Speed Limit [Archive] - Winnipesaukee Forum

Lakegeezer

01-11-2005, 07:19 PM

I agree with the previous posting. 45 is way too fast in many situations, but on a sunny Tuesday, in mid-May, at 9AM, in the broads (and lots of other times and places) - there is no reason not to do 60+. So, 45 is an artificial number that is both too fast and too slow. A night time speed limit of 25 is not right either. Again, 25 is way too fast for some areas, but coming north from Wolfeboro in the broads, 25 can be too slow. In fact, some boats will plane bow high at 25, and conforming to the law would actually make visibility worse - and reduce safety. The laws should re-enforce a boater's responsibility to go a reasonable and proper speed at all times. Heck, the state is making everyone take a course in how to drive a boat - part of the course should be to recognize when its time to go fast, and when its time to go slow. I fear that this is feel-good legislation that gives the appearance of the warm blanket of safety, but does nothing except to encourage disrespect for the law.

itchin for fishin

01-11-2005, 09:51 PM

I think the real purpose of the limit would be to chase the go boats off the lake and to the ocean. Dave and Geezer have hit it on the head, cruising even 35 or 40 say by an Eagle island on a busy day is dangerous. Most boaters do not have the skills to react quick enough.

The question that begs is it the speed or the number of boats that make the lake more dangerous? It really is a bit a both. If you chase away some boats that live for speed, that probably would drop the number of boats and speed and potentially make it safer. Who knows. Just a guess on the logic. :confused:

Jan

01-12-2005, 07:44 AM

Before bashing anyone who even mentions speed limits it may be helpful to look at Lake George. They (http://www.lakegeorgeassociation.org/html/boating_on_lake_george.htm) have a 45 mph speed limit. I'm sure there was a heated debate there but the speed limit advocates prevailed. Why? Couldn't the same reasons for putting a speed limit on Lake George apply to Lake Winni?

I'm not necessarily for a speed limit here but I think it would be nice to have a rational exchange of ideas about this instead of the usual hysteria from the performance boat owners. Is that possible on this forum?

So what about Lake George? If they passed a 45 mph speed limit there why not here?

itchin for fishin

01-12-2005, 08:46 AM

Here Here Jan! I think that would be great. I would love to have a better understanding of why people oppose the limit. Is it just our natural desire for freedom, is it the feeling of going fast? I know myself, I could live with a limit. I'm one of those who doesn't ride faster than 45. My reason is when I'm on the lake, I want to really relax. With higher speeds, you do need to "work" a little more piloting as things as situations come up on you much faster. So that's my reason for not opposing it. However, I will fully respect those who do oppose the limit and would like to better understand their perspective.

Dave R

01-12-2005, 09:02 AM

So what about Lake George? If they passed a 45 mph speed limit there why not here?

Specifically for the reasons mentioned above, but also doing something just because NY does it, seems like a terrible reason to do something in NH.

There are already laws in place that govern boating, and common sense nicely covers any other aspects of the pasttime. If people obeyed the existing laws and used common sense, there would be no accidents. Maybe we need to punish folks for not using common sense rather than those that go fast where it's safe to do so... How about fines for running up on the Witches? You just know that anyone that would do that would be quite likely to do other dumb things.

Our society seems comfortable with punishing those who are perceived to be unsafe and having pity on those that do something really dumb. You see police issuing speeding tickets to automobile drivers all the time based on that notion that speed may lead to an accident, but they rarely write tickets after someone proves beyond all doubt that they were driving in an unsafe manner by actually having an accident.

I think we need to ask ourselves "why do we need a speed limit?", not "why not have one?"...

Dave R

01-12-2005, 09:16 AM

I feel compelled to point out the fact that my boat will barely break 45 MPH and I rarely go more than 35. I'm just opposed to redundant and useless laws in general.

fatlazyless

01-12-2005, 09:20 AM

JG1222

01-12-2005, 09:51 AM

I would love to have a better understanding of why people oppose the limit. Is it just our natural desire for freedom, is it the feeling of going fast? I know myself, I could live with a limit.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, "He who sacrifices a little freedom for a little security will get neither and deserve neither."

In my humble opinion, if the safe boating laws that we already have were merely enforced more effectively, there would be no need for additional ones. Unfortunately, I fear that the state would see a speed limit as another valuable revenue stream - the added "safety" would just be a nice bonus.

rickstr66

01-12-2005, 10:36 AM

Let me start out by saying I have a boat that will do well over 45mph and I often do go over 45mph. In fact most times im doing over 45 mph.

Now onto my point. Using physics, you can determine that a boat weighing X and going X mph will take X amount of time and feet to come to a stop. If the X in mph is reduced then the distance and time it takes to stop a boat will decrease. This will undoubtablly reduce the # of accidents that happen when a boat is initailly going over 45mph. Im not saying im for a speed limit here but scientifically speaking speed limits reduce not only the # of accidents but also the severity of them.

As long as the Marine Patrol use common scense and arn't over the top with this, a speed limit will work fine. I dont think I have ever been pulled over and given a ticket unless I was going more then 10mph over the posted speed limit. If the Marine patrol use this same logic and only pull those over who are operating dangerously over the 45 mph limit, there wont be a problem

GWC...

01-12-2005, 12:14 PM

Why do "the few" have to rule "the many" in this country and state?

Pass your speed limit; but remember that life is choices and challenges. :D

The "wake" will make you think twice.

Unfortunately, it will be too late - your speed limit law will be a fact of life.

The upside is that "big boat" sales will increase because people with boats of less than 30 feet in length will not be able to enjoy a ride on the Lake.

Also, unfortunately, shorefront property owners will be observing the legal erosion of their assets.

Remember, the rule states 150 feet away. ;)

Also, take a wild guess as to why the Lake has experienced a "no-wake" limit. :rolleye2:

Perhaps, just perhaps, that is what is really needed to keep "the few" happy and content.

Just my opinion; yours may differ...

P.S.- Let us not forget Castle in the Clouds, the LRCT, and snowmobiles. :eek:

lakershaker

01-12-2005, 03:56 PM

I think you could argue both sides of this issue using logic, and the speed limit may not be the best solution to the problems that prompt it as a solution. As others have said on this thread, there are already a number of laws on the books that cover the problems sometimes created by speed. On a busy Saturday afternoon, it would never be prudent to go 40mph through FL2 and Eagle Island, but other times speed of 60 may be safe at other points on the lake.

The reckless nature of boaters who either are not paying attention to their fellow boaters or truly don't have a clue is what I see as the big problem. I would prefer to see NHMP be stricter with enforcing reckless operation violations than be forced to sit and run radar. Reckless operation is already on the books, has stiffer penalties than a simple safe passage violation or a speed violation would have, and I think it better addresses the unique issues of boating safety. In the Saturday afternoon scenario, I would argue that someone threading the needle in heavy boat traffic by light 2 at 40MPH would be operating recklessly, but putting in a 45MPH speed limit would in effect give the operator prima facia evidence for a reasonable defense. IMO, if Marine Patrol were to start handing out tickets that forced the operators to appear in court and explain to the Judge what they were doing, it would go a long way to improving the safety on the water. I think these problems boil down to a lack of common sense, which is impossible to legislate. But forcing someone to explain their actions to the Judge could go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Finally, putting in a speed limit may actually have the effect of generating higher speeds on the lake. Like others have said, many boaters don't go faster than 35 or so. But how many cars on the road travel below the speed limit? You may actually see inexperienced boaters thinking they need to be going 45, when for them 30 is much safer.

Tyler

01-12-2005, 04:06 PM

Can anyone provide contact info for Pilliod Belk who is the sponsor of this House Bill? Thanks.

Tyler

01-12-2005, 04:34 PM

I thought the mandatory boater education was the answer to the boating problems on Winni. Was/is this just feel good, apple pie and motherhood legislation? Has anyone asked Mr. Belk why he thinks this HB 162 bill is necessary and if so for him to provide data to support it? Seems like we are putting the cart before the horse.

Cal

01-12-2005, 04:56 PM

In the Saturday afternoon scenario, I would argue that someone threading the needle in heavy boat traffic by light 2 at 40MPH would be operating recklessly, but putting in a 45MPH speed limit would in effect give the operator prima facia evidence for a reasonable defense.

If the traffic is that heavy shouldn't the 150' take effect and reduce the need for ANY speed limit :confused:
My boat's capable of well over 45 but most of the time going from Weirs beach to Wolfeboro or Alton Bay I run 2700to 3000 rpms and that gets me 45/50 mph , a very comfortable cruising speed for a boat my size. Most of my higher speeds are to race the sun down when returning home late or as a thunderstorm approaches. Now a speed limit would make me a criminal as well as many others who , I know , have done the same thing :( .
There's already laws in place to address the "unsafe" issues and apparently it's hard enough to keep track of these now.
To me it's , more government and one less freedom , more than anything else :(

Bear Islander

01-12-2005, 06:42 PM

I would rather see a horsepower limit than a speed limit. But I welcome a speed limit.

This argument that speed limits don't work and are not enforceable does not hold water. Many lakes, including NH lakes, have speed and horsepower limits and they work great.

At some point we need to tell people that this is a lake and not the ocean. Boats that have extreme speed, noise and wake should not be operated 150 feet from shore.

overlook

01-12-2005, 08:45 PM

Athis lake I do not recall anytime that horsepower was found to be at blame for a boating accident, or that a speed of over 45 mph involved two boats in an accident. The current laws are quite sufficent. Ilove to sail but I also feel quit comfortable cruising over a 100mph. :confused:

Bear Islander

01-12-2005, 09:02 PM

GWC...

01-12-2005, 11:29 PM

If this is about "erosion, excessive wake, ..., Loon nests, dock damage, swamped canoes, and a small child standing in 2 feet of water and being slammed into the rocks by the wake of a .... that belongs in the Atlantic",
then, where does this leave the Mount, the Sophie C, and the Doris E?

Surely you do not wish for their retirement?!? :eek:

Bear Islander

01-13-2005, 12:00 AM

The Sophie and the Mount pass close to my place every day. The wake they put out is large. But the wake of performance boats and cabin cruisers is much worse.

This idea that the tour boats have the biggest wake just is not true. Plus there are only a few of them and they are operated by responsible professionals that know how to minimize their negative effects.

And tour boats provide lake access to tens of thousands that wouldn't have it otherwise. That's a fair trade for the minor inconvenience they create.

lakershaker

01-13-2005, 07:08 AM

Why assume this is just about boating safety?

It's also about erosion, excessive wake, noise pollution, water pollution, Loon nests, dock damage, swamped canoes, and a small child standing in 2 feet of water and being slammed into the rocks by the wake of a Carver that belongs in the Atlantic.

Unfortunately, a speed limit won't solve most of these problems. I agree that there are many boats inappropriate for the lake being operated here, but putting in a speed limit won't help the issue of the giant Carver swamping canoes and endangering children- it can't go 45 anyway. And the offshore boats have smaller wakes when they are on plane than when they are bow up at slower speeds. I think having a speed limit would just be another unnecessary law that doesn't properly address the true underlying issues. I would much rather see a moratorium on large displacement craft.

Island Girl

01-13-2005, 08:25 AM

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/email.asp
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/whosmyleg/whosmyresults.asp
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/whosmyleg/

Can't find Belk, just James Pilliod.

ITD

01-13-2005, 09:30 AM

Let's enact more laws, everyone knows more regulation is better. Why 45 mph why not 30 or even 65? Why, because it is a number pulled out of someone's "head". Does Belmont even border the lake? I have a boat that will go 55 to 60 and sometimes I go that fast. Sometimes I am passed by boats going even faster. Every "irritation", I can't even call them close calls, I've experienced is at slower speeds caused by other boats travelling at slower speeds. I was able to correct the problem by slowing, stopping or changing course.

The speed limit is a joke, requested by people who think they are smarter than the rest. They think with their emotion rather than their brains. Most of the issues listed here (erosion, large wakes, bad behavior) will not be solved by a speed limit. Once again, if a careful thoughtful study was done, the Representative would find a speed limit is not necessary. Unfortunately some of our Representatives are not the brightest bulbs in the circuit.

Cal

01-13-2005, 10:37 AM

I agree with you ITD , but it's hard to reason with people who want speed limits , even if only for their own selfish reasons. How do you make sense of the need to go fast. Just like the noise issue...there's no arguing for noise , only against it.Our government has reached a point , where if three people complain , they will change a law or make a new one regardless of what the other 4,346,328,210 people want :(
Some people would rather live in the 50's or 60's , granted it was a great time , but there's just no going back :yawn:
I just finished a 14 hour shift and the ol' bulb's getting pretty dim , so I'm gonna hit the sack :sleeping:

Sally

01-13-2005, 12:36 PM

The sponsor of this bill is Rep. James Pilliod from Belmont. (The Belk you were refering to is an abbreviation for Belknap County, which he represents.)

His contact info is:

504 Province Rd, Belmont, NH 03220-5379

JDeere

01-13-2005, 05:25 PM

Funny how the same old folks bring up the same old argument about laws. Seems that the consistent thought is more laws are bad because there are A) enough laws on the books and B) you cannot enforce the new law. Based on that argument the government should not enact new legislation as society and technology changes. The issue of fast, ocean going boats on the lake was not an issue years ago because the problem did not exist. Today is different than it was years ago and society needs to amend laws to deal with the new reality.

The lake is without argument overcrowded and dangerous on any given summer weekend. There is not rational argument that can be made that someone needs to travel at a speed that is above 45 MPH. Where is anyone going that they need the extra speed? The speed is not about traveling to a destination it is about the thrill. IMHO!

Anyone can (and will) raise the argument that they have had problems with slow moving boats but statistically speed is a factor in any type of accident. Boater education cannot hurt but drivers’ education produces more than a few lunatics on the road. I understand that those lunatics on the road are probably breaking the law but at least there is a way to deal with them through legal remedies.

Anyway, slower is safer and more friendly to the lake and those that live, weekend, summer, fish, swim, wade, canoe etc. on it!

overlook

01-14-2005, 08:52 AM

The safest thing to do is that no one use the lake, just look at it. Canoes are dangerous ( most deaths are attributed to capsising and fishing). No swimming that way no one will drown and contribute to bacteria. No powerboats so ther is no pollution or eroson ( but when you drive your car you might crash or pollute) maybe we can take it to the next step and rid all water fowl ( that means Loons too)

You cannot argue a speed limit without prejugdest!

ApS

01-14-2005, 08:58 AM

"...Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?"Yes there was. It occurred four days after my letter-to-the-editor appeared in the Granite State News. The letter was titled "Anarchy on Winnipesaukee". Both parties could have read it.

