PDA

View Full Version : New Hampshire to outlaw swimming


Island Lover
03-02-2006, 10:59 AM
No, it's not a joke. HB1463 now zipping through the legislature will outlaw swimming in NH lakes unless you accompanied by a boat or are within 150' of shore. I wonder what the "live free or die" crowd will think of this. What about "live free or drown".

Another part of the proposed law says that you must have an orange light 12 inches under your white light at night. I wonder if Perko makes a light stick like that?

Yet another part of the legislation says the observer must wave a flag when a water skier or tuber falls. No mention how big, what color etc.

Additionally all human powered boats like kayaks, canoes and row boats must have a sound signal device and display a conspicuity flag. Flag makers are going to make a killing!

Also you may not use lights on shore that are similar to boat lights. Looks like Three Mile Island will have to turn off their red and green boathouse lights.

Finally the on-line boating test is gone and you must take an in the water boating test to be certified. (The in the water part may be eliminated before it passes)

The proposed bill will have a lot more impact on every day use of the lake than HB162, yet it is almost unknown.

...............................................
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six

AN ACT relative to boating and water safety.

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

1 New Section; Operation of Boats; Flag Required. Amend RSA 270 by inserting after section 30-c the following new section:

270:30-d Flag Required. Any person operating a kayak, rowboat, canoe, or any similar vessel not displaying sails more than 150 feet from shore shall carry, in a readily accessible place, a horn, whistle, or other sound-producing device to warn oncoming vessels of his or her presence. Such operator shall also display a flag of a size and type approved by the commissioner of safety to improve the operator’s visibility to oncoming vessels. This section shall not apply to a vessel operated in a water event permitted under RSA 270-D:4. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a violation.

2 New Section; Operation of Boats; Lights Required. Amend RSA 270 by inserting after section 30-d the following new section:

270:30-e Lights Required. Any person operating any vessel between the hours 1/2 hour before sunset and 1/2 hour after sunrise shall display 2 lights visible for 360 degrees and for a distance of 2 miles. One light shall be white and the other light shall be orange and be displayed at least 12 inches lower than the white light. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a violation.

3 Motorboats Towing Water Skiers and Aquaplanes; Flag Required. Amend RSA 270-D:3, I to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorboat while towing water skiers, aquaplanes, or similar devices unless another person is present in the motorboat who is physically able to observe and assist the person or appurtenance being towed. The observer shall be 13 years of age or older. The observer shall display a flag when the person being towed has fallen.

4 New Section; Boating and Water Safety; Shore Lights. Amend RSA 270-D by inserting after section 7 the following new section:

270-D:7-a Shore Lights. No person shall display, at any point on the shore visible from the water, any lights that resemble in color or configuration the required navigation lights of any vessel.

5 New Section; Boating and Water Safety; Swimming. Amend RSA 270-D by inserting after section 7-a the following new section:

270-D:7-b Swimming. No person may swim more than 150 feet from shore unless accompanied by a vessel with an operator and observer, one of whom has the physical capacity to assist the swimmer aboard the vessel when necessary. No vessel may accompany more than 2 swimmers. This section shall not apply to swimming in state-designated swim areas. The commissioner may, by rule, establish additional exceptions to the requirements of this section for operators of youth camps, swim meets, and schools, and for other water events permitted under RSA 270-D:4.

6 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. Amend RSA 270-D:10, I to read as follows:

I. No person born on or after the dates provided in this section shall operate a motorized vessel with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower or any sailboat over 20 feet in length on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a certificate of boating safety education in accordance with this subdivision:

Date of Birth Certificate Required

January 1, 1983 January 1, 2002

January 1, 1977 January 1, 2003

January 1, 1973 January 1, 2004

January 1, 1967 January 1, 2005

January 1, 1963 January 1, 2006

January 1, 1957 January 1, 2007

All January 1, 2008

7 New Paragraph; Issuance of Safe Boater Education Certificate; Examinations. Amend RSA 270-D:13 by inserting after paragraph I the following new paragraph:

I-a. Every course or examination approved under paragraph I shall include an oral examination and a practical demonstration, in water, of boating safety knowledge and boat handling ability. The commissioner may authorize private entities or individuals to administer the oral examination and practical demonstration in accordance with rules adopted by the commissioner.

8 Safe Boater Education; Temporary Certificate. RSA 270-D:14 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

270-D:14 Temporary Certificate. The commissioner may issue a temporary certificate of safe boating education to a person 16 years of age or older who passes a temporary safe boater examination administered by the department through the Internet. The temporary certificate of safe boater education shall be valid until the date scheduled by the applicant for the oral examination and practical demonstration required by RSA 270-D:13, I-a, but in no case for longer than 90 days. The temporary certificate shall entitle the holder only to operate a vessel on the public waters of New Hampshire.

9 Effective Date.

I. Sections 1, 3, and 5 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

II. Sections 2, 6, 7, and 8 of this act shall take effect January 1, 2008.

III. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage

Bear Islander
03-02-2006, 11:24 AM
On the first read most of this sounds like a good idea. Then I think what about SCUBA divers? Does this mean divers must leave somebody in the boat and not have more than two divers on the surface at the same time. I am assuming that divers underwater are not swimmers but divers on the surface are swimmers.

Are 50,000 some odd boats going to have to get orange lights installed? Sounds like a good idea though.

How many human powered boats in NH? That's a lot of flags and whistles. Plus some way to mount the flag. Will the flag block the boaters vision at times? Will the flag overturn a kayak in a strong wind?

What about small lakes and ponds where you need to be more than 150' from shore to find swimming depth, or there are no powered boats on the body of water. Does a rowboat need a flag if its the only boat on the pond?

This needs a little thinking.

Skipper of the Sea Que
03-02-2006, 11:24 AM
...
Yet another part of the legislation says the observer must wave a flag when a water skier or tuber falls. No mention how big, what color etc.


