

So what data exists showing 45 MPH will make any difference for daytime boating?

The SL proponents desire to link some of these accidents is a prime example of how correlation does not imply causation. Suggested reading for the pro-SL crowd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

We could spend hours just discussing the lack of correlation. I frequently post things as a tongue-and-cheek way for people to see the fallacies of their logic but it often goes over people's heads.

jarhead0341
02-14-2011, 07:16 PM
I just want some hard facts and I get nothing but do my own research comments .... I have and can find no official data to support the claims of all these high speed accidents .... I have educated myself and there are no facts

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 07:18 PM
BI, given that alcohol was a key factor do you honestly think a speed limit would have done anything to change the drivers thought process that night?

And if you need to bring up something from the 70s to maintain relevance to today's current problems then I will call you out on it. The article does not say how fast they were going but it would appear the chain of events that led to the crash is too much to drink.

So what data exists showing 45 MPH will make any difference for daytime boating?

The SL proponents desire to link some of these accidents is a prime example of how correlation does not imply causation. Suggested reading for the pro-SL crowd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

We could spend hours just discussing the lack of correlation. I frequently post things as a tongue-and-cheek way for people to see the fallacies of their logic but it often goes over people's heads.

Once again you are reading way to much into what I post. I am only posting the FACT that these accidents occurred.

I leave it to the reader to determine their own OPINION as to how relevant these accidents are to a speed limit.

If you want to look things up on wikipedia, try looking up the difference between fact and opinion.

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 07:22 PM
Once again you are reading way to much into what I post. I am only posting the FACT that these accidents occurred.

I leave it to the reader to determine their own OPINION as to how relevant these accidents are to a speed limit.

If you want to look things up on wikipedia, try looking up the difference between fact and opinion.

Would it help if I copied pages from the stats books on the shelf right next to my desk?

Didn't the M/S Mount Washington have a drunk passenger go overboard and die several years ago? The boat was *gasp*, moving. The captain must be a cowboy. Yeeeehaaaaaa!

Bear Islander
02-14-2011, 07:27 PM
I just want some hard facts and I get nothing but do my own research comments .... I have and can find no official data to support the claims of all these high speed accidents .... I have educated myself and there are no facts

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 07:57 PM
Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

BI, how many of the accidents involving fatalities have involved alcohol? Attributed to speed? If the boats weere moving then I guess he's correct in that is was a factor.

Correlation does not mean causation ;) Psst, the insurance companies rely on this fact when setting car insurance rates.:eek:

jarhead0341
02-14-2011, 08:07 PM
[QUOTE=Bear Islander;150506]Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.[/QUOte


speed doesn't mean high speed that's what your missing......why do I bother you win I can't take anymore

lawn psycho
02-14-2011, 10:18 PM
I'm curious if even ONE person out there has changed their mind on the need or lack thereof based on the years of back-and-forth by posting not only here but the newspapers and other forums.

I'm grounded in hard science and don't see the SL having any effect on the lake other than a a dozen or so tickets being handed out each year.

I can see where the SL-proponents perceptions would lead them to believe a speed limit will be effective and possibly improve safety. However, after having admitted that the speed limits won't fix many of the problems people thought, they still fight for it. Do you really think someone doing 50 MPH in a bowrider is worthy of a ticket and points on their license? The SL supporters all or nothing attitude is what I think will cause them to lose the battle with SB-27......

chipj29
02-15-2011, 08:14 AM
Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

An accident involving a boat travelling at 10 MPH in a no-wake zone could be attributed to speed.

Bear Islander
02-15-2011, 11:28 AM
An accident involving a boat travelling at 10 MPH in a no-wake zone could be attributed to speed.

A boat traveling at 100 mph could hit Weirs Beach and kill 100 people.

Yes... I know... The accident I describe is made up, not very likely and doesn't really pertain to SB27. Just like yours.

lawn psycho
02-15-2011, 02:20 PM
A boat traveling at 100 mph could hit Weirs Beach and kill 100 people.

Yes... I know... The accident I describe is made up, not very likely and doesn't really pertain to SB27. Just like yours.

I don't know what's worse. The M/S Mount Washington crashing into something or a 100 MPH bowrider. Which one has happened and which is the one the SL proponents want to portray has happened?

Seaplane Pilot
02-15-2011, 03:41 PM
A big jet could have a malfunction during takeoff, crash into the sandbar at Silver Sands during a NASCAR race week, and kill 101 people sitting on their boats. Shall we now ban all jet traffic from Laconia airport?

Bear Islander
02-15-2011, 05:00 PM
A big jet could have a malfunction during takeoff, crash into the sandbar at Silver Sands during a NASCAR race week, and kill 101 people sitting on their boats. Shall we now ban all jet traffic from Laconia airport?

An interstellar dark body could pass through the Solar System's Oort Cloud causing a comet to fall through the Kuiper Belt on its way to impact the Sun. The disruption in the Sun's plasma could cause solar radiation to effect communications satellites. Thus a satellite could fall out of orbit and hit the pilot house of the M/S Mount Washinton as it passes the Witches causing it to loose control and hit two bow riders sending them out of control towards the Silver Sands sandbar resulting in SB27 failing to get out of committee.

lawn psycho
02-15-2011, 05:08 PM
An interstellar dark body could pass through the Solar System's Oort Cloud causing a comet to fall through the Kuiper Belt on its way to impact the Sun. The disruption in the Sun's plasma could cause solar radiation to effect communications satellites. Thus a satellite could fall out of orbit and hit the pilot house of the M/S Mount Washinton as it passes the Witches causing it to loose control and hit two bow riders sending them out of control towards the Silver Sands sandbar resulting in SB27 failing to get out of committee.

