Hb 847 Meeting In Concord. [Archive]

RTTOOL

04-18-2008, 04:39 PM

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It
will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am. It will be in Concord, NH in
Representatives Hall, the main Capital Hall.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847. Your
attendance is needed to show the Senate that HB847 is not right for NH.
Please visit http://www.opposehb847.com
for information on why its not right for NH and read the testimonials of
others like you.

Things you can do until then:
1. Call the Senators
2. Write the Senators
3. Plan to attend the hearing!!!
4. And pass the word to your friends and businesses to voice their
opinion!!!!

Thank you,
Custie

John Gallus
292 Prospect Street
Berlin, NH 03570-2137
(H) (603)752-1066
(O) (603)271-3077

Deborah Reynolds
5 Chaddarin Lane
Plymouth, NH 03264
(O) (603)271-3569

Joseph Kenney
PO Box 201
Union, NH 03887-0201
(H) (603)473-2569
(O) (603)271-3073

Kathleen Sgambati
25 Pine Street
Tilton, NH 03276
(H) (603)286-8931
(O) (603)271-3074

Peter Burling
20 Lang Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4209
(O) (603)271-2642

Jacalyn Cilley
2 Oak Hill Road
Barrington, NH 03825
(H) (603)664-5597
(O) (603)271-3045

Harold Janeway
225 Tyler Road
Webster, NH 03303
(O) (603)271-3041

Bob Odell
PO Box 23
Lempster, NH 03605-0023
(O) (603)271-6733

Sheila Roberge
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, NH 03110-4816
(H) (603)472-8391
(O) None Specified

Molly Kelly
89 Colonial Drive
Keene, NH 03431
(H) (603)352-5605
(O) (603)271-7803

Peter Bragdon
P.O. Box 307
Milford, NH 03055 (H)
(603)673-7135
(O) (603)271-2675

David Gottesman
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, NH 03063-1308
(H) (603)889-4442
(O) (603)271-4152

Joseph Foster
9 Keats Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2509
(H) (603)891-0307
(O) (603)271-2111

Robert Clegg
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, NH 03051-5120
(O) (603)271-8630

Sylvia Larsen
23 Kensington Road
Concord, NH 03301
(H) (603)225-6130
(O) (603)271-2111

Theodore Gatsas
20 Market St
PO Box 6655
Manchester, NH 03104-6052
(H) (603)623-0220
(O) (603)271-8567

John Barnes
PO Box 362
Raymond, NH 03077-3062
(H) (603)895-9352
(O) (603)271-6931

Betsi DeVries
14 Old Orchard Way
Manchester, NH 03103
(H) (603)647-0117
(O) (603)271-2104

Robert Letourneau
30 South Avenue
Derry, NH 03038
(O) (603)271-8631

Lou D'Allesandro
332 St. James Avenue
Manchester, NH 03102-4950
(H) (603)669-3494
(O) (603)271-2600

Iris Estabrook
8 Burnham Avenue
Durham, NH 03824-3011
(H) (603)868-5524
(O) (603)271-3042

Michael Downing
7 Darryl Lane
Salem, NH 03079
(H) (603)893-5442
(O) (603)271-2674

Margaret Hassan
48 Court Street
Exeter, NH 03833-2728
(H) (603)772-4187
(O) (603)271-4153

Martha Fuller Clark
152 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306
(O) (603)271-6933

http://www.opposehb847.com

Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our
rights. The more letters and phones the the bigger the impact.

Bear Islander

04-18-2008, 04:58 PM

You can also visit www.winnfabs.com

RTTOOL

04-18-2008, 05:54 PM

Starting June 1st.. There Will Be A Two Hr.tour A New 50ft. Tug Boat.
Around Bear Island And Selective Places On Bear Island. So How
Many More Boat Want To Join The Fun...

See You All There.....

Islander

04-18-2008, 06:37 PM

Starting June 1st.. There Will Be A Two Hr.tour A New 50ft. Tug Boat.
Around Bear Island And Selective Places On Bear Island. So How
Many More Boat Want To Join The Fun...

See You All There.....

Good Post

I know two Senators that read this forum.

ApS

04-19-2008, 05:08 AM

Yup, Islander...Even on shore, the opponents are frequently their own worst enemy.

However, I hope opponents of HB-847 wave Director Barrett's "NHMP Survey" as proof that Senate approval of the bill is unnecessary.

Why?

Because then the proponents can wave a copy of the Union Leader that has Director Barrett announcing his "temporary (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Marine+Patrol+clocks+Winnipe saukee+boaters&articleId=e0ff6db7-d5e0-451c-bdcf-a1eb92561e49) speed limit" before conducting the Survey! (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=62850&postcount=42) :confused: :emb: :laugh:

Islander

04-19-2008, 09:11 AM

hazelnut

04-19-2008, 09:13 AM

APS the majority of boaters never read up or were even aware of such a temporary limit. If you want to wave that as evidence that skewed the results please go for it. It actually helps the cause because you are concurring that the data itself was correct. That being the case good luck proving a newspaper article was responsible for making thousands of boaters instantly compliant with temporary speed laws. Hilarious :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

fatlazyless

04-19-2008, 10:11 AM

Just seeing some of the smaller boats like a kayak can be difficult as they are low in the water and tend to blend into the waves.The 150' distance is not enough of a safety cushion for boaters at speeds above 45mph. Small boaters including many summer campers as well as kayakers and slow-trolling fishermen will all have a much safer boating experience with a 45/25mph speed limit.

With the high price of gasoline plus the physical exercise benefits, probably more people will be chosing to boat on the Big Lake in their relatively inexpensive and easy-to-use kayaks.

Going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. Is it really necessary to be boating at speeds above 45? On Route 93, the speed limit is 65, with conditions permitting. On Lake Winnipesaukee, a 45mph speed limit will make it a safer lake for all boaters. :)

Cal

04-19-2008, 06:46 PM

On Lake Winnipesaukee, a 45mph speed limit will make it a safer lake for all boaters. :)

Except the ones who nod off due to boredom:sleeping:

jrc

04-20-2008, 12:15 AM

APS

Its great that so many opponents are going to the hearing despite the vote being a done deal. 15 Senators have already declared their support for HB847 And a majority either voted for speed limits already or used it as a campaign promise.

See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello!

As Algore and John Kerry found out, don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

If two Senators read this board then they know that RTTOOL with TWO POSTs on this board does not represent the vast majority of the anti-boat ban posters here. We will argue how misguided this law is and how the proponents have unsavory motives, but we will not stoop to intimidation or childish stunts. If needed, we will use the ballot box to repair the wrongs.

tis

04-20-2008, 07:39 AM

Bear Islander

04-20-2008, 09:33 AM

Let's just hope the house members have some common sense and realize a speed limit is just another law that isn't going to make any difference. The people who are careful will still be careful, the people who aren't still won't be.

The House members voted 236 to 111 in favor of the speed limit bill HB847. I assume you are talking about the Senate.

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.

tis

04-20-2008, 04:40 PM

Sorry, BI, you are right. I am getting the shoreland protection act and this one confused. This one is awaiting the senate, the sps is awaiting the house. I still haven't heard how the house voted on the sps on Wed.

People that don't live on or boat on the lake, really don't care it there is a speed limit or not. Why should they?

Lakegeezer

04-21-2008, 06:54 AM

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.Let's hope the senators also realize that the survey used to educate the house and senate was conducted after an extensive and expensive marketing campaign, to "teach" the voters how they should answer the questions. It was a scientific survey - with guaranteed results. There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey, which is why those opposed to a speed limit claim that it is a "purchased" law. Which restriction on boater's rights will be bought next?

ApS

04-21-2008, 07:28 AM

"...People that don't live on or boat on the lake, really don't care it there is a speed limit or not. Why should they...?
My folks live ½-mile from the lake in Wolfeboro. They want speed limits—maybe to protect their kids, do you suppose? :rolleye2:

"...See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello...!
Please wear a WinnFABS shirt all the time, so I can someday introduce myself and thank you for your efforts. :)

"...the majority of boaters never read up or were even aware of such a temporary limit.
You?...can speak to what the majority of boaters read? :eek: :confused:

It's A FACT that it appeared in the state's largest newspaper before The Survey. :rolleye1: Please add that biggie to the seven other major errors I accounted for in the Survey.

"...If you want to wave that as evidence that skewed the results please go for it. It actually helps the cause because you are concurring that the data itself was correct..."
I am? I wrote that? I'm concurring? Where are all these words coming from? :confused:

Even an Opponent agrees that the results were skewed: how 'bout we wave this one (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=49760&postcount=18) that also challenges The Survey's credibility?

"...the obvious visual deterrant of the MP boats in the first place which would probably slow someone down anyhow..."

"...That being the case good luck proving a newspaper article was responsible for making thousands of boaters instantly compliant with temporary speed laws..."
Thousands? Nobody made round-trips for several weeks? No Jet-Skis? :confused:

Hundreds of readings—maybe. :rolleye2:

"...Going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed..."
I have the daily benefit (and advantage) of paralleling a major boating mecca on a highway where the speed limit is 45. The vast majority of boaters below these bridges aren't going near that fast; however, the boaters that are exceeding the speed of all these trucks and cars on those bridges are a clear and present danger to everyone—and everything—on the waters below.