Afterwards, this Forum "lost" at least one poster's user-name that contained the word "Baja". "...Specifically for the reasons mentioned above, but also doing something just because NY does it, seems like a terrible reason to do something in NH..." The boats targeted are very mobile. If NY restricts them to 45 MPH, they just trailer to the nearest big lake that permits their excesses. (Oceans are dirty and might smudge their graphics). :rolleye1:

"They say the best thing to do is just start some dialogue about the matter on this forum..."More importantly is that newspapers read here and archive the quotes.

"I doubt a speed limit would make the lake safer than it is now." You may be right. If you've visited these Big Boater websites, you'll see a disdain for regulation. (Some would call it arrogance). Boats that can exceed 45 MPH will choose "not to see" the MPs with their light flashing and sirens blaring.

I agree that there are many boats inappropriate for the lake being operated here, but putting in a speed limit won't help the issue of the giant Carver swamping canoes and endangering children- it can't go 45 anyway.
Giant Carvers need to be hit in the wallet with ultra-big-time registration fees. "A cheap way to get Lakefront" isn't helping the Lake any, but it could fund Enforcement.

"...And the offshore boats have smaller wakes when they are on plane than when they are bow up at slower speeds...." 'Wonder why the "Big Boater" didn't use that among the defense arguments. (That the Big Boater didn't see the smaller boat's stern light because, "bow-up" he couldn't see over his own bow).

The Big Boater could have sued Baja for design insufficiencies, and "beat the rap". "...I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like, "He who sacrifices a little freedom for a little security will get neither and deserve neither."Ben wrote "essential freedoms". Excess is not an essential freedom.

rickstr66

01-14-2005, 10:06 AM

Can anyone find out the exact number of accidents involving 2 or more boats on Winni last year, and for that matter the last several years.I have no idea where to get that info. For all this talk of over crowdedness (is that a word lol?) im guessing the number is relitivly low. Im willing to guess most accidents involving 2 or more boats happen at speeds much lower then the proposed 45mph. Its not speed thats the main factor.. its boaters that dont have a clue on how to run a boat properly. Distraction in my opinion is the #1 cause of boating accidents. All this argument about what people precieve as "ocean going boats".. Who says they are only for the ocean??? When you buy one does it say..... only use in the ocean? ( I dont own an "ocean going boat"). One poster wants to impliment a horse power restriction. Why ? What will that accomplish? A 15' boat with a 90hp motor will go just as fast as a 20' with a 150hp or a 30' with a 250hp

frank m.

01-14-2005, 10:33 AM

There is not rational argument that can be made that someone needs to travel at a speed that is above 45 MPH.

John, Don't waste your breath here. "Rationality" has no place in this string. This string is just for people who either own or profit from monster boats or who like to disagree. Canoes and loons? Luckily, few of these people live up here, vote up here, or have any serious influence. In time, those of us who do not own forty footers will be able to use the lake again.

Seaplane Pilot

01-14-2005, 12:22 PM

I moved up from Massachusetts several years ago in order to get away from the liberalism that's prevalent there. It's that attitude that the government knows what's best for us that was not present in the "Live Free or Die state, which caused me to leave Mass. However, I fear that the influx of Mass residents that came here possibly to escape the liberalism is changing NH forever. Once here, I think they fall into old habits and look toward the government for direction, guidance and rules in their lives. I think a perfect example is the fact that NH voted for Kerry in the election. How much more liberal can you get? I think the idea of a speed limit on the lake is rediculous and will just be the start of more rules and less freedom. Marine Patrol does not have the resources to enforce the rules as they stand, so what makes everyone think that enacting a new speed limit will save us from ourselves? The need to enforce the rules that are in place now.

Fat Jack

01-14-2005, 12:46 PM

WP,
Seems an interesting switch to take the side of the jet-setters and act as if you are speaking for us old-time locals. Especially when, by virtue of being a recent transplant to this state, you have no basis for representing us. Ninety-nine percent of these performance boats are owned by out-of-staters (no, I don't have evidence of that). It's the locals and old-timers who are having the lake taken away from us in recent years. Claiming that our desire to start using the lake again is somehow being "liberal" and implying that it is these rich kids with the speed boats who represent the traditional conservative values of this state is a real stretch. Excessive goverment happens when the things we own are taken away from us by new laws and regulations, not when they are given back by trying to keep things the way they alwasy have been. Asking our elected representatives to protect us from this recent influx of out-of-state values is not in conflict with traditional NH values, it is right in line with them.

Bear Lover

01-14-2005, 03:28 PM

Seaplane Pilot

01-14-2005, 03:51 PM

Tyler

01-14-2005, 03:59 PM

Thanks for the info SeaPlane Pilot. This will never pass. To bad we have to go through this every year.

ITD

01-14-2005, 04:02 PM

Please direct me to the poll or study that says the majority wants a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, I'll bet you'll find it at the same place as the majority that wanted rigime change in the US, NOWHERE. Once again, a speed limit won't solve any of the complaints listed in this forum.

Remove "Washington's" in the quote below and I'm afraid you'll begin to see NH direction..... I hope I'm wrong.........

"Sadly, commitment to principle has been missing in Washington's politics for quite some time now. Ronald Reagan's summary of how the government thinks -- 'If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' -- remains very much alive today." --The Heritage Foundation's Ed Feulner

phoenix

01-14-2005, 04:27 PM

should we also get rid of all speed limits on roads. it seems that some limit is logical . Maybe the debate should be about the number not whether we should have any rules

Bear Lover

01-14-2005, 04:27 PM

ITD

Your missing the point. A speed limit is not what the majority want. What they want is those "big, loud, gas guzzling, mine is bigger than yours" boats off of the lake. A speed limit is what they will use as the way to do it. Nobody is going to spend a small fortune to keep a muscle boat on a lake with a 45 mph limit.

And after the speed limit passes they will want a horse power limit, or some other method, to get the cabin cruisers off the lake.

If you really think it can't happen read the list of NH lakes with speed and or horsepower limits. It's about 1 in 3.

Tyler

01-14-2005, 04:29 PM

that supports this. Unfortunately we go through this every year. This will never pass and those who want it know it. It is simple feel good legislation wishfull thinking.

As I said earlier I thought the mandatory boater education was supposed to help this situation. Was that just another feel good bill that was passed???

PaulS

01-14-2005, 08:06 PM

I think the only thing that most people can agree on is that we want courtesy. The best way to get that, is to give it. A 20' runabout going 30 mph past someone in a canoe fishing on a quiet morning, even at 150', is going to be more annoying than a cigarette boat going 70 mph across the broads with no one else in site. Regardless of the boat type: jetski, cruiser, kayak, runabout, or "offshore", each can be driven in a way to not bother others, or with total disregard for anyone and everyone. After about 5 posts, these threads get pretty damned repetative, with not much new information added. A little courtesy goes a long way. Climbing off my soapbox now...

Just Sold

01-14-2005, 08:52 PM

With all the discussion pro and con here is my 2 cents.

A speed limit may have some and I say some merit but is it the only answer?

With the various threads on "Go Fast", Off Shore, Ocean Boats, Large Cruisers etc have we forgotten that the PWC can achieve speeds in excess of 60 MPH? So it is not the size or HP of the boat that can get up an go like H--- across any body of water.

My current boat cannot make it to 45MPH. When I bought a previous new boat back in 93 I declined the larger engine because I "gave up drag racing". But that was a personal choice. Don't get me wrong I like speed but there is a time and place for it. That is what NASCAR provides for car enthusiasts at NHIS and other smaller tracks around New England. Is the lake an open race track? Some believe that is the case so we are seeing a way to control it being put forth in the NH Legislature.

I am not convinced that a speed limit is the right answer but it may be the only choice unless someone can come up with a better one.

The whole situation on Winni and much smaller lakes is the same.
It is just proportional as it relates to the size of the lake not the individual boats. I want everyone to enjoy the lakes in our wonderful state and we have to do it safely and fairly.

I feel that rude and dangerous operation is the real root of the problem but how do we get that resolved? Do we put 10 MP's to every 100 boats on our waters? That is ludicris of course.

I do not have a definitive answer but we all should look at the whole picture on both sides of the issue and addresses the real problem as seen by a majority of us. Let the legislators know your feelings. If you cannot got to the hearing send a letter. It is your right to express your opinion.

Sorry I did 25 cents worth not 2.

Rattlesnake Gal

01-15-2005, 11:59 AM

Be sure to take this poll on lake speed limit! (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12016#post12016)

upthesaukee

01-15-2005, 12:00 PM

Please see the following email sent to the legislation's author Represtative James Pilliod MD from Belmont, with carbon copies to the other legislators representing Alton. I also forwarded this to Representative Currier, vice-chairman of the committee conducting the hearing urging that the legislation not be passed.

I hope others will take the time to contact the committee if they can not attend the hearing, and also contact the legislators from your area.

Dear Representative Pilliod:

As an avid boater and full time resident of the Lakes Region (Alton Bay), I feel compelled to write to you as the bill's sponsor, with carbon copies to the other Representatives and the Senator for my town.

There is no question that Lake Winnipesaukee can get crowded in the summertime. There is also no question that there are some boaters who will drive their boats too fast for conditions.

My concern is that you are proposing legislation establishing a speed limit that will be next to impossible to enforce. In the vehicular world, we have radar equipped police cars with officers trained in the use of the radar equipment. We also have unmarked police cars that can blend into the flow of traffic and "clock" a speeding automobile.

My boat on its best day is capable of reaching near the forty mile per hour speed mark. I normally cruise somewhere between twenty-five and thirty miles per hour. What I do not find is that I am constantly being "blown out of the water" by boats operating at a high rate of speed. What I do find is other boats that do not adhere to established regulations, most notably the "150 foot" rule.

A new regulation is not what is needed on Lake Winnipesaukee, especially one that is virtually unenforceable. What is needed is more education and more enforcement of existing regulations.

What I find very disappointing is that you are not sponsoring any companion legislation that would allow the Department of Safety's Marine Patrol additional funds for the purchase of radar guns (several hundred dollars each, I'm sure), additional funds for the training of Marine Patrol officers in the use of the radar guns, and additional funds for additional personnel to enforce this legislation.

New Hampshire's money can be better spent by increasing boater education and the ability for the Marine Patrol to better enforce the regulations that are already on the books.

In a nutshell: EDUCATE, not regulate.

Representative Pilliod, I urge you to withdraw your legislation.

To Representatives Boyce, Allen, Clark, Millham, Thomas, and Whalley: I urge you to vote "No" if this bill makes it out of committee and onto the floor.

To Senator Boyce: I urge you to contact Representative Pilliod, asking him to withdraw the legislation and to contact the other Representatives from Alton to vote "No" if this bill makes it to the floor.

To all addresses, I thank you for your time and your consideration.

Signed electronically

David M. Cumming

Thanks to Island Girl for the good links to the NH Legislative sites. Just Sold, looks like we are on about the same page here regarding contacting your legislators. If we just sit hear on the forum and gripe, those making the decisions will not know our opinion. Pro or con, contact them before the hearing!!!!!!

hoytglp

01-15-2005, 12:33 PM

Did you ever see a 35ft. cruiser going 20mph -30mph the wake is hugh. The faster the boat the smaller the wake,just a thought. Signs helping people remember, THINK SAFTY and BE COURTEOUS at gas docks and boat ramps as a reminder, that we all want to enjoy the lake.

Fat Jack

01-15-2005, 02:01 PM

Did you ever see a 35ft. cruiser going 20mph -30mph

A 35ft. cruiser will not go 20-30MPH on this lake for long before its owner will trailer it over to Sebago. Once the people over at Sebago get fed up with them like we have, these boats will be forced out to the ocean where they belong. That's the whole idea. People like you and me (assuming you can't afford one of these monsters either) will be able to take our families out on the lake again.

Fat Jack

01-15-2005, 02:06 PM

The hearing for this bill is next Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 11:00 am in Room 305 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord. I'll be there in support of NO SPEED LIMIT :D. We need more help, so if you are against this please try to show up and stand up for your RIGHTS!

I heard on the news that there is so much interest that they are splitting up the hearing into two separate sessions. Those who are in favor of the bill and a speed limit should show at the above time. Those that are against should show up at 2PM.

b8tcaster

01-15-2005, 03:24 PM

The answer to these issues is better education and enforcement. Interesting comments from the director of marine patrol in an interview with NHPR this past spring. http://nhpr.org/view_content/6630/

jeffk

01-15-2005, 05:03 PM

I've been boating on the lake for 10 years now. I've seen people do all sorts of stupid boating behavior, mostly involving excess speeds closer than 150 ft. I'm sure others on this forum have longer boating experience on the lake than I, but not once have I had a problem because someone was going faster than 45 mph. I have seen others going fast but usually at a significant distance. My boat (22 ft) tops out at about 55. I will occassionally push it to the limit when I am a good distance from any obstacles. It's fun. After a couple of minutes I cut back to a more sedate crusing speed.
As others have pointed out, it's the reckless behavior, not the speed. I will conceed that the combination of bad behavior and speed can make a bad situation worse. However, a high speed pass through the broads early in the day is not inherently dangerous to anyone. I would bet that going out in a canoe or rowboat without a life jacket has caused more fatalities without any other boat even being involved. Can we figure out some type of legislation to prevent that stupid behavior? (Off topic - and snowmobilers that don't know the lake going out drunk late at night and drowning?)
Almost every time I can think of someone doing something dangerous on the lake I was aware that they were probably breaking an already existing law. Why don't we focus on education and enforcement of existing laws before we decide we have to regulate the fun out of everyone's lives.

Mee-n-Mac

01-15-2005, 10:13 PM

Read the title of this post and think. A SL accomplishes no more that it can enforce, perhaps a SL of 45 mph. For some this is a potential means to an end, and I just wish they would be more forthcoming and admit it. For others they believe (I think mistakenly) it'll have some effect on safety. Let me address this for a moment ...

Certainly excess speed (?? hmmm excess ??) can produce tragic results, sometimes involving the innocent users of the lake. Othertimes it may just be annoying. I ask,what is what is excessive speed* ... can it be defined be a single number ? In our automotive life we see many SL's, those appropriate for the town and those appropriate (? well let's not argue this for a moment ?) for our interstates. So is the lake a town road or a highway ? Is a 45 mph limit appropriate for this town/highway ? I believe the lake is neither town nor interstate, at times it's more of the former (in areas and at times) and at the same time more of the latter (in other areas). A one-fix-fits-all solution is just wrong IMHO, unless you agree that restriction for all must serve the most restrictive case (so much for liberty). I there any data that supports that a SL, realistically enforced, would have any real effect on the lake ? I believe (you can disagree, hopefully a rational discussion may ensue) that people who operate a boat w/o due regard to other's won't be much changed by a SL, same as SL's haven't changed the speed on our highways. I believe that more enforcement, at those places and times where speed is an issue, would have a much more benefittial effect than would any SL. Let me be more upfront. Congestion is the real problem, speed where there is "high" congestion is the real issue. The effect of a MP boat in those high traffic areas is not to be underestimated. Is a rule change really required ? What would it (purportedly) solve ? Would "we" be better server by an MP boat (not that I care much for this solution) at the congestion points ? Would a lake-wide SL really do any better or could "we" come up with a more rational concept ??