I was hoping it was going to end with an asteroid hitting Bear Island and making it a crater and a new deep diving area on Lake Winnipesaukee and the resulting lake tsunami from the initial impact would take out all the surrounding lake front homes. About 50 years later the speed limit debate would start to warm up again.

Pineedles
02-15-2011, 07:45 PM
I want to testify about SB-27 next week, but I will be on a boat with engines 50 times larger than any boat on Winnipesaukee.

In place of testimony, let me say the following:

There are some folks that have insinuated that they represent the majority of opinion about what should be the law on Lake Winnipesaukee. IMO there was fraudulent correspondence to legislators that influenced their initial vote. I think the people of New Hampshire are more concerned with freedom, than trying to tweak themselves into a false nirvana of safety. There are some rich shorefront property owners, (Island and Mainland) that want to control how the lake is used. Little by little these rich people will try to control how they think the lake should be used. Does anyone want this lake controlled by rich shorefront owners? It's the people of New Hampshire who must decide. Live Free or Die! Never has this motto meant as much as it does now!

chipj29
02-16-2011, 07:39 AM
A boat traveling at 100 mph could hit Weirs Beach and kill 100 people.

Yes... I know... The accident I describe is made up, not very likely and doesn't really pertain to SB27. Just like yours.

SB27 is about speed being reasonable and prudent. Both situations described here would apply.

fatlazyless
02-16-2011, 08:26 AM
Here's my 2-cents. After this bill gets voted down in the legislative process, the 'Safe Boaters of New Hampshire' should rename themselves the 'Speedy Boaters of New Hampshire' to be honest.

Dave R
02-16-2011, 08:54 AM
Here's my 2-cents. After this bill gets voted down in the legislative process, the 'Safe Boaters of New Hampshire' should rename themselves the 'Speedy Boaters of New Hampshire' to be honest.

I'm a member and I don't have a fast boat. I bet I'm in the majority in that regard within SBONH.

fatlazyless
02-16-2011, 09:05 AM
I'm a member and I don't have a fast boat. I bet I'm in the majority in that regard within SBONH.

To a casual observer, the SBONH's preliminary efforts just seemed like window dressing that was a lead-up to their #1 true intent of repealing the boat speed limits.

Woodsy
02-16-2011, 09:37 AM
Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge!

I have no problem with a nighttime limit because thats when ALL of the accidents cited by WINNFABS have occured!

I have a problem with a daytime limit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA WHATSOEVER to show that its necessary! No accidents! No anything! Just anecdotal stories about how the guy went by me too close and too fast! We all have stories like that! Because I like to putt around the lake, I have stories like that involving every kind of boat!

We need to find a compromise that we can all live with so we can put this issue to rest once and for all! The divisiveness on the lake is acidic!

Woodsy

lawn psycho
02-16-2011, 12:41 PM
Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge!

I have no problem with a nighttime limit because thats when ALL of the accidents cited by WINNFABS have occured!

I have a problem with a daytime limit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA WHATSOEVER to show that its necessary! No accidents! No anything! Just anecdotal stories about how the guy went by me too close and too fast! We all have stories like that! Because I like to putt around the lake, I have stories like that involving every kind of boat!

We need to find a compromise that we can all live with so we can put this issue to rest once and for all! The divisiveness on the lake is acidic!

Woodsy

Woodsy, my guess is that without a compromise the SL debate and future bills we keep coming up if the isn't compromise. I give credit to the SL propoents in getting it too pass as I'm surprised that a compromise wasn't demanded by the legislature. However, the opposition will continue to be fierce with the current law IMO so compromise now or with a different legislator the results could be drastically different later.

I don't have a dog in the fight for night time limits. As far as day limits, I simply look at the 150 ft rule as already being very agressive. 150 ft is a long way and I encourage anyone to go measure it out on their property and see how far away it is.

I've said it over and over, the speed limit itself won't make any difference on the lake except for a dozen or so who happen to get tickets. Making everyday bowriders into lawbreakers doesn't sit well with me.

Dave R
02-16-2011, 02:27 PM
To a casual observer, the SBONH's preliminary efforts just seemed like window dressing that was a lead-up to their #1 true intent of repealing the boat speed limits.

Here's what's on the SBONH home page:

"This group is dedicated to discussing safe power boating and recreational activities on Lake Winnipesaukee and the other inland lakes of the Lakes Region in NH. We work together to help shape legislation that affects our freedoms and enjoyment of the lakes."

Clearly, SBONH is involved in SB-27, I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of that.

The casual observer can also note the SBONH has also been involved with US Power Squadron Safety Inspections prior to endorsing SB-27. Those safety inspections have nothing to do with speed limits and amount to more than just "window dressing", IMO.

FWIW, I eagerly joined SBONH but was never interested in having any involvement with NHRBA. In hindsight, I think I chose well...

VitaBene
02-16-2011, 09:49 PM
I'm a member and I don't have a fast boat. I bet I'm in the majority in that regard within SBONH.

Dave,

I am an officer (VP) of SBONH and own an old Chris Craft bowrider that can maybe break the daytime SL by 1 MPH. Branding us as cowboys makes for better vitriol.

John

fatlazyless
02-17-2011, 07:10 AM
Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge.
Woodsy

Lake Winnipesaukee already has a no-limit speed zone.....and it is named Lake Winnisquam......go figure?