How about the Skier Down Flag required in several states (NJ has their own standard Skier Down flag). I thought that Orange was a standard ski flag color.
http://westmarine.com/images/full/331399_f.jpg http://westmarine.com/images/full/00434_f.jpg

You can read about the first pictured flag here: West Marine Skier Down Flag page (http://westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=29640)
The second, handheld flag is here: West Marine Hand Held skier down flag (http://westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=26107)

I'll reserve my comments on the other items for the moment. Suffice it to say, safety on the lake may now be an even more important public issue than it was before HB 162. Interesting...

lakeluver
03-02-2006, 11:29 AM
This bill is being voted on next week, from what I can see. It certainly hasn't drawn much attention.

Dave R
03-02-2006, 11:39 AM
Looks like it addresses pretty much all the safety concerns of the folks who support the speed limit bill. So, are the speed limit supporters on here supporting this bill too? It will obviously make using the lake much safer, the only cost being some liberty.

Island Lover
03-02-2006, 12:04 PM
What if I want to swim on a lake that has no power boats? And I am wearing a PFD or I am towing and inflatable raft?

If a power boat is speeding or out of control it endangers everybody on the lake. A swimmer going out more than 150' without being accompanied might be an idiot, but he only endangers his own life. Seems to me this is one case where the live free or die principal DOES apply.

Merrymeeting
03-02-2006, 12:15 PM
Since a white stern light is required for navigation, I assume I will now need to get rid of all my house lights? (It certainly would help the light pollution issue)

GWC...
03-02-2006, 12:21 PM
HB1463 now zipping through the legislature will outlaw swimming in NH lakes unless you accompanied by a boat or are within 150' of shore.

Another part of the proposed law says that you must have an orange light 12 inches under your white light at night. I wonder if Perko makes a light stick like that?

Yet another part of the legislation says the observer must wave a flag when a water skier or tuber falls. No mention how big, what color etc.

Additionally all human powered boats like kayaks, canoes and row boats must have a sound signal device and display a conspicuity flag. Flag makers are going to make a killing!

Also you may not use lights on shore that are similar to boat lights. Looks like Three Mile Island will have to turn off their red and green boathouse lights.

Finally the on-line boating test is gone and you must take an in the water boating test to be certified. (The in the water part may be eliminated before it passes)

The proposed bill will have a lot more impact on every day use of the lake than HB162, yet it is almost unknown.

Are you not one of the proponents of HB162, who strongly wished for a safer Lake?

The informed politicians, thanks to the polls, are answering your wish for a safer Lake and all you can do is complain!?!?!? :rolleye2: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

GWC...
03-02-2006, 12:55 PM
This needs a little thinking.

I just conducted a poll of one NH voter and the result is an overwhelming 100% in favor of passage of this legilation.

Therefore, 100% of NH voters are in favor of HB1463. :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Weirs guy
03-02-2006, 12:58 PM
Island Lover, I've tried, and tried, and tried not to respond, but I can't help it. The spin here is incredible. "New Hampshire to outlaw swimming". Come on, more like New Hampshire to help stop its “below average intelligence voters” from swimming in places they don't belong. Obviously not every law can conform to every situation, so lets look at winni. Where on the lake would you be 150' from shore and still swimming? I’d bet that there wouldn’t be a lot of boats in that same area, at least not traveling above headway speed.

Its to bad too, I think this law would address some of the issues that HB 162 supporters are concerned about. I cant be sure, because as of yet not a single supporter of HB 162 has told me why they support the bill.

I guess the fear mongering continues, even on the general discussion boards.

ITD
03-02-2006, 01:07 PM
What if I want to swim on a lake that has no power boats? And I am wearing a PFD or I am towing and inflatable raft?

If a power boat is speeding or out of control it endangers everybody on the lake. A swimmer going out more than 150' without being accompanied might be an idiot, but he only endangers his own life. Seems to me this is one case where the live free or die principal DOES apply.


Well now,seems the shoe is on the other foot, some of your liberties are about to be trampled and you change your tune.

Should we throw the arguments back at you? Think about the children. Think about the fear. We all must give up some of our liberty for the "greater good". GWC conducted a poll showing resounding support for this bill.

I love it, if the speed limit passes, this bill should pass too.

Skip
03-02-2006, 01:36 PM
...I love it, if the speed limit passes, this bill should pass too...

And remember, since most people don't swim more than 150' from shore, no one should be able to!

To paraphrase FLL..."150' is more than far enough!!!"

And since most people follow the law anyway, these new proposals will be self-enforcing so no additional funding, manpower or training will be necessary. However, MP officers will be issued new "marinized" 150' tape measurers. These rulers will be specially calibrated to overcome any obstacles presented by using them over the water!

Of course a new group of protestors is rumored to have formed, with their HQ centered somewhere near Bear Island. Their acronym is going to be WINNSWIMS....unable to receive funding this time around from the Hospitality/Restaurant/Bar lobby, word is that a consortium of bathing suit manufacturers will be backing this newest citizens group endeavour.

I hear there's even more changes on the horizon. Due to the confusion over the "littoral rights" of waterfront owners, the legislature is also going to revisit swim line regulations, dock permits and swim raft issues!

By the time this all is done, you may not be able to swim more than 150' from shore....but you won't have too, anytime you get near the water you'll be drowning in a sea of self imposed regulation!

I'm sorry, I can't help but get a good chuckle out of all of this....Remember that old saying...."be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!" :laugh:

Seaplane Pilot
03-02-2006, 02:03 PM
And remember, since most people don't swim more than 150' from shore, no one should be able to!

To paraphrase FLL..."150' is more than far enough!!!"

And since most people follow the law anyway, these new proposals will be self-enforcing so no additional funding, manpower or training will be necessary.

Of course a new group of protestors is rumored to have formed, with their HQ centered somewhere near Bear Island. Their acronym is going to be WINNSWIMS....unable to receive funding this time around from the Hospitality/Restaurant/Bar lobby, word is that a consortium of bathing suit manufacturers will be backing this newest citizens group endeavour.

I hear there's even more changes on the horizon. Due to the confusion over the "littoral rights" of waterfront owners, the legislature is also going to revisit swim line regulations, dock permits and swim raft issues!