Moreover I really think it's time to think about how "we" approach such things. It seems that "we" are tending towards a "Gov't restricts this bad thing" w/o thinking whether such approaches are the best to affect a change or whether a rule change will really change anything. I dunno, perhaps it's the late hour, but I'm getting dismayed at our collective ability to solve problems (what is our problem in this case ?) w/o invoking the far reaching and non-descrimanting powers of gov't.

*Excessive speed - so is 55 mph excessive on the highway ? 65 mph ?? OR is the problem the one of letting pretty much any idiot behind the wheel ??? Should we all drive slow so the morons amongst us be safe at any speed ??? Are they really safe at 55 ??? Are "we" given that "they" are on the road ????? What is the real problem anyway ??????

HUH

01-15-2005, 10:43 PM

Someone please show me statisticaly that speed is the culprit for any detrimental effects on the lake ..YOU CANT
There are more adverse effects from boats leaving large wakes or uneducated boaters ..
Where did the 45 number come from a hat ? 45 is maximum wake speed for a lot of boats
25 at night leaves the bow of most boats high in the air impairing visibility.
This is not well thought out at all.

Mee-n-Mac

01-15-2005, 10:53 PM

I see boats out cruising at night and in the dark at speeds of 30-40 mph and assume they use a global positioning system to assist their normal eyeball vision for steering. The technology of gps has created a new boating venue on Winnipeaukee enabling boaters to cruise along up on plane in the night. With a lot less boat traffic out there at night, it's a good time to be out on the water and the stunning surroundings take on a whole new look.....night-time. Even a small rowboat w/ a two horse outboard is supposed to have the required red-green-white lights for the night and it can always be seen by an 8000lb-500hp 31' Baha Bandit that is night cruising up on plane at speeds of 30mph and faster. Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?

Sorry FLL, I took this post as one to debate the nightime vs daytime aspects of a SL. Answering your question above I believe the MP estimated the speed of the Baja at about 27 MPH, not really a different velocity than the proposed 25 mph. The problem was not one of, hmmm, speed but rather that of (IMHO) observability, in this case (IMHO) limited by the driver's state (IMHO, have I protected Don enough here) not speed. SLs won't protect us from bad helmsman not matter what people say.

This said, the discussion of night time vs day time SLs are 2 different issues and should be approached as such. As for a 25 mph night limit ... Please make your case. I'm not against SLs as a rule, but there must be good reasoning & evidence for them .............

upthesaukee

01-15-2005, 10:53 PM

I have already heard from two representatives to whom I sent my email this morning. Both of them agree that while there is certainly cause for concern about boating conditions on Winnipesaukee, establishing a speed limit is not currently the best solution, nor is it an enforceable solution.

I am impressed that two of the nine legislators to whom I sent the email have already responded in less than twelve hours, and on a weekend.

Please utilize the links that Island Girl has provided to find out who you can contact (either pro or con) and why you feel this way. (You're right Mee-n-Mac, we need to act responsibly, educate thoroughly, and stop regulating for lack of any other kind of effort to solve a problem.).

Just Sold

01-15-2005, 11:21 PM

I sent my e-mail letter off to my Representatives today. How about the rest of you? IG posted the link here in this thread so everyone could contact their Representative.

We can gripe here on the Forum all we want but we need to be part of the process by letting our Representatives know how we feel too.

Upthesaukee: we do agree on this.

Here is the text of the Bill:

HB 162 – AS INTRODUCED
2005 SESSION

05-0103

03/01

HOUSE BILL 162

AN ACT establishing boating speed limits for Lake Winnipesaukee.

SPONSORS: Rep. Pilliod, Belk 5

COMMITTEE: Resources, Recreation and Development

ANALYSIS

This bill establishes boating speed limits for Lake Winnipesaukee.

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

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

2005 SESSION

05-0103

03/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT establishing boating speed limits for Lake Winnipesaukee.

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

1 New Section; Restrictions on Boating; Lake Winnipesaukee. Amend RSA 270 by inserting after section 130 the following new section:

270:131 Lake Winnipesaukee. No person shall use or operate any powerboat, motorboat, or boat equipped with any type of power motor at a rate of speed exceeding 45 miles per hour during daylight hours and 25 miles per hour during night hours on the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee. As used in this section, “daylight hours” means the hours between 1/2 hour before sunrise and 1/2 hour after sunset and “night hours” means the hours 1/2 hour after sunset and 1/2 hour before sunrise. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a violation.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.

BI1

01-16-2005, 08:00 AM

Wasn't there a night boating fatal accident in August 2002 involving a 31' go-fast and a 22' bow-rider where the driver claimed the white stern light of the other boat was not lit up?

Ya Ya ...Old News....And that was a terrible thing!...There have been many accidents on the lake... Sail boats turn over, Bass boats taking a big wave and sinking, go fast boats hooking and sinking, jet skis colliding ,people diving in and hitting there head ect... and many collisions due to many factors ..Most all of these were not caused by speed alone.. Its operator error!! and the MPs are out there to enforce the law and watch for safety issues ...putting a 45 mph speed limit or any speed limit will not fix 98% of the causes of most accidents. If we need to make areas of the lake slower post no wake zones in those areas...
My .02
Bob
(LIVE FREE OR DIE!)

Island Girl

01-16-2005, 08:39 AM

http://www4.citizen.com/January2005/01.15.05/news/gilford_01.15.05a.asp

Paugus Bay Resident

01-16-2005, 08:50 AM

Regardless of your position on this, I too urge all of you to write your reps and senator. The ones I've written to have been very responsive, and echo the sentiments that upthesaukee received.

Even if you aren't a "resident", I think they would welcome your opinion.

By the way, here's a link to boating accident statistics (USCG) (http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_stats.htm)

USCG 2003 statistics show that the top three causes of boating accidents were operator inattention, careless / reckless operation and operator inexperience. These causes equaled over 43% of all reported accidents. Only 10% or so were caused by excessive speed (which could be 15mph depending on the circumstances). Of the total number of fatalities, 82% were not wearing life jackets. Alcohol was involved in 31% of all boating fatalities. Based on the statistics, it seems that there are other areas of significance to focus on.

Rose

01-16-2005, 09:33 AM

USCG 2003 statistics show that the top three causes of boating accidents were operator inattention, careless / reckless operation and operator inexperience. These causes equaled over 43% of all reported accidents.

Since many accidents were caused by operator inattention, carelessness or inexperience, how do people feel about an operator's license (not a certificate) in which an individual would need to pass a basic boating operation test as well the current written test? I'm not necessarily advocating this, just curious. I know I would feel more confident behind the wheel if I took a few lessons.

Rose

CEP

01-16-2005, 10:09 AM

I don't think that speed limits and or driving license would be needed.
Most people I know, that operate boats on the lakes, already have a drivers license. However, we all know how some handle themselves on the roads.
Education and Experiance is needed! We all need to have a different attitude tords operating on the lakes. Slow down in tight situations, and be alert, and curtious to the other guy near you. Safety for yourself and the loved ones and passengers you have on board.
God knows we have enough regulations on the books today, we need no more.
A safe cruise, is a good cruise. All's well, that ends well!

CEP

JG1222

01-16-2005, 10:17 AM

Paugus Bay Resident posted a great link to statistical data on accidents. Although I personally feel that you can’t address a speed limit until “on the books” laws are better enforced, the statistic that you can’t ignore (and in my opinion is the most important) is the following:

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.

HUH

01-16-2005, 11:51 AM

The fellow who owns the boat yard that wants this bill is also touting that his boat yard is some enviromental yard stick ..Just the opposite his boat yard is a DUMP with leaking engine blocks , a barrel where they burn trash is going 24/7.There are people living in trailers on the property..
I live just up the shore from this eyesore and there is a constant slick of oil floating buy ..
Yet he claims hes leading the charge for eviro sensitive boat yards :rolleye2: :rolleye2:
His yard is also a sailboat mecca on the lake and for some reason the sailboaters cant get along with the powerboaters..When in fact I feel the sailboaters can be a great hazard .. When they are leaving the channel from this boat yard they must stick to the wrong side of the channel due to shallow water , sometimes not giving way ..People unfamiliar with this routine are often confused and or forced out of the channel to make way for the big sailboats that are half out of control from there lack of power to size..
Fast power boats create no hazard whatsoever for sailboats ..Its just that they dont feel you are as eviromentaly concious as them and you should mend your ways .Or they feel annoyed that you have driven by them on their tranquil journey around golden pond :rolleye2: . This is , "as it turns out" is what the true motive of the person pushing for this bill ..
Take a ride by this boat yard and see for yourself ..

Silver Duck

01-16-2005, 12:04 PM

I have a small (26ft.), single engine express cruiser that will not (quite) reach the proposed 45 MPH speed limit, so I personally have no axe to grind in this matter.

However, with that said and for technical reasons, I do not believe that enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit is as easy as some of you seeem to think because:

:eek: Fiberglass boats make poor radar targets at best; fiberglass does not reflect radar signals very well. This is why companies make and sell radar reflecters for ocean-going boats that are likely to need to operate in heavy fog!

:( So far as I'm aware, hand-held radar guns are intended to compare the speed of an on-coming target to a stationary position (the parked cruiser). I strongly suspect that the readings would be heavily effected by the relative speeds and courses of the MP boat and whatever they were targeting. Getting accurate readings would seem to require a much more sophisticated and expensive technology! (Perhaps Skip could weigh in on this?)

:rolleye1: Unless we all start carrying some sort of transponder, the MP boat would need to be close enough to the offending boat to either read the bow numbers or chase it down.

Safe operating speed is determined by circumstances; absolute speed has nothing to do with it! There are plenty of situations in which my 43 MPH top end would constitute reckless operation. And, if an MP officer observes a boat being operated in an unsafe manner, he already has the legal basis to ticket the operator; no further laws are needed!

What's really needed on the lake are more common sense and courtesy, which are difficult to legislate. IMHO, this speed limit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to drive performance boats off the lake!

Silver Duck

ApS

01-16-2005, 01:21 PM

Look at Washington state statistics. They have an equal number of registered hunters and boaters. There, hunting is safer than boating! http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/07/this_day/news02.txt"...However, with that said and for technical reasons, I do not believe that enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit is as easy as some of you seeem to think because..."1) Director Barrett is already quoted as saying the MPs can't enforce the proposed law -- see b8caster's http://nhpr.org/view_content/6630/

2) NH laws expect voluntary compliance -- and largely gets it.

3) Director Barrett does not address a VASCAR approach.
Paugus Bay Resident posted a great link to statistical data on accidents. Although I personally feel that you can’t address a speed limit until “on the books” laws are better enforced, the statistic that you can’t ignore (and in my opinion is the most important) is the following:

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.

So how is this a big deal? :confused:

How many small boaters -- the victims in most instances -- are NOT exempt from Boat Operator Instruction?

I'd fully expect the majority of fatalities to have had "None".

Islander

01-16-2005, 04:26 PM

This law does not require ANY enforcement!

When owners of boats that can go 90mph are looking for a lake to visit or dock their boat at they will NOT choose a lake with a 45mph speed limit. So no new fast boats will come to lake winni.

Some die hard owners of fast boats on the lake may stay. But year by year there will be fewer and fewer fast boats on the lake. All this without the Marine Patrol writing even one ticket.

There will be people that go 50 or 60 on the lake and get away with it. Just like people go 75 or 85 on RT93 and usually get away with it. But nobody goes 130 on RT 93 and nobody will be going 90 on the lake anymore.

If you read the article about the people that came up with this legislation you will find that they are already talking about horse power limits.

Silver Duck

01-16-2005, 04:44 PM

Per Islander's post, I guess the real purpose of this speed limit is no longer thinly veiled, but out in the open!

b8tcaster

01-16-2005, 05:50 PM

If as Islander states, that gradually boaters will gravitate away from the lake due to speed limits or other restrictions, it makes sense that the lake will become less attractive to people with the means to purchase and operate high performance and or luxury boats. What economic impact will that have on the lakes region businesses?(marinas,construction companies boatyards,etc).What impact could it have on the values of properties surrounding the lake. I doubt that people will choose to change the way they enjoy their free time on the water. They may decide to change where they live and or play. Seems to me that the ability to operate these types of boats on the lake is what draws a major amount of the big money to the lakes region. I dont own or operate a large pleasure boat but I dont underestimate how much money people that do must pump into the local economy. Just some things to think about.

Alton Bay

01-16-2005, 06:14 PM

Many of your legislators have their Concord emails listed, not their home emails. If you really want to send a message, I suggest you call them at
home. Most reps don't mind and are happy to get input from voters. Many live
off the lake and value your thoughts. I would never rely on email to send a message.
Call them at home!

Islander

01-16-2005, 06:25 PM

Paugus Bay Resident

01-16-2005, 06:50 PM

Islander,

How do you propose people with performance boats deal with the decreased value of boats they purchased prior to a speed limit law? What about marinas with new (and used) inventory that is no longer marketable on the lake? The economic implications are no quite so simplistic.

Also, you mentioned "the big boats are probably 2%", don't know if that's true, but not only big boats are effected. There are plenty of boats in the 21 - 25 foot range that are capable of speeds in the high 60s and 70s. A 24-foot HTM cat with reasonable HP will do 80+. A 20-foot Baja Outlaw with a 7.3L will run in the 60s. An Donzi Sweet 16 will be up there too. Jees, 10 years ago, I had an 18 foot Stingray bowrider that would run in the high 50s.

And least we forget our jet skiing brethren.

Size, al least in this case ;) , is irrelevant.

GWC...

01-16-2005, 07:58 PM

View Poll Results:
How do you feel about a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee?

I strongly feel the state should implement a 45 mph speed limit! (14) 28.57%

I think a speed limit on certain parts of the lake might be appropriate, perhaps higher than 45mph. (3) 6.12%

I don’t care either way. (1) 2.04%

I don’t think we need a speed limit. (8) 16.33%

I am strongly opposed to any speed limit on the lake! (23) 46.94%

Not impressed with your interpretation of the poll.

17 were for some kind of a speed limit and 31 were against some kind of a speed limit.

"Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts", as Joe Friday would say. :D

Islander

01-16-2005, 07:59 PM

If the law passes performance boat will not loose any value. But they will have to sell them somewhere else, the market on the lake will be poor.