"...Let's just hope the house members have some common sense and realize a speed limit is just another law that isn't going to make any difference..."
For a moment, think of the burning of tobacco in restaurants. :coolsm:

"...We will argue how misguided this law is and how the proponents have unsavory motives..."
Lake Winnipesaukee is not the only locale dealing with inappropriate watercraft. Between the four surfers in this videotape—and the one vessel with an engine—you'd be in support of the Jet-Ski? :eek: :eek:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/WONandWOFFL/PWCvsSurfer.jpg

chipj29

04-21-2008, 07:28 AM

The House members voted 236 to 111 in favor of the speed limit bill HB847. I assume you are talking about the Senate.

I think the Senators are aware that only 9% of registered voters oppose the bill.
How many of those 9% were active boaters who use the lake?
If they wanted to do a survey, it should have been done amongst people who have a vested interest.

Bear Islander

04-21-2008, 04:11 PM

How many of those 9% were active boaters who use the lake?
If they wanted to do a survey, it should have been done amongst people who have a vested interest.

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

WeirsBeachBoater

04-21-2008, 04:20 PM

Between Voters, and Boaters!!! I challenge you to poll registered Boaters!
The numbers we heard today were 600 people in the Manchester area were polled. 78% allegedly said they would support a speed limit. So what is that? 450 voters from Manchester. Ok how many were Boaters????? Exactly probably not many! I would bet I could get 450 voters to agree to ban Bihydrogen monoxide!!!

wifi

04-21-2008, 05:20 PM

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Bear Islander

04-21-2008, 06:17 PM

So was anybody at the hearing? How did things go?

WeirsBeachBoater

04-21-2008, 06:38 PM

I think the proper term is dihydrogen monoxide, but still :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I googled dihydrogen monoxide, came up as a nasty mix!!! Yikes!

WeirsBeachBoater

04-21-2008, 06:49 PM

I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!

Islander

04-21-2008, 07:11 PM

My take was pretty much the exact opposite.

I will wait for the vote.

EricP

04-21-2008, 07:12 PM

There was a very good turnout, quite impressive IMHO.
Those opposed outnumbered those for. I base this on the volume of people sporting the NO HB847 stickers hended out. There were even quite a few opposed who didn't have one on. I myself m opposed to HB847.

I will give the chairman and the commitee kudos for changing up the testimony so basically we heard from alternating points of view throughout the morning. This was my first ever hearing so I have no clue if that's normal, but the chairman made it a point to let us know that;s his preferred style.

The reigning theme from supporters is simple: fear, nothing else but fear mongering, period. That's all I heard from them over and over. One woman even went as far as to spell it out. "Formula Boats". She stated she personally taught 50 people how to water ski and wouldn't take a new skier out anymore. Let's be real here, Monday through Thursday, Friday morning, Saturday morning and Sunday mornings are all good times to teach some to ski, there are just times when there are a lot of boats on the lake and maybe not a good time to teach someone. This has nothing to do with speed, it's simple math. This is not your father's or grandfather's lake. What ws the US population when your father and grandfathers roamed he lake and what is the US population now? Huge differences. So with more people living then it stands to reason more boats are owned and therefore more boats show up to enjoy the lake. This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.

I heard many more compelling reasons to not impose a speed limit than for. The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.

I was very happy to hear several people point out that while Lake George has a speed limit it does not have the 150' safe passaage rule. That laone means we're not comparing apples to apples.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe. Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.

I heard a couple proponents repeatedly use the term excessive speed, but not speeding. I think this says a lot to the opposition. It's not speeding, but excessive speed they keep talking about. Excessive speed can be defined as 10 MPH when within 150' of anything else. That's speeding, and I bet that happens a zillion times more than boats traveling over 45 MPH. I have had close calls on my PWCs at slow speeds and none with boats at high speeds. All were 150' infractions. I am always watching everything around me, not because of fear, but because I just don't want to get hurt.

I heard 2 people speak to the 600 person survey. I would want to know more about the sampling. How many of those 600 boat on Winni and how many boat on really small lakes? How many don't boat at all? Exactly what was aksed and how was the question asked? For example" "Excuse me sir, would you be in favor of a speed limit on NH lakes knowing that people are dying ev ery day in high speed accidents on our waters?" or "Do you think we need speed limits on NH lakes?". I personally dismiss this so called survey. I don't believe it to be a fair representation of Winni boaters, which is what this bill is about.

I can't offer an opinion as to how I think it went. I know they listened to all testimonials, asked reasonable questions, and took notes and so in that respect it was a good hearing. Noone got upset, there was no yelling or fighting. I'm glad I went and showed my opposition to the bill and am thankful to all those who were opposed and offered lots of reasons why we don't need the bill passed.

chipj29

04-22-2008, 06:24 AM

The group polled do have a vested interest. They were the owners of the lake.

Lakegeezer
"There was no organized opposition or debate about the issues before the survey"

I think you should check the dates. I was quoting the second poll.

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

Bear Islander

04-22-2008, 06:51 AM

By vested interest, I meant the users of the lake, not the citizens who "own" the lake.

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

chipj29

04-22-2008, 07:54 AM

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

It would depend on the law being proposed. For example, if the law was for regulating large trucks on restricted access highways, then I would want to poll the people who actually use those highways. I think the highway users opinion should carry more weight than the opinion of one who never uses the highway.

My opinion is that polling the most interested group is the way to go. Sure, all citizens opinions matter. As stated above, the users opinion should carry more weight than a non-user.

codeman671

04-22-2008, 08:10 AM

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

I don't necessarily agree. Laws regulating large trucks would potentially affect everyone on the road depending on the type of law. Casino gambling as well would affect all as it can change many things to do with our society.

Some voter in Manchester who has never been on a boat on Winnipesaukee and never will , and who have no knowledge of boating really is not an important opinion in my view. Regulating boating laws on Winnipesaukee has a much tighter circle of effect.

hazelnut

04-22-2008, 08:22 AM

I understand you. However polling the most interested group is not really the point. The citizens own the lake and have the responsibility, through their elected representatives, for regulating it.

If it were a law regulating large trucks would you only poll truckers? For a poll on casino gambling in NH, would you only poll gamblers?

Once again a spin that dizzies up the mind. Talk about comparing apples to MANGOS for gods sake. Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? This a recreational issue. I could care less what speed they travel on "xyz lake" in Massachusetts. Why should I tell those people how to use the lake they frequent? Why? Is it my civic duty to regulate their activities?

Bear Islander

04-22-2008, 09:32 AM

...Why should anyone who has never even boated on Winni and never intends to have anything to say? ...

They "should" have a say because it's their lake. It is their responsibility and their property. In fact they have the final say.

However I think polls, especially exit polls, are used to much in our society. I have quoted this poll to counter the idea that the "people" don't want HB847. I will admit it would be difficult not to use a poll that so clearly supports your argument.

The weakness of this poll is not that many will not have boated on Winnipesaukee. It's the inadvisability of relying on the opinion of people that know very little about about the details and history of the topic.

Lakegeezer

04-22-2008, 10:42 AM

NH citizens that are lake users should have a stronger say on lake issues than the general NH population, because they have more knowledge of reality. The NH general population should get involved with issues such as water quality and economic issues, but should stay away from micromanagement of how to drive a boat - especially since the rules already define safe boating.

My big problem with the polls is that they can (and have been) impacted by a PR campaign. The image that the WinnFabs have been promoting is a lake that is out of control. It has been effective in swaying opinion, and no doubt impacting the local economy. On most of the lake, most of the time, it is far from true.

Resident 2B

04-22-2008, 12:17 PM

Folks,

If the proponents wanted to do a survey that was fair, they would have done it in Laconia, or Meredith, or Alton, or Wolfeboro. However, if they did the survey in one of these places, they knew they would not get the desired result. So they did the survey in Manchester, not a center of lake knowledge in my opinion, after a well-designed PR campaign that told the people in Manchester that the lake was full of dangerously fast boats. They got the result they wanted even though the people that they polled had no first-hand knowledge of boating on the lake.

In the end they got "hard evidence". That is what they wanted and that is what they bought!

Do not get fooled by this!! Of course it makes no sense. They paid for a survey that would support their cause. That is exactly what it is. The survey is complete crap!! They know it and we know it. However, it supports their cause just like the other smoke and mirrors they use.

I hope that in the end, the Senate will see through all of this and do the right thing. I believe the Senate knows crap when they see it.

R2B

Bear Islander

04-22-2008, 01:10 PM

EricP

04-22-2008, 01:34 PM

What evidence do you have that the proponents did this survey?

Do you have evidence that the proponents paid for this survey as you claim?

He is policy director of some pro hb847 group and he presented the stats as though they collected them. Lame presentation, and he didn't sell it well.

KonaChick

04-22-2008, 01:58 PM

DoTheMath

04-22-2008, 02:05 PM

Resident 2B

04-22-2008, 02:09 PM

What evidence do you have that the proponents did this survey?

Do you have evidence that the proponents paid for this survey as you claim?

http://www.winnfabs.com/StatewidePoll.htm

ARG did the survey and they do not work for free.

WINNSFABS is using the data.

Who else would have paid for it??

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck!!