By the time this all is done, you may not be able to swim more than 150' from shore....but you won't have too, anytime you get near the water you'll be drowning in a sea of self imposed regulation!

I'm sorry, I can't help but get a good chuckle out of all of this....Remember that old saying...."be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!" :laugh:

That's music to my ears Skip. You've nailed it for sure!

Woodsy
03-02-2006, 02:22 PM
Skip.... Your killing me! I just spit Diet Coke all over my screen! LOL!

As for my opinion on the proposal...

1. Flags & Whistles for Human Powered Craft: I really don't have a problem with it as long as the flags required aren't too large in size. I am thinking a flag requirement along the lines of a flag used on a childs bike. Not too big, but visible. Evenstar has a valid point that a flag that is too large will cause some issues with smaller craft. There should be an amendment to specify the minimum flag size required. A whistle can be easily & comfortably worn around your neck on a lanyard. I still wear a whistle around my neck even though my boat has a horn. Its a 110 Db Military Police whistle I got from the MP at Hanscom AFB, and it has come in quite handy as an attention getter.

2. The orange stern light: I don't like this one only because it isn't standard anywhere else in the world. It also goes against the USCG requirements for navigation lights. It could be very confusing out on the ocean or if you trailered your boat to another state or if tourist brought thier boat to NH. I predict this section will be struck from the final bill.

3. Skier Flag Requirement: I don't have an issue with this part at all. Anything to make a skiier more visible doesn't bother me. It is a requirement in other states and seems to work.

4. Shore Lighting: I have an issue with this as all boats are required to display a white light. So now the people on shore or the islands cannot have any white light? I think this needs to be amended to read red, green and possibly orange lights. I cannot fathom the cost if homeowners are required to replace all of thier light fixtures to cut down on light pollution... althogh the stargazing quality would go way up! I think this section will be amended.

5. Swimming Requirements: I personally don't have much of a problem with it. Its not saying you can't swim more than 150' away from shore, its just saying you need an observer in a boat if you do. I liken it to stepping off the sidewalk into the road. If your going to swim where boats are not required to be at headway speed, then you need to be highly visible. I do think this should be amended for lake size... its silly requirement for some ponds in the state.

6 & 7: Safe Boater Certificate: I think its a great idea to change the course requirements to insure a proctored exam. I do have an issue with the logistics of an on-water boating test. There is some serious issues to be ironed out with this section, especially when it comes to liability. Whose boat does someone take the test on? What if there is an accident?

The temporary certificate requirement seems to be rather vague... I think temporary certificates should be gone completely. But then again, I don't make money renting boats. If you are going to give out temporary certificates, then they should be physically issued by the MP so they can verify and track who got the temp BSC. You can't get a drivers learning permit without proof of ID, the same should go for a BSC.

But maybe I am missing something? Skip?


Woodsy

Bear Islander
03-02-2006, 02:37 PM
Its nice that some people can get a chuckle out of this.

Have you thought of what this means to the very popular sand bar swimming. I guess a lot of people on Braun Bay will be surprised when they can't get in the water because the boat needs an operator and an observer while they are swimming.

And while it doesn't specify I think an anchored boat might not be considered able to assist a swimmer. Which means no swimming from an anchored boat.

There is a nice sand bar over by Minge Cove that will be off limits to swimmers. And a great sand bar on lake Winnisquam.

Is it still funny? This law will not change the way people on Bear Island swim.

Skip
03-02-2006, 02:42 PM
...2. The orange stern light: I don't like this one only because it isn't standard anywhere else in the world. It also goes against the USCG requirements for navigation lights. It could be very confusing out on the ocean or if you trailered your boat to another state or if tourist brought thier boat to NH. I predict this section will be struck from the final bill....But maybe I am missing something? Skip?

I'm missing something, too.

I cannot find an RSA 270:30-D (where this requirement is supposed to be inserted after, making it 270:30-E).

I'll go out on a limb here a suppose that legislative services has a typo. I think that maybe the intention is to have only human powered craft (which are required now to display only a single white 360 light after dark) to display an additional orange light. The white over orange for a human powered craft would then differentiate it from an anchored boat.

I'll make a few phone calls to find out, but that requirement would make sense to me and falls in line with the flag proposals.

Skip

Skip
03-02-2006, 02:55 PM
...Its nice that some people can get a chuckle out of this...Have you thought of what this means to the very popular sand bar swimming. I guess a lot of people on Braun Bay will be surprised when they can't get in the water because the boat needs an operator and an observer while they are swimming...And while it doesn't specify I think an anchored boat might not be considered able to assist a swimmer. Which means no swimming from an anchored boat...

Let's look at the bright side...

If it means that all boaters must now anchor within 150' of shore to swim, it will bring boaters & shorefront property owners much closer together. When we bring people together, we can find that we all are really not much different from each other. And with all this new community bonding taking place the lakes & rivers will become much happier places for all. :)

Oh, and since everyone will be anchoring to swim because they won't be able to afford cruising fuel, the vast majority of our waterways will be open to loons & kayakers!

But hey, remember..."150' is more than far enough"....

Island Lover
03-02-2006, 03:00 PM
Yes, I think this law will ban swimming from an anchored boat. The boat must be able to assist the swimmer, it can't do that anchored with the engine off. It doesn't matter if the water is only 2' deep as long as its 150' from shore.

If the boat is floating with the engine on it will be legal to swim as long as there is an operator AND an observer in the boat. But I don't think getting in and out of the water while the engine is running is a good idea.

Could this be a back door attempt by waterfront property owners to limit rafting?

jrc
03-02-2006, 03:19 PM
Yes, I think this law will ban swimming from an anchored boat. The boat must be able to assist the swimmer, it can't do that anchored with the engine off. It doesn't matter if the water is only 2' deep as long as its 150' from shore.


If the water is only 2' deep, I'm wading not swimming so the rule won't apply. Just don't let the marine patrol see you pull your feet up.

Zee
03-02-2006, 03:30 PM
I decided to move to NH from MA to get away from this mentality. Before you know it they are going to legislate everything like they do in Mass. This really ticks me off! :eek: What happened to Live free or Die. This is all going a little over board (pun intended)!