The boats you talk about are not the norm. Bowriders in the 150 to 250 HP is the norm. Only a small percentage of boats on the lake will do over 60.

There must be over a thousand boats on the islands, but very very few performance boats. They are not the best thing to use when you need to run out for a quart of milk.

28.57% + 6.12% is 35%. These people voted for at least some kind of speed limit.

Less than 50% are "strongly opposed". And again this is from people in a BOATING FORUM!!!

JG1222

01-16-2005, 08:45 PM

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.

So how is this a big deal? :confused:

Acres, if you can't see how boater education (like driver education for cars and rider education for motorcycles/snowmobiles) plays a significant role in preventing, reducing or avoiding situations where fatalities or injuries could occur (like safe operation and speeding which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be the subject of this thread), it probably wouldn't make much sense to try to explain it.

Paugus Bay Resident

01-16-2005, 09:04 PM

Island Lover

01-16-2005, 09:11 PM

FormulaOutlaw

01-16-2005, 10:36 PM

You talk about rights, but there is no RIGHT to operate any size boat at any speed on a NH lake, anymore then there is a right to operate any vehicle at any speed on NH highways.

We are a society of laws, and if the majority want a speed or horse power limit on the lake then that is what they will have.

Enforcement is not the issue. Safety is not the issue. Majority rule is the issue.

Things are getting out of hand on the lake and the majority want a change. If you think the majority want more big loud boats on the lake then you are out of touch with the community.

This law or one like it WILL pass. Perhaps not this year or the next but if you think the status will remain quo then you have your head in the sand.

Next time you paint your boats use salt resistant paint.

With all due respect I think you are completely wrong with your "majority rules" issue. Certainly in some aspects, as elections, that is what the outcome shall be based on, however, our society is also based on personal freedoms. Our country was based, and fought for, in the belief of personal freedoms. We have a Bill of Rights that is about freedom.

I do not particularly care for sailboats, but I will certainly defend someone's right to own and enjoy it. Where do I have the right to say that someone else may not enjoy their passion, just because I enjoy something different? I don't, and neither do you.

Someone can be just as irresponsible in a canoe, as one of those "ceegar" boats. This entire issue of the lake is an issue of responsibility and accountability for one's own actions irregardless of what type of boat they may choose to enjoy.

If someone goes by you in one of those boats that you obviously detest so much, how long do you really hear it, thirty seconds, maybe a minute, then it's gone. The problem, Bear Lover, is that your own distaste for this particular type of boat has brought you to the point of believing in the concept of "if I don't like it, you can't do it". That is wrong. And it would be just as wrong if the person operating that big loud boat wanted to ban you from the lake. Life is about compromise. And compromise is the only concept that will keep this speed issue from becoming very ugly. We don't need speed limits, what we need is for people to be courteous and respectful of each other, and recognize that everyone has the same right to enjoy the lake in the manner that they may choose, not a choice forced upon them by others. The next time you want to talk about banning a certain type of boat, think of how you would feel if someone wanted to ban you, just because they did not like the vessel that you chose to own and enjoy.

Of all the different groups of boaters, in my neck of the woods, it is the "Offshore" crowd that is without question the most courteous on the water. Our local law enforcement will attest to that.

The "Offshore" community has raised millions and millions of dollars for charities via sanctioned races and Poker Runs, and Fun Runs. They are "good people". Someday you might consider stepping down from your soapbox and actually try to get to know some, or better yet, take a ride in one of those boats. I have not yet met anyone who has not enjoyed it.

Remember, do unto others.......FormulaOutlaw

FormulaOutlaw

01-16-2005, 10:47 PM

FormulaOutlaw

01-16-2005, 10:56 PM

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]

There is not rational argument that can be made that someone needs to travel at a speed that is above 45 MPH. Where is anyone going that they need the extra speed? The speed is not about traveling to a destination it is about the thrill. IMHO!

[ Anyway, slower is safer and more friendly to the lake and those that live, weekend, summer, fish, swim, wade, canoe etc. on it!

I must have missed something in "Life 101". Since when is a "thrill" a bad thing? If you have reached a point in your life that either nothing thrills you, or you have no interest in thrill, I feel very sorry for you. Thrill is a good thing, whether it is boating, or going to a good movie.

It's all about the fun of something. Slower does not automatically equate to safer. I'd trust a sober experienced Captain running 100 mph with a vessel that is capable of safely doing that speed, before I'd trust a drunk running 25 mph in an eighteen foot bowrider.

It's all about responsibility and accountability for one's actions. It's just that simple. Nothing more.

Bear Lover

01-17-2005, 12:08 AM

BI1

01-17-2005, 06:54 AM

b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.

A speed limit will not cure all the woes of the lake...speed is not the issue or the problem...I have lived on(summers) and boated on Winni most of my life
The increasing problem I see is inexperience!!! not speed the % of people who Buy a jet ski or open bow boat,(runabout) think the lake has few rules and in the process of finding out are a hazard to most everyone else. .education is the first key to the fix...
My .02

FormulaOutlaw

01-17-2005, 08:18 AM

FormulaOutlaw

You have no idea what my experiences or motivations are. If you read my posts again you will find that I never gave my opinion of the speed limit. I was giving my take on why some people want a speed limit and predicting what the outcome will be if it passes. You don't have to want a speed limit in order to realize that it is coming. Dozens of NH lakes have been given speed and horsepower limits in the last few years. It's folly to assume that Winnipesaukee is immune.

The only comment I made on the subject was that things are getting out of hand on the lake, and I stand by that.

And I don't need you to tell me about the Offshore community. In the eighties I crewed the "Piccadilly Filly". So I think you are the one that is on the soap box.

You are correct, I do not, and don't particularly want to know, your motivations. I just read and understand the English language reasonably well. Comparing Winnipesaukee with the small lakes that have horsepower limits is rather foolish. Winnipesaukee is not a small lake.

I read what you wrote thoroughly and congratulations you made your feelings known without "committing" by statement. You must be either a lawyer or politician. Doesn't matter.

And if standing on a soapbox protects the interests of all involved, then I'm not coming down. The difference between us is that I understand the rights of others are just as important as my own rights. Your parting shot about the paint pretty much lets anyone understand where you are coming from.

Crewing for a race team twenty years ago means little in 2005. Like I stated, few groups of people have done as much for charities, mostly helping children, as the "offshore" group. As I sit on two "Board of Directors" for offshore groups, help produce two national boat races, help produce and have personally produced poker runs, all in helping either the Suncoast Foundation for the Handicapped, Inc., the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and PAL, I have a reasonable idea of what I'm speaking of.

This entire issue on "the lake" is still and will always be about responsibility and accountability, something you cannot legislate. Education and awareness is the key, and next time out, wave at an offshore boat, you'll get a wave back.

HUH

01-17-2005, 09:02 AM

ApS

01-17-2005, 11:19 AM

Acres, if you can't see how boater education (like driver education for cars and rider education for motorcycles/snowmobiles) plays a significant role in preventing, reducing or avoiding situations where fatalities or injuries could occur (like safe operation and speeding which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be the subject of this thread), it probably wouldn't make much sense to try to explain it.
My points:
1) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, the test is not required.
2) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, AND never took the test AND became "roadkill", the MP would put a check-mark in the report-box next to "None"?. (No BoaterEd).
3) Boaters with more than 25HP may know the rules, but are less likely to become "roadkill".
4) Boaters with less than 25HP may-or-may-not know the rules, but are more likely to become "roadkill".

Actually, I've been increasingly surprised at the apparent effect that BoaterEd has had on Winnipesaukee. I still have rental-neighbors who "didn't know our rules" on BoaterEd, and had to "park" their boats. It's still hard to tell if a Big Boat, approaching at warp speed, has taken the test.

The violators seem to be mostly Jet-Skis with underage operators, 30-somethings full of themselves, and the few grey-hairs that aren't required to take the test as of yet.

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove :eek: my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell :confused: Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that? :rolleye1:

nightrider

01-17-2005, 11:57 AM

A two-seat PWC is not defined as a "boat". If this law passes, would they be exempt?

b8tcaster

01-17-2005, 07:30 PM

The director of the marine patrol has stated that this is nothing but "feel good legislation" and next to impossible to enforce. I for one would really support any recommendations that he makes to alleviate the situation as I feel that he knows better than most of us since he is responsible for safety issues on New Hampshire waters. I certainly hope that he is in attendance at the hearing to express his thoughts. I personally would like to see more funding for the marine patrol in order to have a greater presence on the lake.I keep thinking of my time on the lake and how would a speed limit change things. Would it change things at Eagle island or near the Weirs on a summer weekend?. Would it change the the way people operate between Lockes Island and Belknap point.Would it change the way people enter or leave Wolfeboro Bay, Alton bay, or any other popular areas? Would it really slow people down at all? I personally dont think so. Why? Because the marine patrol does not have enough manpower on the lake to enforce it. I cant count the number of times i have seen them with someone stopped and other boats fly by within 150' of myself and the marine patrol knowing that since they are already busy they will not be caught. The answer to the problems is the ability to enforce already existing laws

FormulaOutlaw

01-17-2005, 08:05 PM

My points:
1) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, the test is not required.
2) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, AND never took the test AND became "roadkill", the MP would put a check-mark in the report-box next to "None"?. (No BoaterEd).
3) Boaters with more than 25HP may know the rules, but are less likely to become "roadkill".
4) Boaters with less than 25HP may-or-may-not know the rules, but are more likely to become "roadkill".

Actually, I've been increasingly surprised at the apparent effect that BoaterEd has had on Winnipesaukee. I still have rental-neighbors who "didn't know our rules" on BoaterEd, and had to "park" their boats. It's still hard to tell if a Big Boat, approaching at warp speed, has taken the test.

The violators seem to be mostly Jet-Skis with underage operators, 30-somethings full of themselves, and the few grey-hairs that aren't required to take the test as of yet.

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove :eek: my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell :confused: Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that? :rolleye1:

Allow me to answer a few questions or address a few issues if you please.

"The Other Site" is not the Marine Mafia, although we did get quite a chuckle out of that. You must think we are capable of bringing some "serious muscle" to the table. What "we" are is a group of people who share the same common interest: boating. What "we" are is a group of people who like to have fun and joke around with each other. I have made some very very strong friendships in that Forum, people I have never laid eyes on. We are a 25,000 plus "family".

The reason we are paying attention to the issues on "the Lake" is because of the potential of restricting it's use to "all" that enjoy it. Not just us, but everyone. That is the most important issue here people, everyone has the same right to enjoy that lake. Not just the person in a canoe, not just the person on a jet ski, not just the person on a sailboat, and not just the person in one of them big bad "ceegar" boats.

Posting a speed limit on "the Lake" will do nothing, absolutely nothing. Education and awareness are the only two items that will help make the lake safer for all. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people who have posted in this forum don't, or refuse, to see that. We're not talking rocket science here people, use basic common sense. "High speed" causes very very few accidents. "Inexperience" causes most. Unawareness causes a lot. Alcohol certainly contributes it's share. Not speed.

You must have a "wake law" up there, enforce it. If not, enact a "wake responsibility" law. That will help.

It has been suggested that there is a segment who wish "the Lake" to return to "the 30's". That's just not going to happen. However, if everyone works together for everyone's sake, you just might be amazed at what can can be accomplished. Again, for everyone's benefit.

Stop using speed as your scapegoat for the failure to address the situation properly and wisely.

FormulaOutlaw

01-17-2005, 08:37 PM

BearLover: For the Record:

Yes, I list Sarasota over at the other site but actually live in Nokomis, ten miles south. Why? People know Sarasota, but no one would know where Nokomis is located. I lived in the Sarasota city limits for over 20 years graduating from Sarasota High School so I proudly call Sarasota home.

I lived in Maine for 18 years. From 91' to 96' I trailered over to "the Lake" more than 20 times. Loved boating there. I've also boated on Sebago and Moosehead in Maine. And the Atlantic Ocean.

Spent a lot of time in New Hampshire, riding motorcycles through the mountains around North Conway.

New Hampshire is a beautiful state with great people. I always enjoyed myself there and would like to continue to do so. Formula Outlaw

Bear Lover

01-17-2005, 08:47 PM

Nice words Formula Outlaw, but the following quotes are by you and better display who you are and what you think of us and me. You are welcome to talk about me, but leave my children alone!

by Formula Outlaw

I just went into the first site to lurk. One rubberhead states that anyone going over 45 "isn't going that fast to get somewhere, but for the thrill of it". What in the hell is wrong with getting a thrill outta life????? They need to put that idiot in a box, put it in the ground, and throw the dirt on it.

It's bad having a thrill? That's one of the absolute stupidest moronic things I have ever read. Thank God I live down here. I couldn't take those azzholes.

______________________________________

No kidding.......going through that Forum last night it was so "Green" my computer felt like it had Kryptonite around it. This one guy who owns, according to others, the biggest dump of a marina on the lake, is juming on the "let's clean up the lake" bandwagon. Wants to put PortaPotties so the ice fisherman won't piss in the lake.

I wonder how he'll train the fish to use the PortaPotties?

I can only imagine the site of all those "weenies" whining about how only THEIR interest in the lake is important. "BearLover" is my favorite. I wonder what his/her kids look like?

FormulaOutlaw

01-17-2005, 09:07 PM

Nice words Formula Outlaw, but the following quotes are by you and better display who you are and what you think of us and me. You are welcome to talk about me, but leave my children alone!

Yes I certainly did say that, in my forum, not yours. In your forum I was polite, courteous, and respectful.

And who I am is very simple.

One: I am someone who can speak the "King's English" and conduct myself with the utmost courtesy.

Second: I am also someone, as they say in hockey, who is not afraid to "drop the gloves and go".

What you reference to regarding your children was intended as a joke. I have no idea if you are male or female not that it matters. If you found that offensive I apologize.

My father taught me two things: stand up for myself and call it straight. I do. For someone to say that having a thrill in life is bad, is just plain sad. If you disagree with that statement, I feel sorry for you because life has passed you by.

ApS

01-17-2005, 09:09 PM

Yes, I list Sarasota over at the other site but actually live in Nokomis, ten miles south. Why? People know Sarasota, but no one would know where Nokomis is located.Nokomis is a quiet town, close to wide-open waters and home to Stiletto restorations, one of the most innovative boat designs around.

Winnipesaukee is an increasingly crowded lake with a short boating season and an increasing summer-season rental environment, with more and more rooms becoming available. It is getting noisy and frantic.

Calling for "Offshore" help in fixing our speed limit poll is not helpful; however, your site did suggest that no speed limit is acceptable. Point taken.