The waters of Lake Winnipesaukee run downstream for about two miles and pour into Lake Winnisquam. Lake Winnisquam is the state's third largest lake and has a lot fewer rocks than Winnipesaukee for boaters to tear up their props. Winnisquam has a no-fee, free to anyone, state boat launch facility complete with a double launch ramp, a big dock, parking for vehicle and trailer, and a toilet. All paid with money from boat registrations, and free to use by anyone. Lake Winnipesaukee does not have a similar state boat launch. It used to have Ames Farm Inn for a popular boat launch, day use spot, but not anymore.

lawn psycho
02-17-2011, 08:55 AM
Lake Winnipesaukee already has a no-limit speed zone.....and it is named Lake Winnisquam......go figure?

So maybe this shows that people are more prudent and want to go faster on the states LARGEST lake. Just sayin'

ApS
02-17-2011, 07:09 PM
I eagerly joined SBONH but was never interested in having any involvement with NHRBA. In hindsight, I think I chose well...
NHRBA had two years of safe-boating before "hindsight" went from zero to national headlines.

SBONH has less than one year from which any "hindsight" can be determined.

The Lake holds its breath. :(

__________________

ApS
02-17-2011, 07:54 PM
Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdf/moorage_e.pdf
A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded. Keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem. Too busy to play scientist right now.
1) Look under many moored boats on the lake: Go slowly and you'll see Smallmouth Bass "taking in the view" from under those moored boats. :coolsm:

Triple-digit speeds—in any way that SBONH defines it—are no way to take in the many natural wonders and scenic beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee. :rolleye2:

2) http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/publications/pdf/moorage_e.pdf :confused:

:confused: Your "documentation" concerns the ocean's marine environment in Canada. :eek2:

fatlazyless
02-18-2011, 07:25 AM
Today's February 18 www.laconiadailysun.com has a page 5 letter to the editor from the N H Camp Director's Association that strongly supports the 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee and is a well written and intelligent letter.

The local newspapers have had quite a number of speed limits letters of late from a variety of people.

I know that Massachusetts has a state-wide boat speed limit of either 40 or 45, but here in NH the speed limit has been a lake-by-lake decision driven by local people. So, if Lake Winnisquam, the state's 3rd largest lake, wants a speed limit similar to Squam or Winnipesaukee, it would have to be locally putt-putt-putted.

Seaplane Pilot
02-19-2011, 10:06 AM
Today's February 18 www.laconiadailysun.com has a page 5 letter to the editor from the N H Camp Director's Association that strongly supports the 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee and is a well written and intelligent letter.

The local newspapers have had quite a number of speed limits letters of late from a variety of people.

I know that Massachusetts has a state-wide boat speed limit of either 40 or 45, but here in NH the speed limit has been a lake-by-lake decision driven by local people. So, if Lake Winnisquam, the state's 3rd largest lake, wants a speed limit similar to Squam or Winnipesaukee, it would have to be locally putt-putt-putted.

Well written and intelligent? I beg to differ. "Our camps are protective cocoons for their positive skills, experiences and memories." Really? Is it beneficial to keep kids in cocoons instead of letting them experience the real world in a positive light. These camps are using scare tactics to promote support for the speed limit - nothing more. The kids are pawns and the camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash. Keep digging the hole...you'll soon be to China. :laugh:

lawn psycho
02-19-2011, 11:04 AM
:confused: Your "documentation" concerns the ocean's marine environment in Canada. :eek2:

APS, I give you an open invite to open a specific thread on this topic. Your choice.

topwater
02-19-2011, 02:21 PM
BY Acres per Second.

Triple-digit speeds—in any way that SBONH defines it—are no way to take in the many natural wonders and scenic beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee.

That is such a STUPID statement. :laugh: You are a foolish man. Talk about making things up,:rolleye1: my goodness. I bet you have never, ever seen a boat go triple digit speed on Winnie in your life. Other then regulated boat races a few years ago. Speak the truth and others will listen, Talking BS, people think your a fool. But, I suppose if the shoe fits?? Just saying !!

ApS
02-20-2011, 04:56 AM
Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

Could this 2008 "incident" have been one of those three fatalities?

:o (Sorry for the "all-caps", but that's how the article was posted.)

IN ANOTHER INCIDENT (http://mydeathspace.com/article/2009/09/25/Renee_Goggin_(21)_died_after_her_jetski_hit_a_pylo n) EARLY SATURDAY MORNING, MARINE PATROL OFFICERS GOT A CALL SHORTLY BEFORE 12:30 FROM SOMEONE NEAR KONA COVE ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE THAT THEY’D HEARD A CRASH AND SOMEONE CRYING.

MOULTONBOROUGH POLICE OFFICERS AND THE MARINE PATROL DETERMINED THAT A PERSONAL WATERCRAFT BEING DRIVEN BY 24-YEAR-OLD BRIAN CROWLEY OF MOULTONBOROUGH HAD HIT A MOORED BOAT AND DAMAGED ITS SWIM PLATFORM. OFFICERS LOCATED CROWLEY AND HIS FEMALE PASSENGER RENEE GOGGIN ON SHORE, WHERE CROWLEY WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH BOATING WHILE INTOXICATED.

- - - - - - - -

Renee Marie Goggin, 21, daughter of Vincent J. and Marie A. Goggin, died unexpectedly on Wednesday, July 22 at St. Joseph's Hospital in her home town of Nashua, New Hampshire. Renee's death was the result of a maritime accident as she was riding a PWC with a friend when it crashed into a pylon.

Renee was born on May 8, 1988 and was a graduate of the Academy at Swift River in Cummington, MA. She was attending Saint Leo as a major in elementary education. She loved children and decided that she wanted to be a teacher. Those who knew her say she was a sweet, fun-loving person who enjoyed music, dancing, and scrapbooking. Renee was also a former staff member of The Lions' Pride.

A memorial mass was held for her on Thursday, September 3 in the Student Community Center Boardroom in which Renee's mother Marie spoke of her daughter's life. Renee will be missed by all who loved her and knew her.