R2B

codeman671

04-22-2008, 02:25 PM

Just Sold

04-22-2008, 02:28 PM

News Article in Fosters today:

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/GJNEWS02/595026805/-1/CITNEWS

chipj29

04-22-2008, 02:31 PM

APS your jetski/sufer picture is priceless. How ignorant do you think people are? Most legit surfing competitions HIRE jetskis to bring surfers out, rescue stranded surfers and to be available in case of surfer emergency. Your picture is just an example of mother nature and how unpredictable she can be. Shame on you for your blatant fear mongering and trying to link this picture with ANYTHING that could happen on the lake...tsk tsk tsk.

I can't believe I missed that part of his post. I actually saw that video on TV recently, on one of those "Worlds Wildest Video" shows. The jet ski was there for the exact reason you state...to assist the surfers. The guy on the jet ski came across the top of the wave and went a hair too far, and the wave sucked him in. There was nothing he could do. And I have to say, he was in no way going at an excessive speed. Except for when the jet ski was riderless going down the wave. :eek:
Anyway, the guy was supposed to be there. He just mishandled a wave. Nice try on the horror spin and fear mongering APS.

Bear Islander

04-22-2008, 02:56 PM

http://www.winnfabs.com/StatewidePoll.htm

ARG did the survey and they do not work for free.

WINNSFABS is using the data.

Who else would have paid for it??

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it is a duck!!

R2B

It's very easy to deny evidence that is not evidence at all.

What makes you believe that the ARG does not work for free?

Yes, WinnFABS is using the data. Would the opposition use the data if it supported their position?

The ARG has been taking what they call the "New Hampshire Poll" on current events, quarterly for more than 30 years. It is my understanding that the speed limit questions were part of that poll. If there is evidence to the contrary I would appreciate someone producing it.

I have quoted that study many times, but would not have done so if I thought it was paid for by one side.

Islander

04-22-2008, 03:23 PM

Sounds like pretty solid evidence to me! Hard to deny that.

If you call that "solid" evidence, please don't go out on the lake ice.

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

Skip

04-22-2008, 04:46 PM

..."I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.[/COLOR]

Can anyone explain why this boating Senators opinion does not count?

I can.

She is not a Senator, she is a member of the House from Belknap County (Republican from Gilford).

The House has already had its say....;)

Islander

04-22-2008, 05:18 PM

I can.

She is not a Senator, she is a member of the House from Belknap County (Republican from Gil ford).

The House has already had its say....;)

She is a republican that is familiar with the lake. Therefore she must be hiding a secret hatred of performance boats. It can't really be about safety.

Why no correction about the American Research Group?

Skip

04-22-2008, 05:24 PM

...Why no correction about the American Research Group?...

I've never placed much stock in what "Dick" Bennett and his Group (http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/problem-with-american-research-group.html) has had to say.... ;)

EricP

04-22-2008, 05:37 PM

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

I was there, she had no idea what she was saying. She never said the word speeding, she said "excessive speed" twice. Which again can be 10 MPH when two vessels are within 150' of each other and more than likely what her two close calls were. I could almost read that in her testimony. When the chairman asked her what this "tipping point" was, she fumbled for words and threw a very incoherent sentence and explanation together. Also I don't have to count her opinion, she doesn't represent me.

Those who were in favor of HB847 kept using the phrase "excessive speed" to make their points and in some cases very sheepishly as if to make us believe excessive speed means over 45 MPH when in fact it's doesn't

GWC...

04-22-2008, 06:12 PM

She is a republican that is familiar with the lake. Therefore she must be hiding a secret hatred of performance boats. It can't really be about safety.

The term RINO jumped into my thoughts....

Being a sponsor of the Bill (http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=17024&can_id=21352) might explain her wordage...

codeman671

04-22-2008, 07:25 PM

If you call that "solid" evidence, please don't go out on the lake ice.

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

So then, please enlighten us with who actually ordered and paid for the survey?

Actual speed is a matter of opinion unless being measured electronically. Not everyone can look at a vessel under way and estimate with a fair level of accuracy at what speed it is traveling. "Speed played a part in safety" does not mean that a boat was necessarily speeding. Probably an infringement of the 150' rule.

Spin away...

chase1

04-22-2008, 07:59 PM

If you call that "solid" evidence, please don't go out on the lake ice.

And from a REPUBLICAN Representative in a Winnipesaukee town.
Rep. Alida Mill ham, R-Gilford, agreed, saying that New Hampshire lawmakers are always hesitant to pass laws that impact people's freedoms, but she said certain issues reach a "tipping point" where action is necessary.

"I think New Hampshire is at that point," said Millham.

Millham said she has had two close calls while boating on the lake where speed played a part in a safety concern.

Can anyone explain why this boating Legislators opinion does not count?

I thought she first stated that she had been boating on the Lake for 56 yrs or something to that effect. Two close calls in 56 yrs is nothing that concerns me. Sorry............who is to say she was not at fault in those situations.

Chase1

Islander

04-22-2008, 09:20 PM

So then, please enlighten us with who actually ordered and paid for the survey?

Actual speed is a matter of opinion unless being measured electronically. Not everyone can look at a vessel under way and estimate with a fair level of accuracy at what speed it is traveling. "Speed played a part in safety" does not mean that a boat was necessarily speeding. Probably an infringement of the 150' rule.

Spin away...

I don't know who paid for the poll. I have been told the American Research Group did it on their own. Perhaps you guys should known the answer before you blame WinnFABS.

I don't know the details behind the representatives encounters on the lake. But no matter what happened, one of our elected leaders thinks it's a problem that needs to be addressed.

hazelnut

04-22-2008, 10:26 PM

Wow kinda feels like it's crumbling for the supporters side. Hope so :D Who knows until the votes are counted though. Does anyone know when the official voe takes place?

Skip

04-23-2008, 04:30 AM

While the current legislation we are discussing is not specifically mentioned in this op-ed piece, I thought that this particular opinion is both timely and relevant to the discussion at hand.

Charlie Arlinghause (http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Charles+Arlinghaus%3a+Some+t houghts+on+being+an+island+in+a+sea+of+socialism&articleId=41a5e20a-7ff5-4b84-9f12-ebaf46f0dd83) in this morning's Union Leader. :)

Skip

04-23-2008, 05:18 AM

...What makes you believe that the ARG does not work for free?...

Almost overlooked this.

Anyway, the poll was commissioned and paid for by the NH Lakes Association, a supporter of WINNFABS and a solid proponent of speed limit legislation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Nancy Christie,
NH Lakes Association
(603) 226-0299

NEW STATEWIDE POLL INDICATES STRONG SUPPORT FOR 45 MPH DAYTIME /25 MPH
NIGHTTIME SPEED LIMITS ON STATE’S PUBLIC WATERS

Concord, NH (February 16, 2006) – According to a recent poll of New Hampshire
registered voters, 63 percent favor a state law that would place a 45 mph
daytime and a 25 mph nighttime speed limit on all inland public waters – lakes,
ponds and rivers. Only 9% opposed the idea. The study was commissioned by
the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a statewide, non-profit organization whose
mission is to protect the Public Trust, and conducted by the American Research
Group of Manchester, NH......

chipj29

04-23-2008, 06:48 AM

Almost overlooked this.

Anyway, the poll was commissioned and paid for by the NH Lakes Association, a supporter of WINNFABS and a solid proponent of speed limit legislation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Nancy Christie,
NH Lakes Association
(603) 226-0299

NEW STATEWIDE POLL INDICATES STRONG SUPPORT FOR 45 MPH DAYTIME /25 MPH
NIGHTTIME SPEED LIMITS ON STATE’S PUBLIC WATERS

Concord, NH (February 16, 2006) – According to a recent poll of New Hampshire
registered voters, 63 percent favor a state law that would place a 45 mph
daytime and a 25 mph nighttime speed limit on all inland public waters – lakes,
ponds and rivers. Only 9% opposed the idea. The study was commissioned by
the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a statewide, non-profit organization whose
mission is to protect the Public Trust, and conducted by the American Research
Group of Manchester, NH......

Ya but Skip, it doesn't specifically say that they paid for the poll... :rolleye1:
More spin coming in T-minus 3....2....1....

Islander

04-23-2008, 07:16 AM

Almost overlooked this.

Anyway, the poll was commissioned and paid for by the NH Lakes Association, a supporter of WINNFABS and a solid proponent of speed limit legislation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Nancy Christie,
NH Lakes Association
(603) 226-0299

NEW STATEWIDE POLL INDICATES STRONG SUPPORT FOR 45 MPH DAYTIME /25 MPH
NIGHTTIME SPEED LIMITS ON STATE’S PUBLIC WATERS

Concord, NH (February 16, 2006) – According to a recent poll of New Hampshire
registered voters, 63 percent favor a state law that would place a 45 mph
daytime and a 25 mph nighttime speed limit on all inland public waters – lakes,
ponds and rivers. Only 9% opposed the idea. The study was commissioned by
the New Hampshire Lakes Association, a statewide, non-profit organization whose
mission is to protect the Public Trust, and conducted by the Amknerican Research
Group of Manchester, NH......

Thanks Skip, so it was NOT WinnFABS that paid for the study! Nice how you try and tar with the same brush, obviously the NHLA and WinnFABS are not the same, not even in the same ballpark. However if you support speed limits you must be part of the same "vast left wing conspiracy".

However from the dates that looks like the second study done in 2006. Who paid for the "New Hampshire Poll" done in the spring of 2005?