This proposed law should have been written to read 110MPH.

I've only seen one boat that could exceed it on Winnipesaukee -- and it surely did the day I saw it pass between my dock and a stalled Hobie with four pre-teen girls on it.

As more boaters witness the excesses I've seen, the limit can be adjusted appropriately -- hopefully without help from the headlines your boats so frequently make. "...I can only imagine the site of all those "weenies" whining about how only THEIR interest in the lake is important. "BearLover" is my favorite. I wonder what his/her kids look like?"You'll remember I previously described them as the "Marine Mafia"?

Geesh. Wish I could have seen the site before they "cleaned it up!""The Other Site" is not the Marine Mafia,

Who to believe?

Who to believe?

FormulaOutlaw

01-17-2005, 09:23 PM

Since some of you seem to enjoy stealing quotes from our "Marine Mafia" site, why don't you post the photos of one of your noble spokeperson's property. I especially like the one showing the little trailer someone is living in with the sewer line going directly into the ground. Or how about the diesel tank leaking right above the shoreline, directly into the water?

Like I said to BearLover, what I say or how I say it in my forum is my business. If you want to post it in your forum your are more than welcome to. I stand by what I said.

In your forum I have been nothing but courteous, polite, and respectful.

Do you think there is something wrong with having a thrill in life? Do you really think that is a bad thing? I'm sorry, for someone to state that having a thrill is a bad thing, that person's life has without question passed them by.
I truely hope that is not how the majority of you people feel.

Audiofn

01-17-2005, 09:45 PM

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove :eek: my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?

Marine Mafia ROFLOL. You have to be kidding. Let me tell you about the "Marine Mafia" When some one over there is sick we all do what we can to help them out. Letters, Pick me ups, even taking care of their rent. Hmmm actually in the Mafia you do take care of your own so hmmm I guess that fits. Ok lets try this, when a guy ripped me off on some motors that I purchased over there he was ostricised, darn there we go again acting like a mafia. Oh well then people offered to give me, yup that is right GIVE ME very expensive parts to help me recover from being ripped off. Amazing that people in that family will do amazing things to take care of our own. Ya I guess we are like the Mafia :D

We are a family over there and when something like this will effect one of us we band together as a sapport system. So call in the "big guns from MA".... Why not? People from all over the world boat in Lake Winni so to say that only people from NH can vote in the poll is insane. I pick and choose when I go up to the lake. Some years I only go up once others often.

The Missing content was from myself and Pantera 1. Pantera 1 and I had a disagreement about how to handle this situation. It was not productive for the thread so Pantera 1 and myself pulled our posts. There was nothing about this site that got deleted only the part that said that you guys watch OSO.

Pictures of women? Foul Language? Ok hear is the deal with all that. First off all foul language is blocked from the site. People can use different things like zz instead of ss but there is no way that we can protect against everything. The moderators of the site have always been as hands off as possible and unlike this site there are 25,000+ memebers so it moves MUCH faster then this site does. There are also people from all over the wolds so it is much more of a melting pot then hear just based on its size and location of members. As for the "pay per view area" that was started to protect members that were under age. To make sure that people were of age the board made it Pay Per View with the requirememt of a Credit card so that the people in there were over 18. If poeople over 18 want to see nudity then that is their perogative. It also is not all nudity in there some of it is jokes that we want to keep from younger viewers of the site. As for it being degrading to women, some of the funniest posts are from women. :D:D

Now back to the debate at hand.

I would like to know what evidence that you have that shows that by having this speed limit it will help what you are talking about. I would like to know what the EXACT reason is that you think this will help. Is if safty? Is it errosion? How do you enfoce this? Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water. Not a easy or cheap thing to do.

There are laws already on the books that cover all of this. You can not go fast near other boats, you can not go fast near shore. You are responsible to for your own wake. If you hit some one at speed you obviously broke the law...... If you go fast near shore you are breaking the law. If you are dragging butt and your wake damages some one's boat tied up to their dock then you are reponsible for it. The fact of the matter is that very few accidents in the area are due to speed.

Jon

JG1222

01-17-2005, 09:52 PM

Boys and girls - we're officially off topic, turning a lively discussion about a specific lake-related issue into a series of personal attacks. Not to mention, not adding anything new about the actual topic in quite a few posts.

I'm not really interested in the drama of a pissing contest between the Winnipesaukee Forum and Offshores Only Forum.

I've just unsubscribed from this thread and will no longer participate. I would urge others (from whatever forum) to do the same if they feel the same way.

CMG

01-17-2005, 09:55 PM

Obviously the 2 sides of the issue shall never meet. We all have our motives & interests in the legislation and are kidding each other that the decision will be made between 2 websites (btw, being discussed on more sites than you'd think). We all share the same hobby and too bad there needs to be a line drawn in the sand (water?, speedometer?).
I have a boat - boating for 20 years - never had a citation - an insurance claim - an accident - never caused one. When a boater (or jet ski'r) operates wrecklessly he/she should be held responsible for their actions, not those that the law protects. There should be laws in place to promote safe operation and punish offenders for the lack of. THERE ALREADYARE.
The answer may be additional law enforcement - which may mean additional Marine Patrol and funding. Punish those that offend and allow the rest of the law abiding public to enjoy a natural resource.

upthesaukee

01-17-2005, 10:40 PM

Ok, enough of the bashing person vs. person, website vs. website.

Enough of the name calling.

If one doesn't like a website, don't go there...it's that simple.

You wouldn't pay to go to a movie that offends you.

We certainly don't have to do battle with one another. If we disagree with someone's viewpoint, we can courteously disagree, or we can just bite the tongue and stay out of it.

It is time to take off the boxing gloves and put this acrimonious stuff to bed. Time for peace, please!!!! http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_6_111.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSXXXXXX42US)

FormulaOutlaw

01-17-2005, 11:06 PM

Marine Mafia ROFLOL. You have to be kidding. Let me tell you about the "Marine Mafia" When some one over there is sick we all do what we can to help them out. Letters, Pick me ups, even taking care of their rent. Hmmm actually in the Mafia you do take care of your own so hmmm I guess that fits. Ok lets try this, when a guy ripped me off on some motors that I purchased over there he was ostricised, darn there we go again acting like a mafia. Oh well then people offered to give me, yup that is right GIVE ME very expensive parts to help me recover from being ripped off. Amazing that people in that family will do amazing things to take care of our own. Ya I guess we are like the Mafia :D

We are a family over there and when something like this will effect one of us we band together as a sapport system. So call in the "big guns from MA".... Why not? People from all over the world boat in Lake Winni so to say that only people from NH can vote in the poll is insane. I pick and choose when I go up to the lake. Some years I only go up once others often.

The Missing content was from myself and Pantera 1. Pantera 1 and I had a disagreement about how to handle this situation. It was not productive for the thread so Pantera 1 and myself pulled our posts. There was nothing about this site that got deleted only the part that said that you guys watch OSO.

Pictures of women? Foul Language? Ok hear is the deal with all that. First off all foul language is blocked from the site. People can use different things like zz instead of ss but there is no way that we can protect against everything. The moderators of the site have always been as hands off as possible and unlike this site there are 25,000+ memebers so it moves MUCH faster then this site does. There are also people from all over the wolds so it is much more of a melting pot then hear just based on its size and location of members. As for the "pay per view area" that was started to protect members that were under age. To make sure that people were of age the board made it Pay Per View with the requirememt of a Credit card so that the people in there were over 18. If poeople over 18 want to see nudity then that is their perogative. It also is not all nudity in there some of it is jokes that we want to keep from younger viewers of the site. As for it being degrading to women, some of the funniest posts are from women. :D:D

Now back to the debate at hand.

I would like to know what evidence that you have that shows that by having this speed limit it will help what you are talking about. I would like to know what the EXACT reason is that you think this will help. Is if safty? Is it errosion? How do you enfoce this? Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water. Not a easy or cheap thing to do.

There are laws already on the books that cover all of this. You can not go fast near other boats, you can not go fast near shore. You are responsible to for your own wake. If you hit some one at speed you obviously broke the law...... If you go fast near shore you are breaking the law. If you are dragging butt and your wake damages some one's boat tied up to their dock then you are reponsible for it. The fact of the matter is that very few accidents in the area are due to speed.

Jon

Here here Jon. It is "family" like you that make me extremely proud to be a member of OSO.

In this forum, in my own posts, I have been respectful. I will always defend someone's right to disagree with me. I think it's laughable that some have chosen to steal posts from "the other site" in order to try to demean respectfully written posts in this site. Is that the best you can do?????
You can't say anything to dispute what we have written here, so you try to discredit it by blurring the issue and slamming us. Well slam away. The only thing I'm interested in this Forum is standing up for the rights of everyone, even those of you who I strongly disagree with. And that is more than what you would be willing to do for me. I didn't sneak into your forum and steal posts.

Education and awareness will help your situation. Concentrate on the issue at hand, not making others who disagree with you look bad. Won't work.

Outlaw

01-17-2005, 11:31 PM

How could a speed limit on the lake change the value of a high performance boat? Put it on a trailer and sell it on Cape Cod, Long Island, Miami, Key West ect. OK you will be out the transportation charges.
Case in point - you just explained how the value of ANY BOAT capable of speeds in excess of 45mph will be adversely effected. CLUE - it costs money to ship a boat elsewhere, it costs money to advertise it elsewhere, it costs money for the boat to be shown elsewhere not to mention time. Do you have ANY idea what transportation charges are to ship a boat to Miami? Do you even know what it entails to do such a thing?

Now the marinas which sell boats capable of speeds in excess of 45mph, of which there are at least 4 of them on the lake I can think of right away, they will have to sell the boats at a reduced cost (if not a loss) and in order to remain in business they will need to pick up another line of boats and in case you are not aware, picking up a line of boats is not like shopping for shoes. There are 'exclusives' involved based on territory and such, so this could be a huge financial undertaking if at all feasible for all those marinas. In short, you could expect the marinas to have lay offs and that I'm sure you would agree this would not be an economical benefit to the states economy.

This speed limit topic and your rebuttals all fall back on the same issue - education and the need for it.

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 12:02 AM

Interestingly it is not the "Gofasters" that will only be effected by this law. What about all the bass fishermen? Most boats now days go over 45mph. Even this one goes faster then my "go fast" boat. I guess it is not so fast :D:D

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 12:05 AM

ApS

01-18-2005, 08:04 AM

"...The radar was run by a certified officer and he could not make it work. So how do you measure speed on the water...?" AND "...Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water..." Looks like we'll just have to give up on our silly polls and our silly new law.

Oh wait!

Didn't Audiofn advise this forum last season that "We couldn't measure exhaust noise?"
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8914&postcount=97

ONCE AGAIN...

"...From 91' to 96' I trailered over to "the Lake" more than 20 times. Loved boating there. I've also boated on Sebago and Moosehead in Maine..." AND "...You must have a "wake law" up there, enforce it..." We've had a "wake law" in our Winnipesaukee boating handbooks for decades. Perhaps you overlooked it while reviewing our safety regulations. :rolleye2:

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 08:15 AM

It appears the longer this thread goes, the more people are responding with "education and awareness" is the key to the situation at hand.

Over in the Speed Limit Poll thread, I noticed that BearLover was getting dressed down a bit by his/her own members. (not meant to be offensive here, settle down people)

I'm only stating that more and more seem to be agreeing that speed limits are not the answer, that they are nothing more than an approach that some would use to try to remove the big bad "ceegar" boats from the Lake.

I have a novel suggestion. If you want to ban one boat, ban them all. No canoes, no sailboats, no fishboats, no bowriders, no nothing. Not even an inner tube to float around in. Ban humans from the water, not even swimming. Allow them to fish but only from shore or a dock. What is good for one should be good for all. And what is bad for one should be bad for all.
Then watch what happens to your precious property values.

Like already posted, concentrate on the issue at hand, safety on the lake. And stop demonizing others who have/post different opinions than some of you.

One more thing, I think it's really "chicken" to go into the Marine Mafia site, steal posts, post them here for no other reason than to try to discredit otherwise respectful meanngful posts here. Those of you that have done that should register at the other site and post your views there. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 08:31 AM

AND Looks like we'll just have to give up on our silly polls and our silly new law.

Oh wait!

Didn't Audiofn advise this forum last season that "We couldn't measure exhaust noise?"
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8914&postcount=97

ONCE AGAIN...

AND We've had a "wake law" in our Winnipesaukee boating handbooks for decades. Perhaps you overlooked it while reviewing our safety regulations. :rolleye2:

I never posted anything about radar guns and boats. Sorry, you can't blame that one on me. I believe Jon posted that, and the fact is that it is true.

I've never even looked at your "safety regulations". If you are having that many problems up there, then obviously they are not being enforced. If you've had a "wake law" in place, then why all the complaints about wakes? Answer: it obviously is not being enforced. So instead of the idea of a speed limits, and we all know why some of you are pushing for that, concentrate on the problem at hand. You have a law on the books, it's not being enforced, why???? If that law is not being enforced, why would one think that another law would be enforced.

Some of you really need to stop a second and think about what you are posting. It does not make basic logical common sense. You have a wake law, use it. There's one major problem down.

If you're going to continue to try to make us look bad because you can't reasonably counter our concepts or posts, at least get the name right.

And while I live in Nokomis, a quaint little town as it was called, I live on the water less than five minutes from both the ICW and the Gulf. I boat between Ft. Myers and St. Petersburg. And I doubt very seriously you have anywhere near the boat traffic we do especially on holiday weekends. On a good Memorial Day weekend we can have up to five thousand boats in the waters around here. For a fifteen mile stretch of the ICW it can be stern to bow, for fifteen miles. And you think you've got congestion?

It's not my job to read/review your safety regulations up there. I only jumped in this Forum because of your attempt to regulate performance boats off a Lake that can certainly handle them, only because there is a group of people up there who do not like them. And you continually exhibit the "I don't like it so you can't do it" self centered ideology. Sorry folks, that is as wrong as wrong gets. If you don't like those boats, don't buy one. But don't demean others that do. I'm sure you would not appreciate a group of people trying to ban the type of vessel you enjoy. Live and let live. Do unto others. Some of you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about that.

CMG

01-18-2005, 08:34 AM

We ran a radar trap for a Poker run in upstate NY. They were unable to get a read off ANY of our boats. That included one run that they asked us to go with in 30 feet of their boat. The radar was run by a certified officer and he could not make it work. So how do you measure speed on the water?

Jon

Boats would require a metalicl reflector visable from all sides for radar to work on sloped fiberglass surfaces. Correct me if I'M wrong but the speed would have to be estimated by the MP, tough sell when appealed. Few stationary points of reference and distance to/from objects. Again, enforce the existing safety laws.

Chris G.