Winter Harbor
03-02-2006, 03:37 PM
Most of the items i this bill seem like a good idea. The only thing I really have an issue with is the orange light they want to install. Will that really make that much of a difference? Also who is goign to pay for all those installations?

As for banning swimming from an anchored boat. I don't think they mean to stop this, it seems like all you'll need is a person (i guess 2) on the boat, ready to assist the swimmer. I don't think they want you to have you engine running.

fpartri497
03-02-2006, 04:02 PM
I decided to move to NH from MA to get away from this mentality. Before you know it they are going to legislate everything like they do in Mass. This really ticks me off! :eek: What happened to Live free or Die. This is all going a little over board (pun intended)!

Zee:

you hit the nail right on the head.( I moved from mass. to NH to get away from this mentality,) Thats the whole problem in a nut shell hundreds of mass. people moving here.

(Im ready to get bashed for this one)


:D fpartri497

Bear Islander
03-02-2006, 04:45 PM
Let's look at the bright side...

If it means that all boaters must now anchor within 150' of shore to swim, it will bring boaters & shorefront property owners much closer together. When we bring people together, we can find that we all are really not much different from each other. And with all this new community bonding taking place the lakes & rivers will become much happier places for all. :)

Oh, and since everyone will be anchoring to swim because they won't be able to afford cruising fuel, the vast majority of our waterways will be open to loons & kayakers!

But hey, remember..."150' is more than far enough"....

Just tell them not to drop anchor on my water intake. I hope they like Native American music.

Skip
03-02-2006, 04:49 PM
Just tell them not to drop anchor on my water intake. I hope they like Native American music.

Heck, its my favorite....and since we'll be so close you won't even have to turn it up very loud! ;)

But hey, remember..."150' is more than far enough"....

CHSLTD
03-02-2006, 05:25 PM
Zee:

you hit the nail right on the head.( I moved from mass. to NH to get away from this mentality,) Thats the whole problem in a nut shell hundreds of mass. people moving here.

(Im ready to get bashed for this one)


:D fpartri497

The beauty is ANYONE can move here. Just like you did.

Grant
03-02-2006, 05:35 PM
What about skinny dipping? Do I need to wear a light? If so, what color?

Skip
03-02-2006, 05:40 PM
What about skinny dipping? Do I need to wear a light? If so, what color?

Probably in your (and my) case, a black light would be appropriate...:laugh:

Now, if we also have to fly a flag?????? :blush:

Remember, 150' is more than enough!

Grant
03-02-2006, 05:47 PM
Here's a semi-related story...

One night I was taking one of my customary post-dinner "au natural" swims, enjoying a nice warm night... I stood on the very end of the dock, marveling at the stars and bright moon...when I heard a cough...I looked over at the dock next door and saw the glow of a cigarette...

The neighbors were having a little laugh (or gasp), as I was totally oblivious to their presence, despite the bright moonlight...

fpartri497
03-02-2006, 06:46 PM
The beauty is ANYONE can move here. Just like you did. :emb: I didnt move here, I was Born here and will die here.

Live free or die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D

ITD
03-02-2006, 07:05 PM
Its nice that some people can get a chuckle out of this.

Have you thought of what this means to the very popular sand bar swimming. I guess a lot of people on Braun Bay will be surprised when they can't get in the water because the boat needs an operator and an observer while they are swimming.

And while it doesn't specify I think an anchored boat might not be considered able to assist a swimmer. Which means no swimming from an anchored boat.

There is a nice sand bar over by Minge Cove that will be off limits to swimmers. And a great sand bar on lake Winnisquam.

Is it still funny? This law will not change the way people on Bear Island swim.


I think this is a riot.

All the scary stories, all the hype, the gloom and doom. All the death and destruction portrayed. This is just what you guys ordered, you've told big brother the lake is unsafe, now you've got their attention. This is what happens when you make stuff up and exaggerate to support your position.

Thanks a bunch........:rolleye2:

(Skip and Grant, the skinny dipping flag image is one I do without :laugh: )

Seaplane Pilot
03-02-2006, 07:25 PM
I think this is a riot.

All the scary stories, all the hype, the gloom and doom. All the death and destruction portrayed. This is just what you guys ordered, you've told big brother the lake is unsafe, now you've got their attention. This is what happens when you make stuff up and exaggerate to support your position.

Thanks a bunch........:rolleye2:

(Skip and Grant, the skinny dipping flag image is one I do without :laugh: )

Well said ITD! Man did someone turn the heat up on the front burners or what??:devil: This squirming by the HB 162 supporters is hysterical.

Silver Duck
03-02-2006, 07:36 PM
The ideas in this bill all sound pretty good to me! Some of the wording may need a bit of tweaking; for instance, larger boats often use a split white light with the forwaed-facing light having a 240 degree coverage and a transom-mounted stern light with 120 degree coverage rather than an all-around light on a pole. But, the idea of an orange light added to the mix would really help in differentiating a boat's stern light from somebody's porch light!

As for Braun Bay and the West Alton sand bar, it sounds as though the commissioner has the authority to designate them as swimming areas. No problemo!

Silver Duck

fatlazyless
03-02-2006, 08:19 PM
Well gee whiz and holly molly, some of the things that I say are so profound that I just like to go back and read them over and over, again. If "150 is far enough' gets attributed to me, then by golly I must have said it. Even if I didn't, I'm happy to take credit for this phrase. Must have been that Forest Gump education that I received growing up, or something.

As Forest always used to say: 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat. Is is, in fact a very fast speed!
But what does Forest know? He was a walker and not a boater. Duh!

Skip
03-02-2006, 08:31 PM
C'mon FLL, we've got to get it right!

Momma always said "150' ain't a short distance....In fact it is a very great distance!"

I think she also said:

Taking the on-line boating test is like gettin' a box o' candy, you just never know what your gonna get fer questions!

'Course when me & Jenny were out on the big Lake and she saw them bad ol' Marine Patrolmen come snoopin' around, I'll never ferget those words she'd always bellow out:

Run FOREST, RUNNNNN!!!!!