Islander

04-23-2008, 07:21 AM

I was there, she had no idea what she was saying. She never said the word speeding, she said "excessive speed" twice. Which again can be 10 MPH when two vessels are within 150' of each other and more than likely what her two close calls were. I could almost read that in her testimony. When the chairman asked her what this "tipping point" was, she fumbled for words and threw a very incoherent sentence and explanation together. Also I don't have to count her opinion, she doesn't represent me.

Those who were in favor of HBO kept using the phrase "excessive speed" to make their points and in some cases very sheepishly as if to make us believe excessive speed means over 45 MPH when in fact it's doesn't

That was a direct quote from the article Just Sold posted.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/GJNEWS02/595026805/-1/CITNEWS

Hazelnut - The wheels are coming off the opposition bus amid false accusations about WinnFABS and you come up with "crumbling"? You are losing touch, wait for the vote.

Skipper of the Sea Que

04-23-2008, 08:03 AM

Thanks Skip. Glad you got to the bottom of that. I can connect the dots and follow the $$ trail. Chipj29, you are right, it does not claim WinnFabs paid for the poll but others can connect the dots too. The $$ might not make any difference if the poll is not biased.

It's been explained before but let me try to explain it this way:

If my dear elderly aunt were still alive (her family were long time residents of Manchester) she might have been one of those polled. She would have been misled and answered the questions under false assumptions. The poll taker would probably say who he was and that he was conducting a telephone poll.

Then he starts the poll. The bias starts with the set up statement - it is not properly worded

The Script for the poll wording starts:

"Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?"

(so there is no confusion, I have stopped quoting and now present my brief summary of the 4 questions and my comments)

That set-up makes it sound like there are NO speed limits on the lake(s) and nothing in the law about reasonable speeds or the 150' law. Only a small percentage of those polled might know what is already in place. Laws are already in place about reasonable speed. What is Marine Patrol having trouble enforcing and how would a 45/25 speed limits help the MP? Not mentioned to those polled.

There were 3 answer choices: Favor, Oppose, Undecided.

The 4 questions all specify a 45mph day and 25 mph night speed limit for boats. The questions:
Do you favor a 45/25 limit? Do you BELIEVE 45/25 will make lakes safer, make lakes more enjoyable, help MP enforce boating laws.

My elderly aunt would sure want safer and friendlier lakes. Help Marine Patrol enforce the law, who wouldn't want that? Sure she would tend to FAVOR the best sounding of the ONLY CHOICES PRESENTED to her. She wouldn't know that there were already speed limits and laws regarding reasonable speed on the big lake.

Obviously do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats MUST mean that speed is not currently addressed. A FALSE assumption to start with. It would HELP the Marine Patrol to impose 45/25 mph speed limits. Did the MP ever say they were in need of this limit to "help" them or is this all an attempt at adding bias to the response to the poll questions?

The funding, the wording - is this really an unbiased poll?

Thanks again Skip. And Chipj, I'm gonna get dizzy from all the upcoming spinning :laugh:

Sigh... let them vote already and get this over with!

chipj29

04-23-2008, 08:14 AM

Sigh... let them vote already and get this over with!

On that, I think we ALL agree!!

codeman671

04-23-2008, 08:33 AM

Thanks Skip, so it was NOT WinnFABS that paid for the study! Nice how you try and tar with the same brush, obviously the NHLA and WinnFABS are not the same, not even in the same ballpark. However if you support speed limits you must be part of the same "vast left wing conspiracy".

However from the dates that looks like the second study done in 2006. Who paid for the "New Hampshire Poll" done in the spring of 2005?

The article was written in Feb 06 and mentions a previous study, I don't think it is unrealistic that they could be talking abut the 05 study, especially if the results were only released later in the year.

It was commissioned by a clear supporter of Winnfabs, people that are probably members of Winnfabs as well. Basically the same people! A pretty basic way of putting just enough distance between the two so that it is not so obvious that Winnfabbs is behind it. No conspiracy theory needed...

The solid fact here is that it was started by a supporter of the speed limit. That is hard to deny. If this was to be a real survey it should have been conducted by a neutral party and with a group that had solid knowledge of the lake instead of people that may not have ever even been here. Your group claims that the MP speed study was tainted but don't think this one is? Give me a break!!!

At this point I don't really care what happens. I think that it is a pathetic campaign that the supporters have concocted to push this through. Fear, lies and misconceptions are all that this is based on. It won't affect me either way.

I hope you get what you wish for, the end result many not be as pleasant as you think...

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 08:37 AM

EricP

04-23-2008, 09:09 AM

That was a direct quote from the article Just Sold posted.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/GJNEWS02/595026805/-1/CITNEWS

The article is not accurate, he apparently used the word "speed" instead of "excessive speed", which are effectively the same thing anyway, but exactly what she said. I wonder if the hearing is recorded and if we can get copies of it, I know what she said because it annoyed me. I'll say it again and ask you to address this comment, a simple agree or disagree is all that is required: "10 MPH is excessive speed when within 150' of pretty much anything else out there"

There is no way you can disgree with that statement and IMHO is really what her problem was at whatever incidents happened. Had those incidents she cited happened with boats going over 45 MPH she would have said speeding, or traveling over 45 MPH, or something to that affect, but she didn't and I suggest that is because it was really 150' violations and she was spinning them into the speed limit arguement. I hardly think a speed limit would have affected those situations.

Resident 2B

04-23-2008, 09:36 AM

codeman671

04-23-2008, 09:44 AM

Hi Skip

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

My post referred to the New Hampshire Poll taken in June 2005. This is the one that started all the POLL controversy. I see you have found that the later poll with more questions was ordered by NHLA.

Do you know if the New Hampshire Poll was paid for? It looks like it is part of their ongoing public opinion polls.

"The New Hampshire Poll is an independent poll that has surveyed New Hampshire residents on social, political, and economic issues on a regular basis since 1976"

They say it is "independent" to my way of thinking that means not paid for by one side. Do you think this is not true?

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/

So you think that they just did this poll for the heck of it? It does not fit into their regular topics. We already found who asked for it!

Quarterly results:
NH Business Conditions
Personal Finances
NH/US in a Recession
Lynch Job Ratings
Bush Job Ratings in NH

Non-quarterly surveys:
Shaheen/Sununu
Guinta/Lynch
4-Year Term
Civil Unions
Smoking Ban
Boat Speed Limits
Income Tax
Kelo Amendment
2004 Democratic Tracking
2004 Democratic Presidential Preference
December 1976

Return to ARG home

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 10:33 AM

So you think that they just did this poll for the heck of it? It does not fit into their regular topics. We already found who asked for it!

Quarterly results:
NH Business Conditions
Personal Finances
NH/US in a Recession
Lynch Job Ratings
Bush Job Ratings in NH

Non-quarterly surveys:
Shaheen/Sununu
Guinta/Lynch
4-Year Term
Civil Unions
Smoking Ban
Boat Speed Limits
Income Tax
Kelo Amendment
2004 Democratic Tracking
2004 Democratic Presidential Preference
December 1976

Return to ARG home

Skip found a different poll done a year later.

And Yes, I believe the "New Hampshire Poll" is done as part of their ongoing independent surveys.

In any event a responsible person would know the answer BEFORE posting that it was WinnFABS. If you post without knowing and later find out your guess was right that is luck, not vindication.

Resident 2B

04-23-2008, 10:53 AM

Skip found a different poll done a year later.

And Yes, I believe the "New Hampshire Poll" is done as part of their ongoing independent surveys.

In any event a responsible person would know the answer BEFORE posting that it was WinnFABS. If you post without knowing and later find out your guess was right that is luck, not vindication.

Come on BI!

Your side is doing all it can to buy a law that restricts the personal freedom of a group of people that your side does not want on the lake. That is clearly what you folks are doing through your very-well financed, professional campaign.

Your side has stooped to no limit in doing this. Baised surveys, misinformation about things on other lakes in other states that do not have our 150' rule and photos that create false messages are what you folks are all about. To me, your activities are very un-American and completely shameless. You all should be thinking about your devious role in a free society.

This has just been completely proven by many posters who care about freedom and the rights of American citizens who like to boat on a lake that your side thinks they own.

Your recent post shows the behavior of a child that just got caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar. :laugh:

R2B

Island Lover

04-23-2008, 10:56 AM

My recollection is that the first poll was done independant with only one question. The anti speed limit group said there were not enough questions (and other complaints). NHLA would not sign onto HB162 then because it was only for Winnipesaukee. The next year NHLA had American Reesearch do a more detailed study.

The only poll that counts is done in the State House.

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 11:10 AM

Come on BI!

Your side is doing all it can to buy a law that restricts the personal freedom of a group of people that your side does not want on the lake. That is clearly what you folks are doing through your very-well financed, professional campaign.

Your side has stooped to no limit in doing this. Baised surveys, misinformation about things on other lakes in other states that do not have our 150' rule and photos that create false messages are what you folks are all about. To me, your activities are very un-American and completely shameless. You all should be thinking about your devious role in a free society.

This has just been completely proven by many posters who care about freedom and the rights of American citizens who like to boat on a lake that your side thinks they own.

Your recent post shows the behavior of a child that just got caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar. :laugh:

R2B

I don't belong to a "side". I am just me, not a member of any movement.

Both sides can get carried away in heated argument. If you don't like what WinnFABS has done complain to them or complain about them. I am only responsible for me. I disagree with WinnFABS on some key points, in general I support what they do, speed limits.