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 08:39 AM

And what in the world does quoting my post of trailering over to Lake Winni have to do with anything????

As far as I'm concerned there's a wake law everywhere. At least I make sure my wake does no one else harm. That's called "responsible boating".

Acres: maybe you should teach a voluntary responsible boating class and tell everyone up there about the wake law that's been on the books for decades that apparently no one knows, or cares, about, or worse yet not enforced.

Roll your eyes on that one.

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 08:47 AM

Acres you are missing the point. How if they can not radar a boat will they be able to establish with any accuracy the speed of a boat? Some boats look like they are going faster when in fact they are going slower. It is not even close to estimating the speed of a car, you have no reference points to look at or anything. The cost of training the MP were the kids ussually only are around for a year anyhow would be huge. I find it interesting that I have asked all you guys questions, honest questions, and NONE of them have been answered. Just a lot of back talk like AND.... Kids have arguments like that.... We have shown facts that very few accidents involve speed. We have also shown facts that even though the number of boats on the lake have gone up, the number of accidents has gone down. You saying that there is a wake law on the books proves a point that the MP does not enforce the many laws that they already have to work with. I for one HATE huge wakes when they hit my dock, and would love to see this law enforced. It is something that is a LOT more enforcable as you can see the large wakes, and there is NO doubt that it damages the shores. However the large wakes have nothing to do with speed. Actually to have the speed limit will increase the size of most of the wake that is seen on the lake as a boat that is going as speeds over 35-45mph ussually puts off a much smaller wake, I know mine does.

You brought up the noise post to try and discredit me so I feel that I have to respond to that. It is TOTALLY true, you can not measure noise on the water accuratly. Since that is something that I do in my work I know a little something about it. When I DB a room/theater we turn off everything in the house, refridgerators, ac/heat, other tv's in the house as they will all make our readings inaccurate. These are in 30 million dollar homes with high end heating systems that are not all that loud to begin with and rooms that are super isolated from sound but we still have to go through all this effort to get the room as quite as possible. You can actually see the meter jump if some one walks in the house. We use a 5,000 dollar meter and mic. We can see the same thing however on our cheaper units. Now you are telling me that out in the open on a lake with boats and everything else you can isolate sound that well to get an accurate reading? Point two of my argument on that thread was that they were doing the readings wrong. They were taking DB readings in the river with boundry walls on either side, at a dock were noise gets amplified by the underside of the dock. Not holding the meter properly and so on. All these things are clearly against what the law says. Now they have been doing a better job as of late and we have all complied with the law. At any rate lets not get this thread off topic. I have responded to your post but the topic on this thread is speed not noise, we comply with all the noise regulations on the lake.

Jon

JDeere

01-18-2005, 10:34 AM

[QUOTE=FormulaOutlaw]I must have missed something in "Life 101". Since when is a "thrill" a bad thing? If you have reached a point in your life that either nothing thrills you, or you have no interest in thrill, I feel very sorry for you. Thrill is a good thing, whether it is boating, or going to a good movie. Nothing wrong thrill seeking until it infringes on other people. Your post makes it clear that you think about your first otherwise you would not have felt it necessary to take a shot at someone. If you need speed to get your thrill then by all means go out and get them but not when you put others at risk but it appears that that is not an issue to you…………..hence we need laws to make you the outlaw you wannabe.

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 11:27 AM

[QUOTE]Nothing wrong thrill seeking until it infringes on other people. Your post makes it clear that you think about your first otherwise you would not have felt it necessary to take a shot at someone. If you need speed to get your thrill then by all means go out and get them but not when you put others at risk but it appears that that is not an issue to you…………..hence we need laws to make you the outlaw you wannabe.

This is were I think it gets touchy and the two sides have a real hard time seeing any middle ground. However the speed issue as I have said I think is a different one then noise issue, OR are you trying to figure that if a boat can not go over 45 that the loub boats will leave? Back door politics? That is sure what it feels like to me. I am still waiteing for any evidence that speed has a direct cause and effect on accidents as the evidence from the coast guard seems to indicate otherwise. Accidents from my checking around seems to be more related to Intoxication, lack of knowledge, not paying attention, and other things but NOT speed. So again were is your data that shows that those of us driving fast are the cause of all the accidents on the water?

rickstr66

01-18-2005, 12:58 PM

Several of us have asked the pro speed limit crowd to post some data on speed causing accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee. None has been posted because it doesn't exsist. Alcohol and stupidity are the 2 reasons for most accidents. Last I checked you can't outlaw stupidity. These pro speed limit people are the same ones that have a house on the lake but go to every town meeting and oppose somoene else building a house on the lake, or they have a dock and protests their new neighbors dock. Once they have it, they dont want anyone else to have it.
One could argue that since Winni is such a big lake, it's the small bout that dont belong. Get rid of all the small, underpowered boats and the overcrowding will be solved. Let the small boat go use a smaller lake or pond. If your boat isnt at least 17' long and have at least 100 hp then you cant be on Winni period. Hey the more I type of this , the better it sounds!!! In reality this doesnt sound good at all. I would never want to limit anyones access to such a beautiful place. Its there for all of us to use and enjoy.

Aubrey

01-18-2005, 01:01 PM

It's incredible how many people are stuck on the idea that you can't pass a law you can't enforce. That never stopped them before. The 55 and 65 mph speed limits on 93 are broken by at least 2 out of 3 cars on the road. Drive down 93 at the limit and see how many cars you pass and how many cars pass you.

And a MP officer might not be able to look at a boat and know if it's going 45 or 55. But they certainly will be able to look at a boat going 90 and tell it's breaking the law. Remember an officers estimate can be used for a speeding ticket, no radar gun is required.

I'm not in favor of a 45mph speed limit. But a 65mph limit like on 93 is OK with me. If you need to go 90 perhaps you should find a bigger body of water with less traffic.

Live Free or Die is a statement against political slavery. Not an justification for irresponsible or inconsiderate behavior.

FormulaOutlaw is not a member of the lake community. He has ridiculed this web site and the people in it. I doubt if he has contributed to the upkeep of this site. I think he should go away and stay away.

phoenix

01-18-2005, 01:08 PM

well said Aubrey. I also think the real debate should be the actual speed limit not whether there should be any limit . 45 is likely too low but 90 is too high.

Islander

01-18-2005, 01:16 PM

Great idea Aubrey!

65 would be fine with me.

And FormulaOutlaw should go insult children somewhere else IMHO.

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 02:26 PM

I'm not in favor of a 45mph speed limit. But a 65mph limit like on 93 is OK with me. If you need to go 90 perhaps you should find a bigger body of water with less traffic.

See for me or anyone like myself to to get "onboard" with this legislation I want to see evidence that speed limits have lowered the accident rate. I want to see that speed boats are in more accidents then smaller boats. You say this is about safty but you keep coming after only the fastest boats on the lake. The reality of it is that people with speed boats tend to have less accidents per capita then others. Let me give you an example. Joe X speed boater is running up the lake at 60mph. Sam Smith is running up the lake at the same time in the same direction parrallell and slightly in front of Joe X. Sam Smith does not look and makes a sharp turn in front of Joe X and there is a collision. Who gets blamed for the accident in the public opinion? Who's fault is it really.... I say it is Sam Smith for not taking caution before making a turn. Most of you seem to say that it is Joe X because he has a speed boat and all speed boat people should be off the lake :rolleye1:

Some one earlier stated that they saw a speed boat go btwn them and a couple kids on a Hobie at a very high rate of speed. Well if that person was under 200 feet from the Hobie then I say that they deserved a fine and a good talking to by the MP's and even tossed off the lake for the day to think about thier stupidity. However if they are over the 200 feet then they are plenty far away to safly pass at speed.

So please show me the evidence that says that adding a speed limit will make the lake safer. Show me the evidence that the cause of all the accidents on the lake are due to anything more then Stupidity and lack of knowledge.

Oh and by the way when there was a boat that sank in the 1000 Islands, the owner died but there was one other person that we found swimming. It was ONLY speed boats that were there (10 of us) to pull the girl out of the water and to assist the Coast Guard in finding us. If it was not for Speed boats, and the fact that we are typically much more observent then most, the Girl would have died as well.

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 02:40 PM

It's incredible how many people are stuck on the idea that you can't pass a law you can't enforce. That never stopped them before. The 55 and 65 mph speed limits on 93 are broken by at least 2 out of 3 cars on the road. Drive down 93 at the limit and see how many cars you pass and how many cars pass you.

What we are saying is that the laws on the books are sufficient as they are. They protect everyone quite well. Your wake is your own responsibility, if you are on plane with in 200 feet of another boat you are pulled over. Enforce the laws that are there and they cover all the issues that you are talking about. To put a law on the books because you guys think that it will get us speed boaters to leave is unfair. As for the speed limit on the highways, well that kind of helps to make my point. Cars are built better then your fathers Model T. They can go faster safer. Try and lower the speed limit on the highways to 45 and see what you get for a response. I bet it is a lot harsher then what we are saying.

I always find it amazing that a Chris Craft can go past with open headers WOT and people will say wow. Then when a speed boat goes past with mufflers they go noisy pieces of .......

Jon

Aubrey

01-18-2005, 03:17 PM

Jon

I understand your point.

But what I am saying is that 65 miles an hour is fast enough on lake Winnipesaukee. And that if you want to go faster you should go somewhere else. This is just my opinion, but quite frankly I don't care about accident statistics. This isn't just about safety.

Call it noise, call it erosion, call it my right to peacful enjoyment of the lake. Call it whatever you like, there is a limit and it has been passed.

What speed do you think is to much? If you had to pick a number what would it be?

Outlaw

01-18-2005, 04:32 PM

Jon

This isn't just about safety.

Call it noise, call it erosion, call it my right to peacful enjoyment of the lake. Call it whatever you like, there is a limit and it has been passed.

What speed do you think is to much? If you had to pick a number what would it be?
There is no speed that is too much, its all relevant to the particular boat. We already have laws on the books about wakes (which are known to contribute to erosion). We already have laws on the books about noise (certain levels based on year of manufacturing), laws about safe passage (i.e. speed), laws about drinking and boating, laws about anchoring, laws about right of way..........adding another law isn't necessarily going to solve anything.

MP has limited resources, and limited funding from the state - without additional funding and manpower it can be difficult to enforce these laws. Part of the responsibility (and the larger part at that) lies on the shoulders of the operator of the vessel. Boater Education!!! If the operators learn these laws they will be aware of right from wrong, and hopefully exercise the 'right' more than the 'wrong'.

I fail to understand your point on how exactly a speed limit law is going to satisfy your 'right to peaceful enjoyment of the lake'. Quite frankly the safety of all boaters lives are by far much more important and significant than peaceful enjoyment. When a boater operates in an unsafe manner, it not only endangers their boat and its passengers, but the occupants of other boats that come in contact with it. Most of all, it endangers the lives of the Fire Fighters who have to come to the rescue / recovery. This is where it really matters -- an uneducated operator can inflict hardship on so many other than themselves, they can risk the lives of innocent people and risk the lives of our fire fighters all because they choose to be ignorant. And yes, being ignorant is a choice.

Why are we such a lazy society - when we can't do something ourselves, we want the government to make a law which will force us to do what we could have done all by ourselves in the first place???????

Islander

01-18-2005, 05:07 PM

There is no speed that is too much

This is where you lose me. And I think this is where you lose most people. We think there is a speed that is too much! 200 mph is too fast for this lake, PERIOD.

I don't care how you want to argue it, there are limits.

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 05:31 PM

This is where you lose me. And I think this is where you lose most people. We think there is a speed that is too much! 200 mph is too fast for this lake, PERIOD.

I don't care how you want to argue it, there are limits.

I would be ok with a 200mph limit :D ;)

How fast is to fast depends on oh so much. What is the hull of the boat? What is the operators ability. If you put some one that has never been in a speed boat before then perhaps 30mph will seem like to much for a while. If you put me behind the wheel then maybe 90+ other people are safe well into the 100mph spectum. I tend to back off way early if I feel that there are people getting to close. Better safe then sorry.

Jon

Bear Islander

01-18-2005, 05:39 PM

I think 200 mph is to fast for Winnipesaukee.

Islander

01-18-2005, 05:44 PM

This is where these people are coming from! They want to blast by Eagle Island at 200 mph.

Notice that the generic name for these boats is "Offshore". Winni doesn't have anyplace that is offshore.

Alton Bay

01-18-2005, 07:18 PM

Just a reminder that the speed limit hearing is tomorrow. If you can't make the hearing, be sure to call your local reps...tonight.

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 07:59 PM

And FormulaOutlaw should go insult children somewhere else IMHO.

The only "children" I may have insulted are posting in this Forum.

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 08:12 PM

[QUOTE]Nothing wrong thrill seeking until it infringes on other people. Your post makes it clear that you think about your first otherwise you would not have felt it necessary to take a shot at someone. If you need speed to get your thrill then by all means go out and get them but not when you put others at risk but it appears that that is not an issue to you…………..hence we need laws to make you the outlaw you wannabe.

Sorry, I don't see where someone operating a performance boat in a responsible manner is infringing on your rights, no more than you paddling by in a canoe would be infringing on mine.

And a "wannabe"???? In 2003 I helped produce two national boat races, (The Suncoast Offshore Grand Prix and the Sarasota Offshore Showdown, which I was the Chairman for the Tow/Patrol Committee, Co-Chairman for the Driver/Sponsor Party, and the "Course Captain"), five poker runs, two fun runs, which benefited the Suncoast Foundation for the Handicapped, The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Sarasota Chapter of PAL along with others. I volunteered over seven hundred hours of my time for these events which totaled over half a million dollars raised for charities. I sit on two Boards of Directors for two different "offshore groups".

JDeere, please list what you have done for the boating community as of late.

And then we'll see who's the "wannabe".

p.s. I plan on trailering "OUTLAW", my boat, up to Maine next summer. I will certainly find the time to run "Lake Winni". I am very much looking forward to it. I'll be easy to spot. "OUTLAW" is emblazened on the hullsides.

b8tcaster

01-18-2005, 08:21 PM

How fast is that sucker?

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 08:25 PM

.
FormulaOutlaw is not a member of the lake community. He has ridiculed this web site and the people in it. I doubt if he has contributed to the upkeep of this site. I think he should go away and stay away.

No, I am not a member of your community, but I am an avid member of the "boating community". And in the grand picture, your community is part of the overall "boating community".

I have in no way ridiculed this Forum. I have ridiculed the "I don't like it so you can't do it" concept that is so prevalent here.

The solution to this situation is education and awareness, something I will keep bringing up. Why? Because it is true. It's just that simple.