Seaplane Pilot
02-20-2011, 08:49 AM
Why can there not be any COMPROMISE?? Its like the western front in WWI... Both sides seem dug in and unwilling to budge!

I have no problem with a nighttime limit because thats when ALL of the accidents cited by WINNFABS have occured!

I have a problem with a daytime limit because there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA WHATSOEVER to show that its necessary! No accidents! No anything! Just anecdotal stories about how the guy went by me too close and too fast! We all have stories like that! Because I like to putt around the lake, I have stories like that involving every kind of boat!

We need to find a compromise that we can all live with so we can put this issue to rest once and for all! The divisiveness on the lake is acidic!

Woodsy

Here's a compromise proposal: How about modifying the safe passage law? (You know, the law that's already on the books requiring 150' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc., when said boat is traveling more than headway speed.) Let's modify this law to state that any boat going over 45mph (this seems to be the trigger point according to speed limit supporters) be required to double the current 150' buffer and maintain a 300' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc. This is a distance of a football field and should be a welcome compromise from both sides. What say you speed limit supporters? Are you willing to consider this compromise or is it all or nothing for you? Let's hear it.

lawn psycho
02-20-2011, 09:52 AM
Could this 2008 "incident" have been one of those three fatalities?

:o (Sorry for the "all-caps", but that's how the article was posted.)

APS, did the driver get drunk before or after the crash? Hint: I think we both know the answer, huh?

lawn psycho
02-20-2011, 09:54 AM
Here's a compromise proposal: How about modifying the safe passage law? (You know, the law that's already on the books requiring 150' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc., when said boat is traveling more than headway speed.) Let's modify this law to state that any boat going over 45mph (this seems to be the trigger point according to speed limit supporters) be required to double the current 150' buffer and maintain a 300' distance between the boat and any shore, swimraft, dock, swimmer, another boat, etc. This is a distance of a football field and should be a welcome compromise from both sides. What say you speed limit supporters? Are you willing to consider this compromise or is it all or nothing for you? Let's hear it.

I don't want my everyday middle of the road bowrider to be limited to 45 MPH and turn a majority of the boats on the lake into law breakers. 45 MPH is too slow.

Bear Islander
02-20-2011, 10:18 AM
Well written and intelligent? I beg to differ. "Our camps are protective cocoons for their positive skills, experiences and memories." Really? Is it beneficial to keep kids in cocoons instead of letting them experience the real world in a positive light. These camps are using scare tactics to promote support for the speed limit - nothing more. The kids are pawns and the camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash. Keep digging the hole...you'll soon be to China. :laugh:

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.

You take one comment out of context and criticize it. They use their campers as "pawns" and "camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash". Then in the next post you wonder why speed limit supporters are unwilling to talk compromise.

Funny how you never want to talk compromise when you think you have the votes in the legislature.

Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

lawn psycho
02-20-2011, 10:45 AM
The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.
....
Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

That's 180 camps in NH, not on Winnipesaukee. I'm also curious how many of those camps aren't even on water. My daughter spent a couple summers at horse camps and the only water was swimming pools. So let's agree that number is not germaine to the issues at hand with a Lake Winnipesaukee speed limit.

How many active summer camps are on Winnipesaukee? The obvious one's I know of. The camp directors are using a blanket statement so what applies to one lake doesn't apply to another.
Most activities I see from the camps are very near where the camps are located which makes sense for safety. The stay close to the camps not because of boats but to allow for greater supervision. Period.

Yankee
02-20-2011, 04:51 PM
The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.

You take one comment out of context and criticize it. They use their campers as "pawns" and "camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash". Then in the next post you wonder why speed limit supporters are unwilling to talk compromise.

Funny how you never want to talk compromise when you think you have the votes in the legislature.

Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

Ironic that YOU are complaining about someone taking comments out of context. It is your trademark to do such. You invariably attempt to spin your way around a debate by using the same lame and transparent tactic. You infer that it's a fact that 180 camp directors know what's best for the boating public on Winni then complain that somone else takes a comment or fact out of context and posts it to support their argument?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

Your agenda is really becoming transparent.

lawn psycho
02-20-2011, 06:11 PM
Yankee, what is disgusting is how BI and other SL supporters are willing to distort and mislead to obtain their objective. We should get collections of signatures at the sand bars and popular swimming holes to start taking back the lake!

I have a good way to combat this but will reveal it only after the testimony is completed.

Seaplane Pilot
02-21-2011, 09:01 AM
The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association represents 180 camps in the state. They voted unanimously to support speed limits, but what do they know.

You take one comment out of context and criticize it. They use their campers as "pawns" and "camps should be ashamed for disseminating such trash". Then in the next post you wonder why speed limit supporters are unwilling to talk compromise.

Funny how you never want to talk compromise when you think you have the votes in the legislature.

Tell me again why these camp directors don't have a clue? One would think they are fairly knowledgeable about safety, boating, the environment etc..

A typical knee-jerk reaction: "Comments taken out of context". I'm all for compromise but you guys want it your way and only your way. This lake is big enough for everyone to enjoy as they wish, but the camps, kayakers, sailboaters and other bands of elitists have pushed this way over the edge - again, under the auspices of "safety". That's the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

Bear Islander
02-21-2011, 10:54 AM
A typical knee-jerk reaction: "Comments taken out of context". I'm all for compromise but you guys want it your way and only your way. This lake is big enough for everyone to enjoy as they wish, but the camps, kayakers, sailboaters and other bands of elitists have pushed this way over the edge - again, under the auspices of "safety". That's the biggest red herring I've ever seen.