You have made another claim "well financed" I think you are guessing again. Financed by who? The deep pockets seem to be on your side of the argument. I can tell you I have not seen a penny.

Perhaps when this is all over you will consider that a person can believe in freedom, America AND speed limits.

Island Lover

04-23-2008, 11:35 AM

Hi Resident 2B

Will you please try and make your posts less personal.

Resident 2B

04-23-2008, 11:35 AM

BI,

I have no problem with any speed limit law that is or was passed after careful and thoughtful consideration with proponents and opponents presenting honest and fair arguments. The policing power's opinion should also be given consideration when passing any law.

It is not the law itself that got me so involved in this discussion, it is the tactics of the proponents, which are clearly the over-the-line in so many areas in this discussion.

I would guess this law has a better than 50% chance of being enacted, but the tactics used by the proponents to get the job done is full of lies, misinformation and unfairly biased surveys. This will be remembered by many in a lasting impression of unfair advantage.

The misinformation was so bad that I felt I had to point these things out. I know others feel the same. I remain firm in my position that the tactics used by the porponents are tactics from the McCarthy era of our history and as such are un-American and have no place in a great state who's motto is "Live Free or Die".

That is all from me on this subject. Enough is enough!

Back to discussions on weather and things on the lake that make me love this place. :):):)

Best regards,

R2B

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 12:11 PM

A little follow up on the WinnFABS=NHLA theory. Below are some laws the NHLA have initiated. At the moment they are working on...

Requiring notification of a failed septic system at a purchase and sale agreement of waterfront property.

You may agree or disagree with some of their initiatives, however it seems clear they are a major force in improving our lakes.

NH LAKES initiated the following legislation:

Commission to study the leasing of state-owned shorefront property (2007)

Licensing rental agents of motorized watercraft (2007)

Permanent funding beginning in 2008 for milfoil prevention and research program (2006)

The Volunteer Lake Assessment Program (VLAP) and Coordinator position created in statute (2005)

Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act Commission (2005)

The 'Render Assistance' Amendment to Conduct - After - An - Accident (2004)

Milfoil Prevention & Research Grant Program (2002)

Enhanced Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (2002)

Boater Safety (2000)

Increased Funding for Marine Patrol (1999)

Lead Sinker Bill (1998)

Funding for the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (1994)

Low Phosphate Household Detergents (1994)

DoTheMath

04-23-2008, 12:12 PM

Ok, so - how about a show of hands... who was there on Monday - at the State House - for the hearing? I was - I sat through the whole thing, listened to both sides and found everyone's testimony to be lucid and (for the most part) well thought out. At one point - one of the members of the Transportation Comm. asked the person speaking to address a question of "balance" on the lake. Paraphrased, the question was something like "do you feel that there is a way to compromise, or strike a balance between both sides of this issue"? Basically, how do we not impose a speed limit that would chase away the opponents of the bill, but at the same time keep those that are "frightened" to go out on the lake during the weekend from being chased off and feeling slighted?

As everyone stood and presented their side, it was clearly divided - one side wants speed limits for various reasons, and one side does not for various reasons. But no one really and truly addressed a possible "balance" of the two. Someone got up and stated the balance was the speed limit - clearly that is not a balance, regardless of what anyone on that side might think. Much like an insurance company runs on statistics, and they use actuaries to determine the rates and so on using those stats... the speed limit bill needs to focus on the facts. Facts such as - how many accidents really occurred as a DIRECT result of speed, on the big lake and / or in the state over the last year, or the last 5 or 10? Not how many "close calls" there were or how many times (as stated by one speaker in favor of the limit) they felt "threatened" by a "fast boat" passing too close? Speed on the water is amazingly deceptive - standing on a dock and looking out on to open water, I have had people say to me "wow, look how fast that boat is going!" At which point, I try a little experiment - I hop in my boat and head out and make that same pass (safely of course and following all of the lakes current laws :o) and make a pass at 40 mph. I come back to the dock and ask "how fast do you think that was"? I will typically get anywhere from 55 - 65 mph as an answer, (every so often I get 70+ from someone that is a bit "green" on boating) when I tell them 40mph - they don't believe it! My point!? People that got up Monday to speak in favor of the bill stated all they (thought) they knew about how fast boats went by them "too fast" in their kayak, or row boat or sail boat - but in actuality, no one had a radar gun or knowledge of how fast they were really going. So, what is too fast!? Too fast for the conditions, too fast for the area, or too fast just because it looked like it was too fast? Few had ever been in a boat at 45mph, let alone above that speed and yet - they felt 45mph is "fast enough" for our 27 mile-long lake!? I know the first time I ever went fast in a boat, (as a passenger) it was overwhelming - sensory overload - and it is a euphoric feeling. The first time I ever drove a boat fast, I did it far away from any one or any boat, had someone with me that had lots of experience and I worked my way up based on comfort and skill. I talked to a lot of people with experience and learned how to it it safely, and ALWAYS considered all my surroundings, water conditions, congestion, my equipment etc... Trust me, "fast" feels different - and is very subjective - the first time you do it - because you have never been there before, there have been studies that show what happens to the body in times like that. Your adrenaline kicks in, like on a roller coaster and you just get that feeling of "wow". Performance boats look fast just tied to the dock, painted all fancy and racy - and when going along at 30 or 40 mph, can look like they are going 2x as fast. Once up on plane, a 38' performance boat gives off about the same wake as a 23' bowrider will at the same speed - say 35 mph - so, is the performance boat more of a threat as it passes by? No. By design a performance boats bottom - what it rides on through the water - is designed to turn, run and react quicker then your average "family boat" will. Thus, in the event of having to avoid a situation, will handle that maneuver far better and more successfully than your average boat would.

I own a "performance boat" that will do well over 45mph, I own a 17' Boston Whaler that will do about 43mph, and I own a 12' aluminum boat with an 8hp o/b that will do < 15mph. I have been on the big lake my entire life, since I was 10 mo. old - I'm 39 now - and have seen MANY changes. Boats got bigger, houses got bigger and yes, the area has been developed. We own a house on the water on the west end of the lake and I can't think of a better place to spend my time, esp. now that we have a 3 year old son to share it with. One of the big misconceptions surrounding all of this is that people that own fast boats drive them fast all the time, tearing up the lake recklessly and with careless abandon. As an owner of one, and having many friends who also own them - I can assure you this is NOT the case! We are hard-working family people - with kids - and we go out and enjoy our boating like everyone else, we just choose to do it in a particular style of boat. I don't look down on the guy with a 16' bowrider, or the pontoon boat, or the sail boat, that is their choice as to how they want to enjoy the lake. That is the beauty of this country - freedom of choice - you choose to buy what suits your budget, style of boating and your families needs. And if you are fortunate enough to be able to be out in a boat - on the lake - then ya, consider yourself fortunate! Every weekend, weekday or whenever I can be out there - sharing my time on the water with my family and friends - I consider myself fortunate, as does my wife and our friends.

Growing up, I was taught right from wrong - as most of us were - and with that eventually came an inherent level of common sense. If the stove top is hot, don't touch it - you will get burned and that is not enjoyable. You are told not to touch it, and if you had to find out the hard way just for your own satisfaction - you touched it and learned why, and more than likely - never did it again. I was also taught growing up - by my dad - how to drive a boat, and with that - he taught me how to be a "good boater". How to navigate and do so safely, and how to use the common sense god - and your parents - gave you to enhance that skill! For example, if you see a boat with the hatch up, or dead in the water in the middle of a well-traveled area, stop and ask them if they need help. As an adult, I have been fortunate enough to own many boats of all types, fast, slow, big, small and each boat is suitable for different types of boating. My common sense tells me - taking my 12' aluminum boat out for a ride on a nice sunny Saturday in July with my 3 year old son and venturing across the lake over to Shep Browns for some fuel... really not a good idea! Much like jumping on my mountain bike and heading out for a ride on Rte. 93 on a busy Friday afternoon is not a good idea either. No more would you find me trying to take my "performance boat" into a shallow tiny little cove to go fishing with my son and expecting to not hit anything - like a rock or the bottom, that's what my 12' dingy is for. All boats were designed with a specific range of use as part of that design - a ski boat was not designed to mount outriggers on and go out trawling for tuna. I don't hammer nails with a pipe wrench, I use a hammer - I don't eat tomato soup with a fork, I use a spoon.... I use the right tool, the right utensil for the task at hand, it's just common sense. All these people that "fear for their lives" on the lake - need to stop and think about what they are doing. Are you the guy or gal riding your mountain bike on rte. 93 during the Friday afternoon rush!? Are you trying to eat your peas with a butter knife and wondering why it doesn't work for you like it does in the cartoons!? Are you trying to cross a busy section of the lake in your kayak on a Saturday and not giving it a second thought, and then wondering why you possibly feel "unsafe"!? Are you carrying 500lb propane tanks on a 17' boat across to an island - as stated by one speaker Monday - and wondering why you feel "threatened" by passing boaters!? BTW - is that smart - let alone even legal to do, shouldn't there be something to regulate that kind of reckless transport?!? Hey, how's that overloaded floating time-bomb you are driving!? Maybe use a big barge to carry a load like that next time - a bit more suitable, don't you think!?