If it makes you feel any better, I believe I have gotten my point across. I will keep checking back to see how this Thread plays out and unless someone tries to come after me, I don't plan on posting much. I've said what I have to say.

But I'll be watching.......................................... ................................

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 08:27 PM

How fast is that sucker?

That's top secret information, but it can't pass a gas dock. LOL

BI1

01-18-2005, 08:33 PM

Here here Jon. It is "family" like you that make me extremely proud to be a member of OSO.

In this forum, in my own posts, I have been respectful. I will always defend someone's right to disagree with me. I think it's laughable that some have chosen to steal posts from "the other site" in order to try to demean respectfully written posts in this site. Is that the best you can do?????
You can't say anything to dispute what we have written here, so you try to discredit it by blurring the issue and slamming us. Well slam away. The only thing I'm interested in this Forum is standing up for the rights of everyone, even those of you who I strongly disagree with. And that is more than what you would be willing to do for me. I didn't sneak into your forum and steal posts.

Education and awareness will help your situation. Concentrate on the issue at hand, not making others who disagree with you look bad. Won't work.

Im In for a 3rd vote...Here here Jon..!well said!

FormulaOutlaw

01-18-2005, 09:20 PM

Im In for a 3rd vote...Here here Jon..!well said!

Thanks....

Audiofn

01-18-2005, 10:19 PM

This is where these people are coming from! They want to blast by Eagle Island at 200 mph.

Notice that the generic name for these boats is "Offshore". Winni doesn't have anyplace that is offshore.

Do you have any idea about reality at all? There are only 4 boats in the WORLD that can go that fast, and maybe 6 people that I can think of in the WORLD that are capable of driving a boat at that speed. Of those 4 boats only 2 are "offshores" they are Callen Marine and the Bacardi Skater. Not to worry the likelyhood that either of these are going to show up at Lake Whiny is about the same as the planet earth being hit by a huge meteor. To the best of my knowledge the fastest boat that is on Lake Winni is just over 100. Still fast yes but a far cry from 200. Yes "THESE PEOPLE" as you refer to us think a 200mph speed limit would be ok as it would have no effect on us.
As for Offshore boats on the lake, I have been on Lake Winni when it has been MUCH rougher then when out on the ocean. If you boat out there often then you know full well how rough it can be when the wind whips up on the broads. Anything that is not on the dry land is offshore :laugh: :laugh:

Outlaw

01-19-2005, 12:03 AM

This is where you lose me. And I think this is where you lose most people. We think there is a speed that is too much! 200 mph is too fast for this lake, PERIOD.

I don't care how you want to argue it, there are limits.I think there is only one lost person. Speed is relevant to the boat as explained in the post by Audiofn. There are laws governing speed already on the books - are you familiar with them? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are not, based on the example of 200 miles by Eagle Island. Why do you think it is boaters go by Eagle Island (and Governor's) in the manner they do?

Outlaw

01-19-2005, 12:15 AM

The solution to this situation is education and awareness, something I will keep bringing up. Why? Because it is true. It's just that simple.Thank you FormulaOutlaw - well said. I with you on that one. EDUCATION - the more you know and understand, the more empowered you are.

Outlaw

01-19-2005, 12:16 AM

FormulaOutlaw is not a member of the lake community. He has ridiculed this web site and the people in it. I doubt if he has contributed to the upkeep of this site. I think he should go away and stay away.What exactly is your definition of "a member of the lake community"?

b8tcaster

01-19-2005, 03:49 AM

Ocasionally when the lake is calm enough and I get a big head I have tried to see if my bass boat can keep up with one of you guys. Seems I always get humbled pretty quickly...lol. Maybe this summer with an extra 50 hp I might have a chance :cool: :cheers:

ApS

01-19-2005, 05:17 AM

The only "children" I may have insulted are posting in this Forum.

I'm afraid Formula Outlaw has a point. We are just children at this Forum, and need lots of "Education and Awareness". :(

On the other hand, at the Big Boater Forum, "Outlaws" have to pay for "Adult Content". :rolleye2:

I'm so confused :confused:

FormulaOutlaw

01-19-2005, 08:16 AM

I'm afraid Formula Outlaw has a point. We are just children at this Forum, and need lots of "Education and Awareness". :(

On the other hand, at the Big Boater Forum, "Outlaws" have to pay for "Adult Content". :rolleye2:

I'm so confused :confused:

Acres: thank you. In this Forum I have tried to post replies in a respectful manner. Many of the posts directed back at me have been somewhat less than that. And I think going into the "Big Boater Forum" to steal posts from there was really lame. The issue at hand is what is going to be done about the circumstances at "the Lake", it's not about what I, or anyone else, might have been said in what would be normally deemed a private conversation, though as it was posted in a public Forum, one can't really say that either. It comes down to I can either say it nice, or say it not nice. In your Forum I will continue to be nice. I don't want to give the powers to be a reason to kick me off.

And for the record: On the "other Board" you can register for free and have access to limited areas and post in those areas. Then you can step up and register for what they call either Gold or Platinum memberships. That gives you access to more areas, the "uncensored" section just one of many. There is no "plan or membership" that you can purchase that allows you solely into that "uncensored" section. The bottom line is that in order for one to enter that section, they have to click on and enter that section. So one has the choice to either enter or not to enter. Anyone has the right to do that, just as anyone has the right to choose not to do that. It all goes back to rights. And choices. So no one is really paying for "adult content". Like on Cable TV, you purchase a "package" of stations, and adult stations are part of that package. Then one has the choice to either view, or not to view, those stations. Same thing on that "other Board".

When Jon, AudioFN, got ripped off on those engines he bought, you would not have believed the outpouring of support he received from OSO. I would guess at least 80 people, withing 36 hours, were posting what they had and would gladly send to him for free if he could use it. Everything from "heads", to carbareutors, intake manifolds, exhaust systems, cams, battery boxes, you name it. He could have built new motors with what people were willing to give him. It was both amazing and quite touching. We are just one big family over there, and we are of the 3 Musketeer creed, "all for one and one for all". It's a very special place. It is not a place of outlaws, perverts, misfits, or whatever. It is a place made up by members from every walk of life. For us it is a place we call our second "home".

Audiofn

01-19-2005, 08:49 AM

Acres: I am not sure why you keep bringing up what he says over on offshoreonly but since you have again let me put it to you like this. Over on OSO we all share a common bond/sport. We all like to run offshore power boats. SO when we all talk together it is more like two old friends having a conversation. We laugh at others mistakes, we cry when some one dies or gets hurt, we joke to make one another feel better again. We all are there to help one another out. When you hang out with your friends I am sure your conversations are quite a bit different then when you first start talking to a new person that you just met. That is what is going on btwn this board and that one. When we are over there we speek our minds, over hear we argue our point respectrully as this is not our normal stomping grounds. When you all go over there and read our posts and quote them over on this site it is like some one that walks by two friends having a conversation and they hear one little bit of it and then want to act on that one piece of info that they heard.

I honestly do not see what the adult content on our site has to do with anything. I actually think that it was very good that the moderators came up with a solution to keep all that stuff out of the eyes of the youngerl viewers. I know that it is a popular part of the site as there are some really funny posts in there. I personally CHOOSE to not go in that part of the site often but when I do I ussually leave laughing. :D:D

Jon

Cal

01-19-2005, 10:25 AM

Notice that the generic name for these boats is "Offshore". Winni doesn't have anyplace that is offshore.

Isn't every boat that's in the lake "offshore" :confused:

Here's a picture of a boat NOT offshore...it's called a "planter" :D

ApS

01-19-2005, 10:33 AM

We ran a radar trap for a Poker run in upstate NY. They were unable to get a read off ANY of our boats. That included one run that they asked us to go within 30 feet of their boat. The radar was run by a certified officer and he could not make it work. So how do you measure speed on the water? Jon
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12194&postcount=100

Is this the very same Audiofn that stated previously:

The moving test is one that is JUST PLAIN DANGEROUS! I would NEVER drive my boat at WOT within 150 feet of anyone if they want me to or not. Now the law says that they want us a LOT closer to that. To that I reply NO WAY.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...14&postcount=97

Alert! Some unauthorized person has been using your user-name! :eek: Alert! Alert!

.

Aubrey

01-19-2005, 11:36 AM

What exactly is your definition of "a member of the lake community"?

FormulaOutlaw is not a member of the lake community by any reasonable definition! He lives and boats in Florida. He does claim that many years ago he lived in Maine and visited Winnipesaukee a few times. However he displays no knowledge of the lake. By his own admission he is here to try and prevent a speed limit and that he joined here only to vote in the poll.

He is an activist for the Offshore boating community.

He has been rude and insulting to the board and it's members and their children.

by Formula Outlaw

I just went into the first site to lurk. One rubberhead states that anyone going over 45 "isn't going that fast to get somewhere, but for the thrill of it". What in the hell is wrong with getting a thrill outta life????? They need to put that idiot in a box, put it in the ground, and throw the dirt on it.

It's bad having a thrill? That's one of the absolute stupidest moronic things I have ever read. Thank God I live down here. I couldn't take those azzholes.

______________________________________

No kidding.......going through that Forum last night it was so "Green" my computer felt like it had Kryptonite around it. This one guy who owns, according to others, the biggest dump of a marina on the lake, is juming on the "let's clean up the lake" bandwagon. Wants to put PortaPotties so the ice fisherman won't piss in the lake.

I wonder how he'll train the fish to use the PortaPotties?

I can only imagine the site of all those "weenies" whining about how only THEIR interest in the lake is important. "BearLover" is my favorite. I wonder what his/her kids look like?

I think a person that lives, works or visits the lake area on a regular basis could be considered a member of the lake community. Somebody that MIGHT have visited here 20 years ago is not.

DoTheMath

01-19-2005, 12:27 PM

Aubrey / Acres Per Second ~

I not only happen to be a "member of the lake community" (been on the lake for 36 years, we own a house on the water and a boat that is considerably faster then 45 mph.). I also happen to be a PROUD paying member of "that other site" you have spent your time bashing - and from the looks of it, you are sadly mis-informed, on many levels. I am sure - after reading this thread - you have no idea of the make up of that site or it's members, and thus should not be commenting negatively on it! The support that the members on it get from each other as well as the staff that runs it is unparalled, anywhere. I really wonder what it is that makes you so unrelenting on others life styles and preferences as to how they spend their time? I personally know Audiofn, have boated with him and you would be hard-pressed to find a more stand up guy, not to mention a more responsible boater, at ANY speed! He is a great example of the make up of that "other site" and the type of boater you'll find over there. We have people from all walks of life, law enforcement, construction workers, lawyers, sales guys and some of the most respected and esteemed names you'll find in the boating industry.

I grew up on this lake, spent summers working for local marinas and doing my part to make a difference, I consider a number of the current owners good friends of mine. If someone knocked your preference for boating I am confident that you would come to the table on the defensive and stand up for yourself? Well, it looks like you might have gone and done the same with a couple of our guys and didn't like the results!? Not a very "upstanding" thing to have done, do you think? I wasn't going to chime on on this thread, but I feel strongly about the subject matter and stronger about my fellow "mafiOSO-women-degrading" boaters :rolleye2: .

It is too bad that you feel the need to slam someone that you have no clue as to what they are really like. We are all boaters - and are in it for the love of the sport. Just because we drive fast boats and they might be a bit louder then your average Sea Ray, doesn't make it wrong no matter who you (think) you are. Really, expand your horizons a bit and be less narrow minded - you'll find that there is a whole other world out there and some great people in it, including the "outlaws" over on OSO.

-Mark-

Island Lover

01-19-2005, 12:52 PM

Great post Mark. But it will be more helpfull if you respond to the questions at hand.

Is Formula Outlaw a member of the lake community?

Why is he here?

Did he trash this forum and its members?

Island Girl

01-19-2005, 12:57 PM

Just because someone has not come to the lake in a long time does not mean he/she is not welcome. I have read the posts in both forums and have found that FormulaOutlaw has respected the tone of this forum. The tone on the offshore forum is a little rougher but that has not been displayed here (except in the posts others have copied from their other forum).

I may not agree with all of the posts here, but all are welcome as long as they are not abusive.

Don is the boss here and gently enforces the etiquette. He has the right to monitor the posts of those who may get out of hand.

I am grateful to have the forum and winni.com to share and read about others' experiences. I can turn off posts from those I do not wish to read.

I would not like to see us become so pc that only "correct' opinions are displayed. I would not want to get shot down because my opinion may be different.

The phrase someone taught me a long time ago to always think about is "I could be wrong."

Live and Let Live!

As for the speed limits.... here is the reply I received from the sponsor of the bill

"As you noted, this was at the request of Mr. Fay of Fay's boat yard, and referred to mostly the so called Cigarette boats whose noise and speed are well known since there introduction to the lake."

I personally am against the bill as written as I do not believe that it solves any stated problem. I agree with others that recklessness, not obeying the 150' law and inexperienced boaters present more safety issues.

Just my humble opinion.

CMG

01-19-2005, 01:24 PM

Meeting went on for 2 hours, not going to gloat but... great news - for some of us. See you this spring.

Audiofn

01-19-2005, 02:33 PM

Is this the very same Audiofn that stated previously:

Alert! Some unauthorized person has been using your user-name! :eek: Alert! Alert!

.

Ah you think you are so smart but again I must enlighten you.... First off when we are asked to run a DB test with my pleasure boat then we are running with family on board, some times kids, standard life jackets, and none of the safty gear that I wear when I am in my race boat. I will never go anything then just over planing speed with kids on the boat. If I get pulled over by the MP's then they are going to force to me to run my boat in a manner that I am not comfortable with kids on board? When I am in a race boat I have speacial steering, it is me and my driver or me and my throttle man, we wearing not only custom made life vests but also helmets and multiple kill switches. The peole on the boat that we are running at are specially trained, and choose to put themselves in that position. I will NEVER put another person on any of my pleasure boats or another in that possition. When I get pulled over in my pleasure boat and asked to do a run like that it is NOT the choice or the people in my boat but the MP's and if it is not safe it is not safe. At any rate we did not even come close to the 30 feet that we were asked to pass as we did not feel safe doing so, others however did and they were not picked up by the radar. So I guess you have to keep digging you have yet to catch me. You also have yet to show me any evidence that this proposed speed limit will do anything to make the lake safer.

As you can see from the pictures below we are wearing our life jackets and helmets durring the run.

Jon

Rattlesnake Gal

01-19-2005, 02:38 PM

Bravo IG! I wholeheartedly agree with everything you stated.
One thing I would like add. The opinions and antagonistic views of a few forum members are just that, their opinions. Don’t judge me and the other members on these people’s actions. This forum, like the other, has a wonderful group of people that make it up.

DoTheMath

01-19-2005, 02:42 PM

Great post Mark. But it will be more helpfull if you respond to the questions at hand.