I have been pushing for a compromise for years. That was back when the watchword on the anti-SL side was "NO LIMITS". Kind of hard to compromise with that. But I tried, check out this post from more than three years ago. And there are lots more.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62946&highlight=broads#post62946

gtagrip
02-22-2011, 12:20 PM
I have been pushing for a compromise for years. That was back when the watchword on the anti-SL side was "NO LIMITS". Kind of hard to compromise with that. But I tried, check out this post from more than three years ago. And there are lots more.


http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=62946&highlight=broads#post62946

I'm not for speed limits in the broads, but I do have to side with BI on this one. He was for a compromise back when and "NO LIMITS" was the battle cry! I was going to mention this a while back when the "compromise" conversation came back into play, but decided to stay out this for a while.

lawn psycho
02-22-2011, 01:18 PM
Does anyone have the data showing the speeds that tickets were issued by MP for 2010?

ApS
02-25-2011, 06:00 AM
Does anyone have the data showing the speeds that tickets were issued by MP for 2010?
SBONH might be a good place to start; ;) however, SBONH doesn't appear to know how many speeding tickets were issued in the first place. SBONH is quoted as saying, 21 (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144522&postcount=1) tickets were issued, but had earlier stated 20 (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144558&postcount=2). :confused:

Presently, that number has dropped down to 8; however, many of the NHMP's latest data for 2010 ("hat-tip" to VitaBene) are listed as "pending":

http://wolfeboro.forumcab.com/files/2010_mp_stats_627.jpg

Does it matter anyway? Skip said it best, when he asserted "the effort is doomed" (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=144642&postcount=14).

In Concord, the word "compromise" has been thrown into the discussion—a compromise is never voiced from the position of a convincing argument.

Novah
03-27-2011, 04:00 PM
I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/files/pdfarchivenew/LaconiaPDF/2011/02_February/4L.pdf):

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
The people who are uncomfortable are the people making bad decisions regarding their own actions. For example:
1. Cutting in front of boats that have the right of way only to have them arrive faster than you anticipated. Did they pay attention in operator licensing class?
2. Riding across the broads in a green kayak wearing a blue life jacket when there is a two foot chop. I think Kayaks should all be required to have one of those flags you see on incumbent bicycles operated on the road.
3. Swimming in the major travel lanes.
4. Thinking that the dotted lines around the markers on lake maps are the only travel lanes.
5. Thinking because they are towing a tube or a skier that they have the right of way and the 150 foot rule does not apply
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.I see that family boating every sunny day I am out. Overloaded boats, no life jackets in site, driver not following boating laws - these are the problems that need to be fixed
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.So does this mean the family boaters you speak of above that ride by at 35 miles per hour only 50 feet from me are safely operating?
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Everyone I know who thinks the lake has lost its fun feel blames it on the speed limit. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years.The old law worked well too, it just didn't suite some peoples agendas This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Requiring an operators license was supposed to create proper behavior and it has not stopped the erratic behavior of those who should not be behind the wheel of a boat or any vehicle that goes not operate on a confined area like a road. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach
See responses in blue above.

Novah
03-27-2011, 04:12 PM
It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

Rusty - I am against the speed limit. However, I agree there were some shots in the video that showed a pre-speed limit law being broken. The problem was not the speed of the boats, it was the closeness. It is illegal to travel under 150 feet from another boat even if the other operator is your good buddy.

There existing law to control this says anything over headway speed requires 150 feet between the boats. That is probably the law that is broken the most on our lakes. And yes, the boats in the video appear to be breaking it. They would have been breaking it at 45 miles per hour as well so the speed limit is not fixing the problem.

MAXUM
03-27-2011, 04:52 PM
Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Wolfeboro_Baja
03-28-2011, 04:21 PM
I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.Perhaps banning them entirely is going a bit too far but I don't see why they can't be required to produce a similar "license certification" as they would to rent a car!! You don't see National, Budget, Hertz or Avis renting a car to anyone without a valid driver's license! Renting a boat should be the same.

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

NoBozo
03-29-2011, 10:15 AM
I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. :look: NB

Seaplane Pilot
03-29-2011, 10:38 AM
Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

Wolfeboro_Baja
03-29-2011, 05:21 PM
I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. :look: NBMea culpa......that one was a bad example but you know what I was getting at. Something more than a "quickie quiz" administered by the marina renting the boat should be required! Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend? :)

MAXUM
03-31-2011, 06:49 PM
Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend? :)

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'd sure be curious to know just how many people "flunked". I agree w/ Seaplane no way anyone is going to turn away money that's sitting on the counter.

Rusty
04-02-2011, 04:04 AM
Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin (http://www.shepbrowns.com/) rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

lawn psycho
04-02-2011, 05:35 AM
Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?



I'll take that bet. Why? MP probably issues more warnings and tells renters "don't do that again" and gives them a free pass rather than issue a ticket.

The first order of business would be to get the MP to even record this level of detail. I doubt they do but maybe they'll suprise us.

In any event, it is ironic (err, moronic) that rental places would open their mouths about passing restrictive boating laws.

Seaplane Pilot
04-02-2011, 08:02 AM
I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin (http://www.shepbrowns.com/) rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

Now you're barking up the right tree. Go after a real problem. Not sure about Shep's, but Thurstons is probably the worst offender.

NHBUOY
04-08-2011, 09:51 AM
...let's see if I got this right...an INORDINATE amount of "licensed boaters" DON'T (or WON'T) follow the simple "Rules of the Road(water)" & operate their boats while under the influence...Enforce THESE rules/laws...Don't make NEW laws that are going to be "ignored" & NOT enforced...

fatlazyless
04-11-2011, 12:02 PM
If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

Winndow
04-11-2011, 09:59 PM
The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

lawn psycho
04-12-2011, 07:27 AM
I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

fatlazyless
04-12-2011, 07:55 AM
If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

Yes, well how about that and isn't that interesting......gee whiz......no kidding!