The balance is to boat smarter - not slower! Use your head when you go out there and boat for the conditions that are present. Just because things have changed over the last 50, 70, 100 years... doesn't mean that time should be meant to stand still, and we should revert back to 1962. Everyone should be free to enjoy the lake with whatever type of boat their budget and life-style dictates, so long as they use it in a reasonable and prudent manner for the prevailing conditions at that time. That covers the type of boat, the water and traffic conditions, the elements, etc... All you need to do is think - put the brain in gear before the boat, (or before the paddle hits the water) and consider what you are about to do. You wouldn't take a Ferrari out in a snow storm as you know it wasn't designed for that - and thus, probably won't have positive results. So, why would you load your kids, your dog, a cooler and a set of skis into your boat and head out to the channel between Meredith Neck and Bear Island on a busy summer Saturday and say "ok, who's going to get in and go for a ski first!?" When you could be smart about it, take 5 min. and drive over to the back side of Beaver Isl. and do the same with little to no traffic to worry about and be much safer!?

At the end of the day - you can't teach common sense - but you can teach people to be better / safer / smarter boaters! We are doing that through the safe boating certificate program now, and it is working very well! We need to continue that program and support it's goals and we will continue to be amazed at the positive results, many of which we have seen already!!

Be safe - be smart and all will benefit from it!

Airwaves

04-23-2008, 12:26 PM

So let me get this straight. The speed limit crowd is quoting from a survey done by a firm with a questionable reputation, conducted in an area away from the lake, and with an unknown number of people that have experience on Lake Winnipesaukee?

But they call the Marine Patrol research, conducted on the lake in much the same manner in which they will have to set up radar posts if this bill becomes law, flawed?

The ARS survery, as I understand it would be like conducting a poll for the Republican Presidential Primary but including Democratic voters in the results!

In the spirit of compromise, and this is mainly directed toward any Senator or State Rep that happens to be lurking. I would propose the following that would solve most of the problems raised by the folks truely concerned about safety (none of the issues raised by people who want performance boats gone) and at the same time I believe it would be acceptable to many of the folks that oppose HB847.

Substitute the language in HB 847 with the USCG Navigation Rule 6. Here are the benefits.

1. It would give Marine Patrol greater flexibility in deciding what is an unsafe speed for the conditions that exist.
2. The could enforce this law visually, without the need for radar.
3. Without having to rely on radar they don't have to divert resources currently used for safety patrols.
4. No additional funds need be spent for radar certification.
5. Rule 6 spells out exactly what criteria is used in its enforcement.
6. It would not establish arbitrary numbers allowing boats to travel at speeds that are safe above or below 45 given existing conditions.
7. It actually addresses safety issues.

I would back the adoption of Rule 6 100%.

Bear Islander

04-23-2008, 01:04 PM

So in the spirit of compromise, you are will to accept what the opposition has wanted all along. This is the kind of "compromise" that will give you 45/25 everywhere.

For a second I thought you might be talking real compromise, like 45/25 except in the broads.

Skip

04-23-2008, 02:57 PM

...Hi Skip

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

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion! :)

Evenstar

04-23-2008, 03:24 PM

. . . This transaltes to congestion, not speed as a problem. That's why she's afraid to teach people to ski, to many boats at certain times so you adjust your pattern. Simple solution.
Congestion is certainly a factor. But it is not the only factor. My best friend and I have only kayaked on Winni during the week – yet we have had close calls with high-speed boats in the middle of the week – when congestion was not a factor at all.

The 150' rule is probably our best safety measure by far, and this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake, it's been demonstrated time and again that NH is a safe state to boat in with our current laws and there's no need to change that.
The 150 foot rule hasn’t protected me from people who were going faster than their ability. Boats have violated my 150 foot zone just because they were going too fast.

Another guy spoke to the fear of kayaking across the broads. I liked his analogy. He stated he has a 38 foot boat but you won't see him driving it to China. It's not safe. Same goes for kayaking in the broads on a weekend when there's a lot of traffic, it's just not safe.
Winni is not all that big. It’s only 20 miles long – and there’s only about 2 square miles of the entire lake where you can be more than a mile from a shoreline. The only reason that it is not safe for me is because there are boats that are traveling too fast. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water. I have safely kayaked out in the middle of Squam on the busiest weekends of the summer – because it has a speed limit.

Now if someone, like Evenstar, has good skills and wants to kayak in the broads, then you have to understand the risks and compensate for them. Like someone else here suggested, put a flag on the bow or stern so it's easier to see you. It's perfectly legal to walk down Meredith Neck Road at midnight on a cloudy weekend night in the Summer, but if I were to do so I's understand that it could be dangerous and wear something light in color, maybe even reflective or carry a flashlight so I am visible. It's not required but I ain't no dummy! Safety goes both ways. When you engage in something you know could be risky you make sure you account for it. It's so crazy to scream "I want a law" rather than to accept some personal responsibility for our endeavors.
How many times do I have to explain this?

Why don’t you people stick to what you know?

A sea kayak is long and narrow. My kayak is only 22 inches wide! I control it with thigh braces . . . and by leaning (which is called “putting it on edge”). Paddling a sea kayak is a constant balancing act.
A flag that would be large enough and tall enough to actually make a difference in my visibility would make my kayak very unstable – and it would make my kayak practically impossible to steer in even a moderate breeze, since it would make my kayak like a weathervane.

My kayak is very visible – its upper hull is bright red and its lower hull is white. My friend’s kayak it bright yellow. My paddle blades are bright orange and my PFD is red.

We are extremely visible!

Yet some high speed boats have still violated our 150 foot zone – in the middle of a sunny afternoon – because they were going too fast and they didn’t see us in time. That is the problem.

In decent visibility I can spot most other kayaks up to a mile away – but I’m only going about 5 mph.

I bought an expensive sea kayak because I wanted a kayak that was safe to use out on large lakes and on coastal waters - my kayak was designed expecially for this. I carry safety equipment with me and wear the proper clothing for the water temperature. I have taken seminars on advanced paddling and on coastal navigation. I have done everything possible to ensure my safety.

I'm "screaming" because, no matter how skilled I am, or how prepared I am, or how visible my kayak and I are . . . high speed boaters have endangered me on Winni - because they were going too fast!

This is not about me being unsafe or doing unsafe things - this is about high speed boat operators who will not slow down to a safe speed without the state enacting a speed limit.

Skip

04-23-2008, 04:43 PM

Took some digging but Evenstar is correct, it can be very dangerous to kayak on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Way back in 1983, an excerpt from "The Sea Canoeist":

"...Last fall was another story. There have been two deaths and three or four close calls reported. On October 29, 1983, Brian Insley died on Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. The cause of death listed was drowning (water was found in the lungs). Most certainly the real cause was hypothermia due to the 38 to 40 degree water in the lake. Most hypothermia victims "drown" if they lose consciousness while in the water. Brian was an intermediate level paddler who could Eskimo roll but had never practiced it with the paddle he designed and was using. We will never know exactly what happened as he was paddling alone. One long-time resident on the lake described the weather as the second biggest windstorm in 30 years. Brian's life jackets were at home (he found them uncomfortable and had just ordered a new one). He had little or no flotation in the kayak, which was found with only a foot or so of one end exposed above the surface. He apparently had no flares or other emergency locating devices. Brian was an excellent swimmer and from the locations of the body and the kayak it appears that he swam about one half mile, which is remarkable in 400 water. Although Brian was capable of a deep water self-rescue. the lack of flotation in his boat probably precluded that. A few weeks previously he had paddled in far milder winds and waves and told a companion that they were the roughest conditions he had ever kayaked in. It appears Brian used extremely poor judgment to go out apparently far from shore, in a big storm, on a cold lake without even the most basic preparations necessary for a short paddle on a warm summer day in a group. Since the autopsy showed a blood alcohol level of 0.12 (0.05 is considered impaired, and 0.10 is legally intoxicated in Washington State), it appears that the alcohol contributed to his poor judgment. Brian was using an Escape, a fairly stable fibreglass kayak..."

KonaChick

04-23-2008, 05:11 PM

Airwaves

04-23-2008, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Bear Islander
So in the spirit of compromise, you are will to accept what the opposition has wanted all along. This is the kind of "compromise" that will give you 45/25 everywhere.

For a second I thought you might be talking real compromise, like 45/25 except in the broads.
As I wrote:
In the spirit of compromise, and this is mainly directed toward any Senator or State Rep that happens to be lurking. I would propose the following that would solve most of the problems raised by the folks truely concerned about safety (none of the issues raised by people who want performance boats gone) and at the same time I believe it would be acceptable to many of the folks that oppose HB847.

Substitute the language in HB 847 with the USCG Navigation Rule 6.

Islander

04-23-2008, 05:28 PM

Too bad there wasn't a speed limit...this man's life could have been saved.:rolleye2:

I guess that's funny to some.

Cal

04-23-2008, 05:34 PM

Hi Richard,

Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion! :)

Watch out Skip , here it comes

KonaChick

04-23-2008, 06:52 PM

I guess that's funny to some.

Only someone without a ♥ would think so....

Evenstar

04-23-2008, 07:14 PM

Too bad there wasn't a speed limit...this man's life could have been saved.:rolleye2:
You people are really pathetic!

First Skip digs up something that happened 25 years ago, which has nothing at all to do with the speed limit. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, other than to use this tragedy to poke fun at me.:(

And then KonaChick tries to make a joke out of someone's death.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Look, people make mistakes all the time and some pay the ultimate price for a mistake. But at least his mistake wasn't the cause of an innocent person being killed.