Bear Lover
03-02-2006, 08:43 PM
If the opposition thinks this is funny then the supporters are rolling in the aisles.

The live free or die crowd now thinks that a state law against swimming is reasonable.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yankee
03-02-2006, 10:19 PM
:emb: I didnt move here, I was Born here and will die here.

Live free or die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D


AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cal
03-02-2006, 10:54 PM
;) Like I said a while back "Be careful what you wish for........:laugh: :laugh: :emb: :emb: :emb: Well get ready people here it comes again.
I can't for the life of me figure out how humanity has survived for so long with out all these laws , rules and regulations to protect us from ourselves.
Your elected officials just keep chipping away at yours , mine amd everbody elses freedoms and you allow it to happen and sometimes even ask for it as long as it doesn't effect you!
If my wife can't sleep tonight , it will probably be from me laughing in my sleep.
And Skip, with your earlier monolog on this , you should replace Jay Leno when he retires;)

Lakegeezer
03-02-2006, 11:30 PM
There are some interesting ideas in the proposed law, but it is scary that the vote could come as early as next week. The issues need to be chewed on a while - and positions need be taken. Some excellent points have already been made. This forum knows the drill. As for my take, it may be unsafe to stop the motor in the middle of the broads and jump out to swim a bit, but should it be illegal? Should the state be defining a new standard for boat lighting by requiring orange lights? NH already has unique spar standards; does it need to be more out of sync with common practices? On the other hand, I like the rule about no red/green lights on shoreline houses as I've been confused by lights on shore. A neighbor across the lake has red and green lights on their sides of their boat garage door. At night it really looks like a big boat sitting there. But, as a whole, the proposals seem to be another attempt at making laws which restrict people from taking responsibility for risky actions that usually go OK - (like going 50 in the broads on Tuesday October 8'th at 2PM) NH is trying to make life too safe at the cost of freedom. Our new motto is becoming "Live in compliance and stay safe". We should not gloat at the pro-speed-limit folks who may feel differently about this new proposal, but should welcome the dialog that exchanges our views.

ITD
03-03-2006, 12:05 AM
There are some interesting ideas in the proposed law, but it is scary that the vote could come as early as next week. The issues need to be chewed on a while - and positions need be taken. Some excellent points have already been made. This forum knows the drill. As for my take, it may be unsafe to stop the motor in the middle of the broads and jump out to swim a bit, but should it be illegal? Should the state be defining a new standard for boat lighting by requiring orange lights? NH already has unique spar standards; does it need to be more out of sync with common practices? On the other hand, I like the rule about no red/green lights on shoreline houses as I've been confused by lights on shore. A neighbor across the lake has red and green lights on their sides of their boat garage door. At night it really looks like a big boat sitting there. But, as a whole, the proposals seem to be another attempt at making laws which restrict people from taking responsibility for risky actions that usually go OK - (like going 50 in the broads on Tuesday October 8'th at 2PM) NH is trying to make life too safe at the cost of freedom. Our new motto is becoming "Live in compliance and stay safe". We should not gloat at the pro-speed-limit folks who may feel differently about this new proposal, but should welcome the dialog that exchanges our views.


LG,

You make good points, I don't think many people are happy about these new rules. I also don't think anyone is gloating, but you have to admit the comedic value when one of the most prolific pro-speed limit posters is upset because her "fatality" posts helped cause a law to be proposed that will limit an activity on the lake she obviously enjoys. A clear case of what goes around comes around. I think the whole situation is sad, they've awaken big brother like kids poking a tiger with a stick.

And the line about the backdoor attempt by waterfront owners to limit rafting, priceless.:laugh:

Mike M.
03-03-2006, 12:32 AM
I agree people shouldn't be allowed to use navigation colors on the shore. That's law makes sense for other peoples safety...


What would the fine be for swimming more than a 150' from shore? I can't even believe there is going to be a law controlling the distance you can swim from shore without a boat.

I don't think I have been in excess of a 150' for a while but the fact I will be fined for doing that isn't right.

How much freedom are people going to give up before they wake up and realize we aren't free anymore.

This should be left to common sense.

"Live free or die"

Island Lover
03-03-2006, 01:02 AM
I think this new law is a good idea for the most part. But before we pass a law we need to reflect on the ramifications. We have been reflecting on HB142 for about 14 months now.

Somewhere along the line it was decided to extend HB162 to all NH waters. Then they realized this included the ocean, so they made an exception for the ocean, then they realized they had no clear definition for where rivers end and oceans begin. This is what happens when you don't think it through.

I never swim more than 150' from shore. But I don't think the person that wrote this bill thought about all the ramifications.

Contrary to what has been posted the Dept of Safety will only be able to make exceptions for "operators of youth camps, swim meets, and schools, and for other water events".

The really funny moment will be when the opposition stops laughing and discovers that the swimming ban effects boaters quite a bit, and residents of Bear Island not at all.

So as far as I am concerned lets pass this bill, it has my vote.

GWC...
03-03-2006, 01:07 AM
Skip.... Your killing me! I just spit Diet Coke all over my screen! LOL!

As for my opinion on the proposal...

6 & 7: Safe Boater Certificate: I think its a great idea to change the course requirements to insure a proctored exam. I do have an issue with the logistics of an on-water boating test. There is some serious issues to be ironed out with this section, especially when it comes to liability. Whose boat does someone take the test on? What if there is an accident?
Woodsy

What's the difference between a boat ride and a car ride, regarding the driving part of testing for a license?

Seems to me that one would present no more liability than the other.

You either know how to operate your vehicle, or you don't.

Seems better to have an MP aboard, should one not possess the knowledge and or ability to operate a boat. It would also seem to make sense to discover this fact prior to turning someone loose on the Lake without said knowledge and ability.

A commercial license for the Lake requires an on-water boating test.