Rusty
04-12-2011, 09:47 AM
I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

Woodsy
04-12-2011, 10:48 AM
The hypocrisy is truley amazing, but as my grandfather used to say... follow the money!

The marinas dont want to lose a customer with $$$ on the table because he/she doesnt have a safe boating certificate... So any attempt to change the rules that make renting a boat a safer experience for ALL by requiring a boating certificate is going to be met with strong resistance!

Almost all of the marinas rent boats... and boat rentals equal $$$! Now while Shep's has wisely stayed out of the speed limit debate, realizing that a customer is a customer regardless of what their type of boat is... others like Thurston's (who lost the Cobalt dealership) and Fay's decided to step right in....

Thier logic?? Less speedboats = more rentals! Its actually pretty simple but obviously flawed logic. No data to support thier claims of a safer lake, and certianly no measurable rise in rental business because of the speed limit. In fact no doubt the rental business and gas sales have been off because of the economy.

I think that ANY business that takes a stance on a political issue such as this where they choose one type of customer over another is extremely shortsighted... why lose any business? I for one no longer have my bi-annual family dinner at the C-man restaurants... it wasnt much, a $700 bill for the night for the 12 of us or so.... but its still money they dont get. I try to avoid any C-Man restaurant.

Woodsy

lawn psycho
04-12-2011, 12:14 PM
Better yet, why don't you just boycott the whole state of NH.
I'm sure Maine has plenty of places that you can boat.

I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you;)

Rusty
04-12-2011, 04:39 PM
I bet the marina (aka a lakes region business) who just got my check for the boating season would not be agreeing with you;)

I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you! :)

lawn psycho
04-12-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm sure he wouldn't.

Have a good time boating this summer. Try to forget about the SL while your here.
I hope the weather is good for you! :)

Since my boat can barely do 50MPH I don't have many worries about the SL. I just may be the only boater out there with a radar detector though. I'm curious to see what the signals I pick-up on the water.

The cops could be real sneaky and clock people on the water as they approach a bay and then ticket them when the land at the dock. Just sayin'

I can't forget about the no-rafting areas though;)

Chimi
04-13-2011, 08:22 AM
The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

Bear Islander
04-13-2011, 09:37 AM
Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Chimi
04-13-2011, 10:10 AM
Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

Dave R
04-13-2011, 11:34 AM
Then why is WINNFABS taking a stand in favor of a no-wake zone at the Barber's Pole?

No wake is a speed limit.

Chimi
04-13-2011, 12:04 PM
No wake is a speed limit.

OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

Chimi
04-13-2011, 12:08 PM
WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Mr. Bear, it's not the speed itself that can be their issue - speed is irrelevent. It has to be their perceived effects of speed (danger, safety, etc) that is their concern. So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?

Dave R
04-13-2011, 02:40 PM
OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

In my opinion:


They want fast boats off the lake. Safety has never had anything to do with it.

Some of them want fewer boats on the lake and are doing what they can to make it less attractive for boaters. The unecessary NWZs are a perfect way to keep boats away.

Dave R
04-13-2011, 02:43 PM
So if safety is their concern, why then would they want unlicensed boaters on the lake?


I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

Chimi
04-13-2011, 04:05 PM
I bet there's a large contingent of them that don't want any "extra" boaters on the lake, but it serves them better overall to have backing by boat dealers, so they remain silent on the renters.

Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.

Rusty
04-13-2011, 04:35 PM
Well isn't that interesting. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I think calls to my reps and senator are in order right away. So I guess they want their cake and want to eat it too.

Comment deleted by author.

Pineedles
04-13-2011, 07:00 PM
Comment removed by author.

Rusty
04-13-2011, 07:36 PM
Once again, when someone has nothing to add to the discussion, they insult someone!


Comment deleted by author.

Bear Islander
04-13-2011, 08:32 PM
OK. Then why do they want speed limits? From their website: "To make the lake safer WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations". Well, in my opinion, it sure would make the lake safer if anyone renting a boat (over 25hp) was required to have a full boater's education certificate. I cannot believe that WINNFABS would not support this "in the name of safety".

What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.

lawn psycho
04-14-2011, 06:14 AM
What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.


So does Winnsfabs promote safety or just a speed limit? What data do you have the indicates a speed limit promotes safety on Lake Winnipesaukee?

You can try and parse the issue of the speed limit and safety but when they are clearly related by WinnFlabs own assertions, what is so hard to understand about why you would be called out for it?

If all you want is a speed limit with no data to support it, you will have people continue to question your "real" intent. It's not safety......

Chimi
04-14-2011, 07:31 AM
What is so hard to believe about an organization formed to fight one specific issue.

There are lots of important issues that WinnFABS does not have a position on. Global warming, universal health care, the financial crisis, nuclear power, racism and the no fly zone in Libya, just to name a few.

From what I have read, WINNFABS' core issue is safety. Unlicensed boaters (renting boats with hundreds of horsepower) are a serious safety issue. What's so hard to understand and why the hostility? Do you want kayers and campers run over by unlicensed rental boaters? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

jmen24
04-14-2011, 08:34 AM
BI made the comment regarding WINNIFABS single position a few months ago. Stating it was all about speed and that was it.

But, has anyone else noticed that the usual supporters haven't made a peep since.

Apparently, the folks in Concord weren't the only ones that were duped into thinking they had the peoples safety in mind.

That's the difference between being a big financial player and a member of the trench squad. Some really know and the others just think they do. That pill has to hurt. And it's too bad, some of the supporters probably were really interested in the overall improved safety of the lake. They will have to look elsewhere if they are interested in actually improving the safety and experience for everyone and not just the wealthy few.