I know all about hypothermia. My collegiate sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. But we all dress for the cold temperatures. And I kayak in northern NH from mid April to mid Nov, but I have the proper gear for doing so. And I don't drink. And I wear a PFD. And my kayak has sealed flotation chambers. And I can do self rescues.

I do everything I can to be safe out there. But I can't protect myself from someone who is going too fast to notice me. Which is why I'm fighting for a speed limit - because I don't want to become a statistic.

Is there nothing that you will not stoop to? And my posts are the ones being moderated!!! I don't even think I want to be part of a forum like this one anymore.

You are not the type of people that I even want to associate with.

jrc

04-23-2008, 10:22 PM

The only poll that counts is done in the State House.

Yahoo!!!

And don't forget the Governor's desk!!!

ApS

04-24-2008, 04:59 AM

"...APS - duuuuude, looks like you have no surfing experience either, huh!?! ;):rolleye2:..."
Several forum members know that my younger years were spent at Lanakai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii—YES, I have surfing experience. :cool: (Just no "duuuuude" experience)

Boaters in the mix were not a problem—but they are now—and are being banned ([URL=http://www.srosurf.com/gennews/tow1.html[/url]) in several places.

"...I have had close calls on my PWCs at slow speeds and none with boats at high speeds. All were 150' infractions..."
PWCs have close calls too? :eek: Now empathize with the boater who doesn't have an engine in order to swerve. Sailboats and kayaks can't swerve.

BTW, All collisions are 150' infractions: If your PWC is damaged and needs less than $2000 to repair, a report to NHMP is unnecessary. (A recent change for NH boaters—upped from $500).

...but the statistic is lost: The Coast Guard estimates that only 10% of non-fatal collision reports make it to their desk. :(

"...The NH general population...should stay away from micromanagement of how to drive a boat - especially since the rules already define safe boating.
Managing boaters traveling at 70 to 130+ is not micromanaging: it's managing protected inland waters from the criss-crossing of boats traveling at wide-open (and insane) speeds. IMHO.

"...Except for when the jet ski was riderless going down the wave..." :eek:
Hmmm...riderless?

The quantity of "incidents" with riderless and overpowered 4½-ton boats are legion. Long Lake's "driver-free ride" last year endangered lake dwellers 130 feet up from the shoreline. (Not a record, BTW...500 feet is a recent record.)

"...this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake...,"
1) Director Barrett's "Temporary Speed Limit" soothed (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Chase%3A+Boat+speed+lim its+will+make+summers+on+big+lake+better&articleId=3b029326-689a-4510-9407-789376f5182b) the waters last season.

2) Certification with reciprocity is deeply flawed for New Hampshire—and a two year sunset provision is a good test, and Not Forever.

3) I think the governor will sign it. Who would want the ramifications of the next incident on his hands?

chipj29

04-24-2008, 07:49 AM

Several forum members know that my younger years were spent at Lanakai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii—YES, I have surfing experience. :cool: (Just no "duuuuude" experience)

Boaters in the mix were not a problem—but they are now—and are being banned ([URL=http://www.srosurf.com/gennews/tow1.html[/url]) in several places.

PWCs have close calls too? :eek: Now empathize with the boater who doesn't have an engine in order to swerve. Sailboats and kayaks can't swerve.

BTW, All collisions are 150' infractions: If your PWC is damaged and needs less than $2000 to repair, a report to NHMP is unnecessary. (A recent change for NH boaters—upped from $500).

...but the statistic is lost: The Coast Guard estimates that only 10% of non-fatal collision reports make it to their desk. :(

Managing boaters traveling at 70 to 130+ is not micromanaging: it's managing protected inland waters from the criss-crossing of boats traveling at wide-open (and insane) speeds. IMHO.

Hmmm...riderless?

The quantity of "incidents" with riderless and overpowered 4½-ton boats are legion. Long Lake's "driver-free ride" last year endangered lake dwellers 130 feet up from the shoreline. (Not a record, BTW...500 feet is a recent record.)
How many "riderless" incidents have there been on Winnipesaukee? You posted a picture of a riderless jet ski going down the face of a 12 foot wave. What does that have to do with a speed limit on Lake Winni?
1) Director Barrett's "Temporary Speed Limit" soothed (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+Chase%3A+Boat+speed+lim its+will+make+summers+on+big+lake+better&articleId=3b029326-689a-4510-9407-789376f5182b) the waters last season.

2) Certification with reciprocity is deeply flawed for New Hampshire—and a two year sunset provision is a good test, and Not Forever.

3) I think the governor will sign it. Who would want the ramifications of the next incident on his hands?

The governor has stated in the past that he will not sign it.

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 08:03 AM

The governor has stated in the past that he will not sign it.

That is not what the Governor said.

codeman671

04-24-2008, 08:08 AM

...but the statistic is lost: The Coast Guard estimates that only 10% of non-fatal collision reports make it to their desk. :(

Wh is this? Because damages ranging between $500-$2000 are not serious and certainly nothing that a speed limit will prevent. Anything serious would be reported, a boat hitting a rock and not sinking or a few boats bumping at a dock are of no concern to the CG.

DoTheMath

04-24-2008, 08:20 AM

Several forum members know that my younger years were spent at Lanakai Beach, Oahu, Hawaii—YES, I have surfing experience. :cool: (Just no "duuuuude" experience)

Er - first off it's Lanikai Beach in O'ahu - and just because you've been to the North Pole, doesn't make you Santa Claus. ;)

I've been to more than one of the Hawaiian islands but I don't claim to be to be King Kamehameha! :rolleye2:

KonaChick

04-24-2008, 08:51 AM

You people are really pathetic!

First Skip digs up something that happened 25 years ago, which has nothing at all to do with the speed limit. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, other than to use this tragedy to poke fun at me.:(

And then KonaChick tries to make a joke out of someone's death.

Well, I'm not laughing.

Look, people make mistakes all the time and some pay the ultimate price for a mistake. But at least his mistake wasn't the cause of an innocent person being killed.

I know all about hypothermia. My collegiate sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. But we all dress for the cold temperatures. And I kayak in northern NH from mid April to mid Nov, but I have the proper gear for doing so. And I don't drink. And I wear a PFD. And my kayak has sealed flotation chambers. And I can do self rescues.

I do everything I can to be safe out there. But I can't protect myself from someone who is going too fast to notice me. Which is why I'm fighting for a speed limit - because I don't want to become a statistic.

Is there nothing that you will not stoop to? And my posts are the ones being moderated!!! I don't even think I want to be part of a forum like this one anymore.

You are not the type of people that I even want to associate with.

I'm not trying to make a joke of anyone's death but simply pointing out that a speed limit would not have made a difference in this man's death, sorry to say. I used the "rolling my eyes" smilie to simply convey that a speed limit would not have helped this man. This man died from his own foolish choices. Let's end the comments about joking about this man's death as that was not my intention. Thank you!

chipj29

04-24-2008, 09:53 AM

That is not what the Governor said.

What has he said?

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 11:11 AM

What has he said?

"MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee

The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night.

Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."

chipj29

04-24-2008, 11:43 AM

"MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee

The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night.

Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."

Sorry, I was mistaken. He certainly didn't specifically say he would not sign it. However, this doesn't sound like he is too confident that he would sign it..."Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee".

chmeeee

04-24-2008, 12:08 PM

Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

Glad to hear that there is some common sense in Concord. :)

GWC...

04-24-2008, 12:11 PM

And my posts are the ones being moderated!!! I don't even think I want to be part of a forum like this one anymore.

You are not the type of people that I even want to associate with.
This Forum believes in freedom of choice; so, adios...

ApS

04-24-2008, 12:34 PM

"...Wh is this? Because damages ranging between $500-$2000 are not serious and certainly nothing that a speed limit will prevent..."
If you ran over any one of my four sailboats (each not reaching a value of $2000)—and it sank out of sight forever—I would not need to report that loss to the NHMP/Coast Guard. (If the boat's occupants remained unkilled, uncrushed, and undrowned, that is.) :rolleye2:

Conversely, if your $2200 purple-and-yellow-plastic graphics decal got damaged in the collision, you'd need to file a report. (You have 24-hours to report any of the boat's occupants killed, crushed, or drowned).

"...Anything serious would be reported, a boat hitting a rock and not sinking or a few boats bumping at a dock are of no concern to the CG..."
A boat hitting a rock is not a collision: dock bumps seldom do $2000 damage.

Rock-striking would be "running aground" or "striking a fixed object". Each is a separate category in CG statistics, and which receive full Coast Guard statistical attention IF reported to the NHMP.

New Hampshire recorded only two full-season BUIs and two "Running Agrounds" in recent years—statewide!

California, for example, still requires reports of >$500 damage, which makes California "look" more hazardous to boaters.

Conversely, New Hampshire reports so few Winnipesaukee damage reports—the threshold being $2000—it instantly assumes a "statistically safer" lake over California's lakes.

Pret-t-y smart of our tourist-state's Legislators, huh? :rolleye2:

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 12:52 PM

Glad to hear that there is some common sense in Concord. :)

Does that hold even if he signs it?

chmeeee

04-24-2008, 01:43 PM

Does that hold even if he signs it?

Not sure why he'd sign a speed limit bill when he himself says that "speed is not the problem..."