Seems the MPs have experience with this already. :rolleye2:

ApS
03-03-2006, 08:17 AM
"...But, as a whole, the proposals seem to be another attempt at making laws which restrict people from taking responsibility for risky actions that usually go OK..."1) True. I hardly ever swim, but I do a lot of "floating".:emb:

I was very unhappy to see an MP escorting two tubers closer to shore once. One was on a large tractor tube, and the other on a towing-type tube. Have Winnipesaukee speeds gotten so bad that you can't dive, kayak, fall off your skis, or even float in a tube?

2) Remember that "no-rafting" bill (There could be a link to SB-155FN.)early last season? There could be a link to that aborted SB-155FN bill co-sponsored by Rep. Whalley of the "unlimited Winnipesaukee speeds" crowd.

3) However, it is reminiscent of New Jersey's laws regarding visibility and their high-speed boat problem. New Jersey had recent headlines (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2004/03/12/40074.htm)about three brothers—of the same family—killed in a NJ GFBL crash.

New Jersey should worry about their allowing unlimited speeds, uninsured boaters, and still having a skier, diver, and kayak "problem". It's that same old GFBL refrain: "We can't see them". (Unless they slow down for speed bumps, but slowing is completely unacceptable). OTOH, New Jersey has the highest concentration of humans (per square mile) than even China! Perhaps the day will come that such a bill could seem reasonable for Winnipesaukee.

4) According to the Coast Guard, you can swim anywhere in the ocean (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1196931&postcount=12)! Seems these HB-1463 people have their priorities wrong. At first glance, this proposal reads like something at "The Onion" or "Scrappleface"; i.e., a parody of HB162.:laugh:

5) I'd like to know who the sponsor of this bill is—if it's not a parody.

Otherwise, it's only a flat-lander reply to HB162, with one good shoreline idea thrown in—just to give it "legs".

BTW: The most sensible dock-lighting suggestion appeared here (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18726&postcount=4).

winnilaker
03-03-2006, 08:23 AM
Yes, I think this law will ban swimming from an anchored boat. The boat must be able to assist the swimmer, it can't do that anchored with the engine off. It doesn't matter if the water is only 2' deep as long as its 150' from shore.

"No person may swim more than 150 feet from shore unless accompanied by a vessel with an operator and observer, one of whom has the physical capacity to assist the swimmer aboard the vessel when necessary."

Are we reading the same passage?

I read it as, the operator or observer must be able to assist, not the boat. As written, it would only prevent people swimming alone out past 150' from their boats. Folks would still be able to stop in the middle of the broads and go for a swim with the motor off. For the record, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I think you misunderstood it.

Island Lover
03-03-2006, 08:41 AM
I agree that its a fine point, but that's the problem. It needs to be specific.

In my opinion the swimmer will not be "accompanied by a vessel with an operator and observer" if the anchor is down.

I think they wrote this without thinking of all the issues. If you are wadding across a 400' wide river are you violating this law? By a broad definition of swimming you would be.

Does this include the ocean? At some beaches you can "swim" a long way from shore at low tide.

Is a fly fisherman swimming. If a state beach has a "no swimming" sign does that mean its ok to wade, I don't think so.

Maybe Skip can tell us what the state means by "swimming".

Skip
03-03-2006, 09:02 AM
...If you are wadding across a 400' wide river are you violating this law? By a broad definition of swimming you would be...maybe Skip can tell us what the state means by "swimming".

The standard definintion of swimming is to propel yourself (or remain)through the water without walking along the bottom.

I believe the State would not consider wading (as in the flyfishing example) as swimming.

I can find no direct reference to swimming in our current RSAs, researching both the boating statutes and statutes relating to water supply & pollution. As you may recall, there are separate "no swimmimng" provisions when it comes to some public water supplies, and in these cases they really mean "no bodily contact" as wading in a public water supply is just as hazardous as swimming in it.

Yep, it needs work...that is why the process will carry it from the House to the Senate and eventually (if it makes it) to the Governor's desk, open for ammendment and clarification along the way, just as HB162 has evolved.

In the end though it will be up to the Court to decide what swimming is. It will probably be treated like pornography is now....to paraphrase a late & great Supreme Court justice: we may not be able to easily define what it is, but we'll know what it is when we see it!

All joking aside, expect healthy ammendments to the be applied to this bill as it weaves its way through Concord. And remember, hyperbole breeds hyperbole. Folks on both sides of the HB 162 issue by greatly puffing some of the perceived dangers on Lake Winnipesaukee have now awoken the Government. Most times that is not a very good thing!

I am awaiting some information from the sponsors on some of the intents in this legislation....but I am soon departing to go snowmobiling for the weekend, but I'll post back any responses I get on this issue when I get back.

Everyone be safe & have a fun weekend!

Skip

SIKSUKR
03-03-2006, 09:22 AM
Ahh yes!Finally the liberal mentality is settling into NH so it can protect me from any stupid thing I might do.Thank goodness.I was just thinking of swimming out to the broads and hanging out for a couple hours.Maybe watching them dang 200 mph boats wiz by my head.Huh huhh!!Boy that would be fun.I was thinking we should probably outlaw going outside the house cuz I might walk into the road and get hit by one of them motorcycle people,who should be wearing helmets by the way,or one of those crazy cars with the driver not wearing their seatbelt.I may not find my way back home so I could probably sue someone right?I think we should have a law that eveyone needs to have a spotter when they go to the bathroom.What happens if I fall in the shower or even worse,in the toilet.There should be a law to guard me from this danger right?We need a law that keeps me from burning my tongue on hot coffee.And what about that fattening fast food?Ban it!Thanks to the the thoughtfull ones who watch out for me and guard me from myself. Hey,does this law mean that if I fall off my PWC and decide to hang out in the water for a bit I'll be fined?

Woodsy
03-03-2006, 09:26 AM
What's the difference between a boat ride and a car ride, regarding the driving part of testing for a license?

Seems to me that one would present no more liability than the other.

You either know how to operate your vehicle, or you don't.

Seems better to have an MP aboard, should one not possess the knowledge and or ability to operate a boat. It would also seem to make sense to discover this fact prior to turning someone loose on the Lake without said knowledge and ability.