Is Formula Outlaw a member of the lake community?

Why is he here?

Did he trash this forum and its members?

I'm sorry... MORE helpful!? He was - and aside from that, does he need to be a full time "member" (last I checked we don't have I.D cards and dues :rolleye2: ). He likes to come up and visit and enjoy it like the rest of us. And he did NOT cast the first stone from the way I read it! He is and was trying to be respectful and in turn got slammed... He is a boater, just like other boaters, and is looking to preserve the rights of those of us that hold the sport close at heart. ADDITIONALLY - he is one of the (good) guys from that other site that came over here to support those of us that ARE regulars on the lake, imagine that? :rolleye2:

Rattlesnake Gal

01-19-2005, 02:42 PM

Audiofn, certain people love a good debate and can keep it up indefinitely. It gets to a point where you just have to ignore them, that is, unless you want to keep giving them a thrill. :laugh:

Outlaw

01-19-2005, 02:57 PM

FormulaOutlaw is not a member of the lake community by any reasonable definition! He lives and boats in Florida. He does claim that many years ago he lived in Maine and visited Winnipesaukee a few times. However he displays no knowledge of the lake. By his own admission he is here to try and prevent a speed limit and that he joined here only to vote in the poll.

He is an activist for the Offshore boating community.

He has been rude and insulting to the board and it's members and their children.

I think a person that lives, works or visits the lake area on a regular basis could be considered a member of the lake community. Somebody that MIGHT have visited here 20 years ago is not.
I apologize for this question, but I haven't been on this site for a few months, just been too darn busy, but I believe I missed the poll for Lake Community Members. It's okay to not agree with everyone, that we certainly know is impossible. People that visit here on what ever frequency, who pay for services of all kinds, that money is in direct relation to a business in the lake community and some small portion of it that is retained after taxes, is contributed to the lake community. In a way I would think these visitors are members of the lake community, since this lake community thrives on tourism. Many of the forum members live elsewhere from the lake and this forum allows them to stay in touch with the area when they can't physically be here. These are people who have an interest in the lake and the community for a variety of different reasons regardless of the frequency of their visits to the area.

What I've gathered from FormulaOutlaw's posts, the Readers Digest version, is he is a proponent of education. Education is a good thing, that's what separates the informed from the uninformed.

DoTheMath

01-19-2005, 03:15 PM

RG & Outlaw... the exception to the norm (over here). Thanks for your open-mindedness and objective viewpoints! ;)

Outlaw

01-19-2005, 04:44 PM

RG & Outlaw... the exception to the norm (over here). Thanks for your open-mindedness and objective viewpoints! ;)
DoTheMath - right back at cha buddy. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_201.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm729)

b8tcaster

01-19-2005, 05:42 PM

Seemed all but one opposed a speed limit. Those opposed offered facts for the most part while the one person in favor basically presented an argument that big, loud, boats ("40 and 50 footers with 3 500 hp motors") lol did not belong on the lake and he was afraid to go out with his 21 footer because of all the offshore boats. I did chuckle when the rep who introduced the bill stated that some of the go fast boats could go from one end of the lake to the other in 7 minutes.. Which one of you offshore mafia guys gave him that evidence cuz I want to take a ride with you..lmao. In all seriousness though I dont think this bill will get passed but there are some serious issues with the lake that need to be addressed before a bill like this gets major support. All its going to take is one careless person out there doing something reckless and support for this type of bill will appear. I personally would like to see a greater Marine Patrol presence on the lake to enforce the existing laws which will in turn reduce the conflict between the different user groups.We all have to remember that when people are enjoying the lake in whatever manner, they expect to avoid any conflicts. Other peoples behavior can significantly change that experience and be a driving force behind this type of legislation. I would really like to know what you guys think are the leading issues that need to be adressed on the lake and any ideas to improve the situation?

upthesaukee

01-19-2005, 06:05 PM

B8tcaster---thanks for the update...replies from the reps I contacted indicated just what you reported. Yes, there probably is a problem, but the speed limit is not the solution. I wholeheartedly agree: More MP presence and be able to enforce the existing regulations of the state and this lake to the mutual enjoyment of all boaters: powered, sailed or paddled.

to RG, IG, and others: Here Here. this is a forum for the lake region, but you certainly don't have to be a resident of a lakeshore community to be able to post and have an opinion.

and opinions are like............................um........noses.Ev ery one has one, but they can all be different. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_6_5.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSXXXXXX42US)

FormulaOutlaw...I concur that you have tried to be courteous and simply express your opinion here on this forum. If someone doesn't like the rougher edge of ANY other website, then "hit the back button" and get outta there.

I said it earlier in this thread and I'll say it again. Let's not get into name calling, stick to the issues, and be respectful of each other.

jeffk

01-19-2005, 09:09 PM

So it looks like we might get to discussing what the consensus opinion (besides a speed limit) seems to be, namely education and enforcement. Both are ongoing but are not effective at addressing the current problems on the lake. How can that be changed?

Education - the boating education law is in effect and people are being trained. One thing that I note is that I took the full Coast Guard course at UNH. I was surprised however that the instructors were very ignorant of the regulations and navigation that applied on the lake. 150 ft rule? Huh? Black east north Red south west? Really?? They were great on International Rules of Navigation but Winnipesaukee navigation was a real mystery. So I got my certificate (got 100 on the test) but I didn't learn much about Winni rules. So my question is: is the education plan sufficient? Should there be additional education required for operators of vessels with "special" capabilities i.e. Jet skis, high performance boats? I have Jet skis as well as my bow rider and I was surprised how completely different I need to operate my jet skis. The manuverability can be extremely disorienting. You have to think in 360 degrees and anticipate the effect of rapid changes in direction. A vessel following can almost instantaneously become a vessel coming directly at you. Should people be educated about that? Should it be required before they can ride in the lake?

Enforcement - we seem to need better coverage on the lake but getting money for that in NH is a challenge. How does enforcement need to be improved? How much $$ would be needed? Could we get it by raising registration fees?? Would that be OK with people on this forum? If not, how to pay for it? Is the Marine Patrol focusing on the right things? Are they effective? Do they need better training?

If we don't want knee jerk solutions to stupid behavior and the seemingly inevitable crash or death, what can we change now to get a better outcome?

ApS

01-19-2005, 09:26 PM

"...If we don't want knee jerk solutions to stupid behavior and the seemingly inevitable crash or death, what can we change now to get a better outcome?"

Don't worry about "incident" reactions. The Dealers already have them outlined:
1) It was a "freak" incident.
2) Let's not commit some knee-jerk reaction.
3) It could have happened anywhere.
4) Awareness is the solution to incidents like this.
5) We need more boater education to prevent incidents like this.
6) It's too soon to determine the next course of action. (My favorite).
7) Let's not panic over this incident.
8) Let's keep cool heads over this incident.
9) This incident was caused by defective hardware.
10) The smaller boat was at fault in this incident.
11) They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
12) At least he was doing what he loved to do.

"...Answering your question above I believe the MP estimated the speed of the Baja at about 27 MPH, not really a different velocity than the proposed 25 mph..."1) But we don't know what the speed of the Baja actually was!

In civil law suits, it is not unusual to simulate the collision with the actual device(s) used. Then we know for sure. All we have now is supposition or the testimony of the perpetrator.

2) I find it curious that we "skipped" a year without some Legislator's speed limit proposal. We expected one in 2002, and got one. Was it in 2004 that more Winnipesaukee boaters were exposed to the "excesses" of Big Boaters? Should it be called "Raised Consciousness?"

There certainly were plenty of them this past season -- and lewd behavior with them. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7697&postcount=9

They're getting thrown off other protected inland waters and we're getting stuck with them.

FormulaOutlaw

01-19-2005, 10:02 PM

Great post Mark. But it will be more helpfull if you respond to the questions at hand.

Is Formula Outlaw a member of the lake community?

Why is he here?

Did he trash this forum and its members?

"IL" if you refer to post # 88 that might help answer your first question. Additionally, I am an avid member of the boating community, which in turn, your "lake community" is part of. I feel "the Lake" is part of the overall boating community. At least that's how I see it.

Why am I here? Simple. I find the "I don't like it so you can't do it" idealogy to be offensive. I am here because I don't agree with the attempt of a select few who want control who can and who cannot enjoy "the Lake". I am here to support the rights of ALL boaters who might enjoy Lake Winni, irregardless of the type of vessel they choose to operate.

Did I trash this forum and it's members? I would suggest you go back through this thread, read what I have posted and decide for yourself, not rely on the opinions of others. While I am a guest in this Forum, I will play by your rules. I will express my views in a straightforward, yet respectable manner. In "the other Forum" I have been a little less courteous, however I will stand by everything I have said. I will also add that I, in this Forum, have been much more respectful than what some others have been towards me. I have been very careful so as not to cross the line with the webmaster of this Forum. I respect this Forum and I would not want to do that. For those that have pirated posts of mine from the "other" Forum, have done so for the sole reason to try to "discredit" me and distract from what I have stated. Like I said, go back and read what I have posted and decide for yourself.

I stand up for everyone's right to use "the Lake", not just what the "in crowd" might like to see. If being willing to stand up for everyone, including those that disagree with me, or detest me, makes me a bad guy, then I feel there is a possibility I am an evil person.

I do not mean to be offensive here but, sometimes it takes "people like me to keep people like you" in check. And by "you" I mean those who would be judge and jury to decide who does and who does not get to enjoy "the Lake".
Those who would try to gets laws passed for the only sake of ridding the lake of what "they" consider to be a nusiance. Those who would believe that they are better than everyone else. Harsh perhaps, but nonetheless true.

It appears that "they" seem to be in the minority in this Forum. And Thank You to those who have acknowledged that I have been courteous and respectful here. I call it the way I see it, I don't beat around the bush and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I think that's unfortunate, but it's reality.

FormulaOutlaw

01-19-2005, 10:18 PM

Oh, almost forgot.

To those of you who have "crossed over to the Dark Side"

WELCOME........................................... .....................

Audiofn

01-19-2005, 11:53 PM

Well I guess after all this we will never get any evidence that speed is the cause of all the accidents up on the lake. I guess there we be no evidence shown that shows this law as doing anything to help keep the lake safe. :rolleye1: :rolleye1:

I am all for more MP on the lake to take care of people that break the laws. I don't care what boat you drive if you are breaking the law you should get a ticket or what ever the proper penalty is. I would be happy to pay a little more on my registration it is still the cheapest part of boating if you ask me. I also get frustrated while traveling across the lake and have people pass me in a unsafe manner, or cut across my bow with out looking, or what ever.

Jon

Audiofn

01-19-2005, 11:55 PM

Acres you are lucky you have never been to the lake of the Ozarks party cove. It would make a guy like you realy upset :D:D Probably get ya to set up the first floating church ;) ;)

winnilaker

01-20-2005, 12:13 AM

I was at the hearing and here is a summary for those who couldn't make it. There were about 40 people there in opposition and 1 in favor that spoke. It went on for 2 hours, got a $5 ticket from the meter person

The sponsor of the bill spoke of the reasons why the bill was proposed.
1. A local marina asked him to.
2. The speeds where choosen out of the air, quote "they sounded right"
3. He remembers when the lake was quiet and peaceful.
4. He reference an accident that happen 18 years ago
5. When asked, he couldn't tell the committee that this was based on any facts

Director of Marine Patrol, David Barrett spoke in opposition to the bill, stating.
1. It couldn't be enforced
2. Speed to his knowledge is not the root cause of issues on the lake
3. There are current laws that protect boaters

I forgot his name, but one of the representatives on the committee actually spoke in opposition to the law. And another committee member questioned representative Pilliod (Bill Sponsor) about speeds and told him that his own boat doesn't plane well at 25 mph.

Several Marina owners and residents spoke and here is a summary of the facts/comments provided in opposition

1. Boater registration is up and there is a significant reduction in accidents. Marine Patrol.
2. Since the last speed law bill was rejected by the transportation committee 14-0, nothing has happened that would warrant this bill to be passed. Marine Patrol and a representative.
3. The law could not be enforce with current radar technology
4. United States Coast Guards 2003 accident report shows that 92% of boats that are involved in fatal accidents are less than 26 feet.
5. A law such as described would reduce a significant number of boater registrations and would have a negative impact on several specific markets, testified by several folks.
6. Current laws achieve same goal as the bill would, 150 ft headway rule and reckless endangerment, etc.
7. No finanical impact study to marine Patrol was done by the sponsor.
8. Boater education seemed to be a big one and in 2008, anyone boating on the lake will be required to have a certification.
9. A reduction in boater registrations might reduce funding for marine patrol and boater safety programs.
10. Safe speeds are different for different types of boats, setting defined speed limits might make some situations safer while making other situations dangerous.

Comments made by those in favor:
1. Don't feel safe boating on weekends
2. Doesn't feel Marine is doing a good job now with current laws
3. Big Monster boats shouldn't be on lake and that laws like this will help send a message and they would stop coming.

The sponsor and the one individual in favor, basically talked of big "monster boats" owning the lake. I had to chuckle a bit when one individual starting talking about the "Rich" people who can afford these boats shouldn't be on the lake. He actually brought in an ad for a 47' fountain and read the boat specifics and price to the committee.

I guess you have to look at this way.
If there was a 4 way stop in your town and a few individuals didn't like it because sometimes other drivers didn't let them go inorder. Do you put in traffic lights? Probably not.

But if there were several accidents at that intersection, I would think they would put in traffic lights. i.e. pass a speed limit.

So in my opinion, there appears to be no facts, statistics or non-emotional reasons why this bill should be passed.

So this was my first post in the forum, so let me have it.

Outlaw

01-20-2005, 12:32 AM

Winnilaker -

Thank you so much for posting all this informative information. More importantly thank you for being at the hearing. Excellent job, excellent information - what a fantastic first post.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_25.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm729)

Audiofn

01-20-2005, 02:21 AM

I hate being right all the time ;) ;)

PROPELLER

01-20-2005, 09:02 AM

I would like to take this opportunity, in the wake (no pun intended) of the speed limit discussion, to point out that we at Winni are lucky. I boated for several years in the North Shore area of Mass betweem Nahant & Gloucester and my opinion that area is much more congested, boaters are much less conscious of their wake & how close they pass another boat, less courteous & there is NO MARINE PATROL AT ALL.

I just received my new issue of Motor Boating & there is a letter in the Mailboat section that references how Lake of the Ozarks next to Lake Havasu is the biggest on water party the author has ever seen. I also read how Lake Norman in NC set a world record for the largest raft up, over 1,000 boats.

So to all those who have been complaining about how bad Winni is, count your blessings, you have it very good here in Paradise.