Just think of all the posts on this site from years ago (and fairly recently) that are in complete contrast to this one position only stance, that we have recently been confirmed to be true.

BI, I am not talking about WINNIFABS original stance (the non-supporters have known that from the get go), but what all your supporters were told (or not told), so they would fight the fight they have.

I can tell you that if I had made a contribution to this organization and was told something different then (to get my money), than what is coming to light now. I would be looking for a few other folks that feel the same way and getting the courts involved. Feels like fraud to me!

Chimi
04-14-2011, 09:05 AM
I'm starting to think that we've hit a nerve on this subject. Peel away the bark and see what's really behind it. Wow, and to think that they campaigned on a safety theme, but really it was a theme to get rid of bigger boats. Kind of like the Lakes Region Conservation Trust soliciting support to buy the Castle in the Clouds, then closing the snowmobile trails. Oh well, hopefully they get exposed for this game and they get shut down. I've already contacted my senator and representatives about unlicensed rental boaters causing me fear.

Chimi
04-14-2011, 11:57 AM
WINNFABS: An acronym which stands for:

WINN Winnipesaukee
F amily
A lliance
B oating
S afety

Safety - it's in their name. Nowhere do I see speed limits in their name.

Safety - something that's lacking on the lake when unlicensed renters can rent a boat with a lot of horsepower and cause havoc and mayhem.

jarhead0341
04-14-2011, 07:37 PM
WinnFABS only exists for one purpose, Speed Limits. Since this legislation does not seem to impact speed limits, I assume WinnFABS takes no stand on this legislation.

Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

Bear Islander
04-15-2011, 09:48 PM
Really ........ this comment has to hurt for a few

You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

jarhead0341
04-16-2011, 05:29 AM
You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

WINN
F- family
A- alliance
B-boating
S- slowness

perhaps this would have been a less misleading name

Chimi
04-16-2011, 08:43 AM
Apparently there are many more people out there that smell a WinnFABS rat:

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/story/brett-goodhue-4-15

Bear Islander
04-16-2011, 08:48 AM
Perhaps you should form your own organization. Then you can run it however you want.

That makes more sense than whining about the way the opposition runs their organization.

Lost in all this is any meaningful conversation about the pros and cons of legislation that is soon to be voted on.

NHBUOY
04-16-2011, 09:59 AM
...still...Mr. Goodhue makes a good point...

Rusty
04-16-2011, 11:39 AM
This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen (http://www.citizen.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_50ccb9c4-67e8-11e0-b4f1-001a4bcf6878.html):

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro

DEJ
04-16-2011, 12:41 PM
To the editor,

The Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety (WinnFABS) lobbied successfully to get a speed limit imposed on Lake Winnipesaukee. Recently SB-27 has proposed to a compromise in raising the speed limit to 55 mph in the section of Winnipesaukee known as the Broads. Personally, I believe that there never was a need for a speed limit and that there are many other problems on the lake causing hazards to safety. I also believe that WinnFABS cares little about safety, but operates under the auspices of safety in their elitist efforts to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of so-called performance boats.

One safety issue that has recently surfaced is the fact that anyone renting a boat over 25 horsepower need not have the required Boater's Education Certificate that all boaters over the age of 16 are required to have in order to operate a boat in the State of N.H. Instead, any dealer or renter of boats who is approved by the commissioner may administer a temporary safety examination and issue a temporary (14 day) certificate, which entitles them to rent and operate the boat. This is like the fox guarding the hen house! How can we possibly allow the dealer or renter of the boat to administer these temporary tests? How many marinas have "flunked" the renter, thereby forfeiting a nice $400 rental fee for the day? How can we allow people with zero boating experience, who have not taken the required class and obtained the full Boaters Education Certificate out on the waters of our lakes with boats which may have hundreds of horsepower? This is a recipe for mayhem and disaster and is one of the root causes of safety problems on Lake Winnipesaukee.

However, a little research will show that several of the marinas that specialize in boat rentals on Lake Winnipesaukee (Thurston's and Fay's just to name two) have thrown their support for the speed limits behind WinnFABS — the same organization whose last name is "Safety". There was a hearing in Concord this week on HB-0548, a bill to require (in essence) anyone operating a boat over 25-hp to have a full Boater Education Certificate (eliminating the temporary certificate issued by the marinas renting the boats). Guess who spoke in opposition to the bill – the owners of Thurstons Marina, Fay's Marina and Shep Brown's Marina — these same marinas that are renting boats to people with no Boater Education Certificates. They cry for speed limits in the name of safety, but protest this bill requiring Boater Education Certificates because it hurts them financially. This is unconscionable and is further proof that they care little about safety and more about their wallets.

Even more perplexing is the fact that since these same marinas supported WinnFABS efforts for the speed limit, WinnFABS has chosen to remain silent on the issue of allowing non-licensed boaters to rent boats and operate on our waters. People who supported WinnFABS thinking that they were the foundation of safe boating got sold a pig in a poke. The time has come to expose their agenda for what it really is — an effort to scrub Lake Winnipesaukee of performance boats by a bunch of elitists that want the lake for themselves. I think a call to your senator and reps is in order to urge them to support HB-0548 and get unexperienced, unlicensed boaters off of our waters.

Brett Goodhue

Gilford
. .