A commercial license for the Lake requires an on-water boating test.

Seems the MPs have experience with this already. :rolleye2:

GWC...

The way the bill is written, the driving test will not be administered by an MP officer, but more than likely a private firm authorized by the state. Therein lies the liability issue, as NH does not require insurance. Lets assume you take the test on your own boat with a certified instructor? What if an uninsured newbie t-bones another boat while taking the test? Every boat handles a little differently, If you take the test on thier boat, more than likely an 18' generic bowrider, it may have absolutely no bearing if your boat is a 28 Cabin Cruiser. What about out of state boaters? When are they going to be able to come to NH to take a boater driving test?

If we are going to go to that length of requiring a practical driving test, the lets just go all out and make it a Boating License instead of Boater Safety Certificate? I am not all that against it, I just see the logistics as a huge expensive stumbling block, especially when you consider you can only have the practical tests 6 months out of the year due to weather.

I think this portion of the law looks good on paper, but would be a logistical nightmare. I think just changing the BSC to a proctored exam, administered by the MP and others will work just as well and be alot less costly.

Woodsy

Lakewinniboater
03-03-2006, 10:32 AM
Have you thought of what this means to the very popular sand bar swimming. I guess a lot of people on Braun Bay will be surprised when they can't get in the water because the boat needs an operator and an observer while they are swimming.They will still be able to swim at Braun Bay. Just not more than 150' out. Just means that the line will be longer and not as wide.

Zee
03-03-2006, 10:39 AM
Zee:

you hit the nail right on the head.( I moved from mass. to NH to get away from this mentality,) Thats the whole problem in a nut shell hundreds of mass. people moving here.

(Im ready to get bashed for this one)


:D fpartri497


Your absolutely right. I do believe the influx of Mass. liberals is having a major impact on the mentality of its legislature. I wonder how many of them are transplanted Mass. liberals. Oh...just for the record...I was born in NH, moved to Mass as a kid, moved back to NH as an adult very recently and plan to die here.:patriot:

Zee
03-03-2006, 10:47 AM
Ahh yes!Finally the liberal mentality is settling into NH so it can protect me from any stupid thing I might do.Thank goodness.I was just thinking of swimming out to the broads and hanging out for a couple hours.Maybe watching them dang 200 mph boats wiz by my head.Huh huhh!!Boy that would be fun.I was thinking we should probably outlaw going outside the house cuz I might walk into the road and get hit by one of them motorcycle people,who should be wearing helmets by the way,or one of those crazy cars with the driver not wearing their seatbelt.I may not find my way back home so I could probably sue someone right?I think we should have a law that eveyone needs to have a spotter when they go to the bathroom.What happens if I fall in the shower or even worse,in the toilet.There should be a law to guard me from this danger right?We need a law that keeps me from burning my tongue on hot coffee.And what about that fattening fast food?Ban it!Thanks to the the thoughtfull ones who watch out for me and guard me from myself. Hey,does this law mean that if I fall off my PWC and decide to hang out in the water for a bit I'll be fined?

SIKSUKR---You took my breath away. I couldn't have said it better myself. When will it all end?

jrc
03-03-2006, 10:51 AM
.... Hey,does this law mean that if I fall off my PWC and decide to hang out in the water for a bit I'll be fined?

No, it means you have to drown because it's illegal to swim.:laugh: What will these people think of next.

xstrapolator
03-04-2006, 07:33 AM
Anyway, according to my rep it's been amended as follows:

Amendment to HB 1463-FN

Proposed by the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - C

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

*1 New Section; Operation of Boats; Safety Signaling Device Required. Amend
RSA 270 by inserting after section 30-c the following new section:

270:30-d Safety Signaling Device Required. Except for those bodies of water
where petroleum-powered vessels are prohibited, any person operating a kayak,
rowboat, canoe, or any similar vessel not displaying sails more than 150 feet
from shore shall carry, in a readily accessible place, a safety signaling
device, such as a distress flag or whistle. This section shall not apply to a
vessel operated in a water event permitted under RSA 270-D:4. Any person
violating this section shall be guilty of a violation.

*2 Motorboats Towing Water Skiers and Aquaplanes; Flag Required. Amend RSA
270-D:3, I to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorboat while towing water skiers,
aquaplanes, or similar devices unless another person is present in the
motorboat who is physically able to observe and assist the person or
appurtenance being towed. The observer shall be 13 years of age or
older. The observer shall display a flag when the person being towed
has fallen.

*3 New Section; Boating and Water Safety; Shore Lights. Amend RSA 270-D by
inserting after section 7 the following new section:

270-D:7-a Shore Lights. No person shall display, at any point on the shore
visible from the water, any lights that resemble in color or configuration the
required navigation lights of any vessel.

*4 Safe Boater Education Course; Examination. Amend RSA 270-D:13, I(a) to
read as follows:

(a) Passes a safe boater education course approved by the
commissioner in accordance with the criteria of the National
Association of State Boating Law Administration. [The] A
classroom course shall provide a minimum of 8 hours of
instruction. Passage of a safe boater education course shall
require successful completion of a proctored examination
administered by a person authorized by the commissioner in
accordance with rules adopted by the commissioner. The minimum
passing grade for the [course] examination shall be [70] 80
percent; or

*5 Boat Safety Course. Amend RSA 270:46-a, II-III to read as follows:

II. Any person who pays such penalty and who, within 6 months of
conviction, completes at such person’s own expense a boat safety
classroom course as specified in rules adopted, under RSA 541-A, by the
director of safety services shall have his or her $200 refunded to him
or her from the navigation safety fund by the director.

III. In addition to any other penalty imposed, any person who is
convicted of violating any of the following boating laws or rules of the
division of safety services, and who has not already successfully
completed an approved boating safety course shall complete a boat safety
classroom course, at that person’s own expense, within 6 months of
conviction. Any person who fails to complete the boat safety classroom
course within 6 months may be prevented from reregistering the boat:

(a) Laws or rules relative to speed limit, safe passage, or
personal flotation devices.

(b) RSA 270:37, decibel limits on noise.