Rusty
04-16-2011, 01:21 PM
DEJ,

Déjà vu all over again. Forum member “Chimi” already posted that letter in post #230.

jmen24
04-16-2011, 01:53 PM
This well written letter is in todays Laconia Citizen (http://www.citizen.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/article_50ccb9c4-67e8-11e0-b4f1-001a4bcf6878.html):

Running the gauntlet

Editor, The Citizen:

Boaters take notice: A proposal to change boating speeds is back in Concord — again. The bill to create a special “Winnipesaukee Speeding Zone” was passed by a recent Senate vote. This new proposed change is sponsored by the so-called “Safe Boaters”, who are eager to see Lake Winnipesaukee’s scenery — all in one hour! Especially if you happen to find yourself in Alton or Wolfeboro waters, the new “Speeding Zone” will allow speedboats to cross your pathway at newer and more exhilarating speeds than permitted by present law.

At any one moment, Winnipesaukee’s visitors are already challenged in finding exactly where their boat is located on the lake. Whatever haphazard speeds they will be encountering near “The Speeding Zone” is anyone’s guess. To travel to any other spot on the Lake, this new “Speeding Zone” would entrap every Wolfeboro boater into “running the gauntlet” of high-speed boats.

House legislators can’t be seriously considering a “yes” vote on this hazardous proposal. Should one supporting Senator been absent, this proposal would have died in the Senate. To impoverish our treasury even further, expect each of Enforcement’s citations for excessive and reckless speeding behavior to be reduced by 10 mph. Inside our newest life-jackets, manufacturers’ disclosures emphasize our PFDs can’t meet safety standards at this proposed speed! This scary proposal follows our lake’s safest seasons under the current 45/30-mph limits. If it ain’t broke, why fix it.

Robert Kennington

Wolfeboro

Glad to see that Bob can actually write a well formed paragraph, instead of the hacked together cut and paste that we see here. A lot more respect would be given if this was the new adopted posting style from here on out.

NHBUOY
04-16-2011, 02:57 PM
...btw...there is/was a measured mile on the Wolfboro side of Rattlesnake Island that we used WAY back in the dark ages to get accurate top speed numbers...until "somebody" in Wolfboro got a Raydar gun for X-mas...I bet Mr. Birdsall remembers...

NHBUOY
04-16-2011, 02:59 PM
...the Kennington letter sounds more like a ranting than a legit counter argument for a "speed zone"...

Chimi
04-17-2011, 08:48 AM
You are being a little over dramatic.

WinnFABS was created to fight one battle, speed limits. It NEVER had any other purpose. It never claimed to have any other purpose.

Your argument that WinnFABS should be fighting other battles that you want them to, has no merit.

Get over it already.

Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

Bear Islander
04-17-2011, 09:07 AM
Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.

Sorry, but I have answered this question probably 30 times. You are welcome to go back and read those posts. They are all in the speed limits forum.

Rusty
04-17-2011, 09:22 AM
Riddle me this Batman: Why did/does WinnFABS want speed limits? What is the primary reason? Do tell.


You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

lawn psycho
04-17-2011, 03:51 PM
Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

Nice try but that's a classic strawman argument. Why not make highways all have 25 MPH speed limits too....

Rusty
04-17-2011, 04:38 PM
Nice try but that's a classic strawman argument. Why not make highways all have 25 MPH speed limits too....
:rolleye2:
It’s not “strawman”, it’s straw man. Two words, not one.

Your comment is the straw man approach. You are trying to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It won’t work my friend! ;)

lawn psycho
04-17-2011, 05:24 PM
:rolleye2:
It’s not “strawman”, it’s straw man. Two words, not one.

Your comment is the straw man approach. You are trying to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. It won’t work my friend! ;)

No I was trying to point out the fallacy of your argument with an example.... Did you notice I posed the argument as a question? Carry on....

Dave R
04-17-2011, 05:51 PM
Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

Good thing you're not an airplane pilot...

Rusty
04-17-2011, 06:14 PM
Good thing you're not an airplane pilot...

You know for a fact that I'm not an airplane pilot?

You are assuming something and making a judgement of being true without evidence or validation.

Dave R
04-17-2011, 06:37 PM
You know for a fact that I'm not an airplane pilot?

You are assuming something and making a judgement of being true without evidence or validation.

Nope. I assumed you weren't because you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of flight.

If you are an airplane pilot, you may want to bone up on the fundamentals...

Either way, your statement was very wrong. Flying too slow tends to lead to tying the record for lowest altitude.

Rusty
04-17-2011, 07:01 PM
Nope. I assumed you weren't because you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of flight.

If you are an airplane pilot, you may want to bone up on the fundamentals...

Either way, your statement was very wrong. Flying too slow tends to lead to tying the record for lowest altitude.

I guess I thought that everyone understood that what we talked about most of the time when it came to speed was boats and automobiles. I guess I was wrong.
Planes need thrust and uplift to stay in the air and that doesn’t always relate to speed though. Have you ever seen the Harrier do a vertical/short takeoff and landing?

http://juliantheaviator.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/harrier.jpg

Dave R
04-17-2011, 08:19 PM
I guess I thought that everyone understood that what we talked about most of the time when it came to speed was boats and automobiles. I guess I was wrong.
Planes need thrust and uplift to stay in the air and that doesn’t always relate to speed though. Have you ever seen the Harrier do a vertical/short takeoff and landing?




Yes, I have actually, several times and it is cool. You realize that those have the worst safety record of any jet in the military, right?

chipj29
04-18-2011, 07:50 AM
You have made up your mind that WinnFabs only goal is to keep GFBL boats off the lake so why keep asking that question.

If WinnFabs says there goal is safety, then you say "What is the primary reason?"

So why keep asking that question if you (in your mind) know the answer. It really is an obsession with you.

Why don't you ask the SBONH folks why they support going faster if their primary goal is safety? Going faster in any vehicle is less safe that going slower.

How many accidents have there been on Lake Winnipesaukee that were directly attributed to speeds above the current limits?