*6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

Personally, I have no difficulty with the bill as amended. I still think the wording of the shore light section is too vague.

xstrapolator
03-04-2006, 07:38 AM
Edited to remove what became a duplicate post after the board administrator moved my posting into this thread where it belonged.

John A. Birdsall
03-04-2006, 09:36 AM
What if I want to swim on a lake that has no power boats? And I am wearing a PFD or I am towing and inflatable raft?

If a power boat is speeding or out of control it endangers everybody on the lake. A swimmer going out more than 150' without being accompanied might be an idiot, but he only endangers his own life. Seems to me this is one case where the live free or die principal DOES apply.

Island lover, while I agree that his actual life is only endangered, I suggest that if someone hit him/her that their life will be effected perhaps as much, maybe not physically, but mentally.:confused:

jrc
03-04-2006, 10:43 AM
So now we have:

1 Flag or whistle for paddlers

2 Flag for boats with downed skiers

3 No shore lights that look like boats

4 Boater education must have proctored exam

5 If you're forced to take boater education because you broke another rule it has to be in a classroom.

6 effective 1/1/2007

Well at least the real silly stuff is gone.

1. I'm sure the paddlers will be annoyed, but I can't imagine carrying a whistle is onerous enough to muster the troops against the law. If I was as worried as some of the people say they are I'd carry a canned air horn, only $5 at Walmart.

2. Again, not onerous enough to garner widespread opposition. Another $5 problem.

3. Too inclusive as written, but conceptually who will have a problem with this.

4. Annoys me because I took the online test and didn't cheat. But I can see abuse is possible. I don't think there will be widespread opposition.

5. and 6. OK

Evenstar
03-04-2006, 11:14 AM
1. I'm sure the paddlers will be annoyed, but I can't imagine carrying a whistle is onerous enough to muster the troops against the law. If I was as worried as some of the people say they are I'd carry a canned air horn, only $5 at Walmart.

Most of the kayakers that I know who go out on lakes already carry a whistle. A good whistle has a fairly long range. Air horns are not a bad idea, and I do know of paddlers who carry them. The advantage of a whistle is that they are small and can be worn around the neck. I keep one in my pfd zippered pouch, along with a signal mirror. An air horn has to be stowed, so it's not as fast to get to. Plus, if you end up swimming, you might not be able to get to the air horn in your boat.

ITD
03-04-2006, 02:50 PM
I think the only thing this bill forgot is a law that says you need to have boated on Lake Winnipesaukee more than say five times before you are allowed to twist the truth and complain how unsafe it is.:rolleye1:

ApS
03-04-2006, 03:06 PM
Since feral boats have invaded Winnipesaukee, mandatory whistles are another archaic throwback.

A whistle might attract the attention of people on shore, but they'll do nothing for a boater being in the sights of a 4½-ton missile. Same with an air horn. By the time you've located the source of the noise, it's too late. Plus, some people use air horns for "fun".

Just last month, I heard an air horn being used repeatedly. From my Florida shoreline perspective, I could see nothing wrong. Other shorepersons and boatpersons nearby were amused or merely curious.

All the passengers were in the bow, with the outboard countering their weight. The boat appeared level and normal. What was happening is that this pontoon boat was sinking while carrying eight picnickers!

It was only when the bow was lifted well above the water that it was clear what was happening. Everyone was in the water before help arrived. An aluminum rowboat assisted—then another pontoon boat (Florida, remember) carried the soaked passengers to back to the boat ramp.

Really, if you need to be noticed, a whistle belayed to your PFD is probably better than an air horn in the cabin—but nothing beats a signal mirror. A whistle is my backup for sunless days, but what good does it do when the missile "driver" can't hear the voices of his own passengers?

If you're ever in harm's way, which is happening more and more today, you need a mirror.

I've been using a cast-off CD. The surface reflects nearly as well as a mirror, is not as fragile as a first-surface mirror, and leaves no dangerous sharp edges should it break. (They do break). I also wouldn't carry anything smaller than a CD-sized mirror, and you need to practice in its "aiming". Select a PFD with a pocket that will accept a CD.

The boat was not marked for the night, and remained in place until the next day. This photo was taken an hour later, with a debris field of coolers and other flotsam trailing off downwind.

In and amongst the debris field, there was probably an air horn.

Mee-n-Mac
03-06-2006, 11:10 PM
So am I correctly understanding the 1'st section is now requiring just some form of signaling device, a whistle or a flag, but not both ? If so then it's no big deal, same sound producing device is required on boats under 16' anyway. I wonder if silver coated paddle blades will become an "in thing" ?

Sounds like section 2 got axed, probably a good thing as I can only assume that the purpose of the orange light was to distinguish a boat from a shore light. While I like the general idea I think the approach is wrong. To that end I think a flashing boat light, on and ON, would have been more effective and easier to retrofit. I'm not sure that everyone has 12" which would be visible 360 deg under the existing all-around light. Guess we'd all end up with some pretty long poles on the boat.

The new section 2 re: ski flags neither bothers me nor seems like a winner. Other states require their use, I wonder if it really helps all that much. I've always found the ski rope dancing in the water is kinda a good sign that a skier or boarder is down.

The provision re: shore lights is a minor one. I see a couple up/down Alton Bay that are annoying but I wouldn't call them dangerous. Still if you're going to amend the bill, amend it to say "sidelights" I guess.

The provision re: swimming was somewhat silly. I understand the point but should we really be expending much energy to fight evolution ? Perhaps it would have been good enough to have swim flags like we have dive flags ? Back when Jaws first came out we make a plywood shark fin and towed it about on a long line. How hard could it be ;) Should a night-time swimmer be required to have an orange and white light ? Naah I say let evolution win this battle.

The last amendment, re:the exam process, is still tougher than present law but is watered down from first bill which I read to require an inboat test, kinda like we all had to do to get our driver's license. Both LG and I have in the past wondered if some test-by-simulation might not be a good idea. I wonder if this might be a more practical substitute for the inboat testing ? I'll have to think about this part some more. I still favor the idea of recurring "education" over any one test.