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 01:48 PM

Not sure why he'd sign a speed limit bill when he himself says that "speed is not the problem..."

That was not the question. What if he does sign it?

hazelnut

04-24-2008, 02:03 PM

That was not the question. What if he does sign it?

Then there is no common sense in Concord. Shesh that wasn't hard to figure out.

chmeeee

04-24-2008, 02:08 PM

Then there is no common sense in Concord. Shesh that wasn't hard to figure out.

^^ What he said.

Airwaves

04-24-2008, 07:20 PM

So, beyond Bear Islander, no member of the speed limit crowd has commented on my proposal at a compromise, adopt Rule 6.

The question has been raised whether Governor Lynch will sign the bill or not, I don't know. Politics is a funny thing.

But to come back to previous posts;
Originally posted by APS
Managing boaters traveling at 70 to 130+ is not micromanaging: it's managing protected inland waters from the criss-crossing of boats traveling at wide-open (and insane) speeds. IMHO.
Here again, the New Hampshire Marine Patrol research, conducted on Lake Winnipesaukee (in New Hampshire just so that you don't have to go searching far and wide) did not show that to be true. It showed that fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar, done in much the same way the Marine Patrol will conduct radar posts if this bill becomes law, were traveling over 45 and as I recall off the top of my head the highest speed recorded was in the low 60's.

Originally posted by Evenstar:
First Skip digs up something that happened 25 years ago, which has nothing at all to do with the speed limit. I'm not even sure what you're getting at, other than to use this tragedy to poke fun at me.
I don't think, although I can't speak for everyone, that people are poking fun at you, just your thought process. At the same time you lament a kayak accident from 25 years ago being dragged up, the speed limit crowd points to an accident involving a Cigarette Boat nearly 40 years ago!

So an accident 25 years ago is not germain, but one 40 years ago is? Neither accident is relavent and that was the point.

Originally posted by APS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP
"...this is the first year that boating certification is mandatory so I think we should let it bake...,"

1) Director Barrett's "Temporary Speed Limit" soothed the waters last season.

2) Certification with reciprocity is deeply flawed for New Hampshire—and a two year sunset provision is a good test, and Not Forever.

3) I think the governor will sign it. Who would want the ramifications of the next incident on his hands?

1) Director Barrett's research was just that, research. Bear Islander openly accused the Marine Patrol of fudging the results of that research. I disagree! The Marine Patrol conducted the research in the same way that I expect they will set up radar posts if this bill becomes law. I also expect the same results because speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee

2) This is the first year all powerboaters in New Hampshire are required to have a NASBLA approved safe boating certificate.
As Evenstar's former Coast Guard Station Commander from Florida wrote, paraphrasing here, As boater education increases, accidents decrease. Lake Winnipesaukee has one of the best safety records in the area, if not the best! Speed has not been blamed in any accident on Winnipesaukee in years! So since this is the first year safe boating certificates are required for all powerboaters, this would be the time for the two year "sunset test"!

In the 1970's when the Cigarette Boat accident in Gilford happend (still waiting for any kind of a link or PDF file from a newspaper article) nothing was required, as a matter of fact I believe there was still an on the water event involving sailboats going from point to point, landing on town docks, going to a bar, throwing back a drink, then going to the next point race. I don't recall what they called it but alcohol and driving, on land and on water, were not looked upon as a bad thing back in those days! Times have changed, and for the better I might add!

3) Will Governor Lynch sign this bill if it's approved? That's the wildcard. I don't know the inside politics of NH so I can only speculate on two points.

A. Is the bill necessary? Even Governor Lynch questions the need.
B. The bill would require either additional funding for the Marine Patrol or cutback in the services currently provided, either way I doubt Governor Lynch would approve.

So the wildcard is politics and on that point I don't know.

Airwaves

04-24-2008, 07:37 PM

Since I am a moderated contributor, I can not edit a post so that even now, prior to my post getting on line, when I have discovered I made an error, I can't fix it without a separate post.

This is the separate post.

In my previous post I said, that Bear Islander accused the Marine Patrol of fudging data. I was wrong, those were not the words he used. The following is his quote;

"Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study".

BI you have my apologies. The rest of my post stands as written.
AW

Bear Islander

04-24-2008, 09:03 PM

If Lynch refuses to sign I will have even more respect for him. It would be a gutsy thing for him to do.

Grady223

05-01-2008, 09:55 AM

When is the bill to go for a Senate vote?

Wolfeboro_Baja

05-01-2008, 11:32 AM

When is the bill to go for a Senate vote?
One way would be to keep an eye on the most recent Senate calendar (NOT the journal) at this link, http://gencourt.state.nh.us/scaljourns/.

fatlazyless

05-01-2008, 01:59 PM

If Lynch refuses to sign I will have even more respect for him. It would be a gutsy thing for him to do.

Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the executive manuever where the gov doesn't sign it, doesn't veto it, but just lets it sit on his desk for ten days, and thus becomes a passed law without his signature.

There must be a political name for that legislative sidestep. "Whoopsie, yes it is now law, but don't blame me because I did not sign it." :laugh:

Skip

05-01-2008, 05:06 PM

...Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the executive manuever where the gov doesn't sign it, doesn't veto it, but just lets it sit on his desk for ten days, and thus becomes a passed law without his signature...

Actually that timetable is wrong.

When a Bill reaches the Governor's desk, he must either sign or veto it within five days, not ten. If he fails to veto and does not sign the Bill within that time frame (weekend & holidays excluded), it becomes law without his signature.

However, the above paragraph only applies if the Bill is submitted to the Governor while the Legislature is still in session. If the Bill reaches the Governor's desk after a legislative session has expired and the Governor refuses to sign it within the necessary five days, the Bill then dies in what is known as the "pocket veto", an no official veto from the Governor is necessary.

Bear Islander

05-01-2008, 06:02 PM

Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the executive manuever where the gov doesn't sign it, doesn't veto it, but just lets it sit on his desk for ten days, and thus becomes a passed law without his signature.

There must be a political name for that legislative sidestep. "Whoopsie, yes it is now law, but don't blame me because I did not sign it." :laugh:

It would take some guts for the Governor to veto or let the bill die. It's popular with the general public and will have passed the Senate, and by a large margin, the House.

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

I think he should sign it, but I would respect his courage if he didn't.

brk-lnt

05-01-2008, 06:36 PM

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

Considering that hasn't yet happened, it is pretty hard to "imagine".

Conversely, if he DOES veto the bill, and the proverbial sky doesn't fall, will you then give him credit for not implementing a needless law that solves no problems?

Bear Islander

05-01-2008, 08:33 PM

Considering that hasn't yet happened, it is pretty hard to "imagine".

Conversely, if he DOES veto the bill, and the proverbial sky doesn't fall, will you then give him credit for not implementing a needless law that solves no problems?

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back

Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

GWC...

05-01-2008, 10:07 PM

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back

Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!
There's a safe answer if there ever were one...

Why?

Because none of the above will ever happen as a result of the passage of the Speed Limit Bill.

Airwaves

05-01-2008, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Bear Islander
You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back

Yes, absolutely, if all that happens I will be happy to say I was wrong!

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! You're wrong on all counts.
1. Nope, no boating accidents there.
2. WInnipesaukee has a noise limit regulation in place, right? That would be an enforcement issue....duh!
3. That would be a planning and zoning issue with the towns, they want money they grant developments. On water the 150' law.
4. Boats on plane don't erode the shore.
5. Kayakers, canoers etc. continue to use the lake and die in more numbers than powerboaters due to drunk boating and hypothermia, not collisions.
6. Some have compared Winnipesaukee to Quabbin. Quabbin does not allow boats or camps. Wanna do that?
7. Bear Islander continues to link the two, then deny it. However performance boats/speed limits don't appear to be at play here.
8. Hi Performance boats generally don't go near Loon nesting areas, it appears the major problem is the family boat and paddler.
9. As someone who rents to families, the economy, not boating is the key. Most former hotels and motels are now condos, there are fewer places for the "family"to go.

Not a single issue was raise by Bear Islander in his top "9" list that had to do with a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee!

This is the first year of mandatory boater safety certificates, let it work!

Woodsy

05-02-2008, 07:35 AM

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

So what your saying is...

It's perfectly acceptable for a 300HP family bowrider to have a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee? After all, they would not have left due to a speed limit! WOW! I kinda expect that kind of glib statement from APS, not you!

There have been NO ACCIDENTS ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE in the last 5 1/2 years involving a "Boat that might have left due to a speed limit" In fact I find it funny that you guys have to use the sensationalized boating accident that occurred in other states to make your point! Unfortunately the common theme with all the accidents you use as examples is Alcohol Intoxication! I am STILL waiting for you to post an example of a hi-speed boating accident that DID NOT INVOLVE ALCOHOL! Good thing I am not holding my breath!

People stop complaining about boat noise

I am pretty sure we already have a law on the books to address boat noise... and it is ENFORCED! How does a speed limit help with noise? Fay's sells thier family bowrider Chapparalls with thru hull exhaust and switchable exhaust (illegal I know, but it doesnt seem to stop Ole Merrill!) so even the family boats make noise!

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

The Lake Winnipesaukee is not congested... there are maybe 8-9 WEEKENDS out of the summer the lake has some busy spots... and they are usally centered around the different town docks... Weirs, Meredith, Alton etc. How is a speed limit going affect congestion? A speed limit will not drastically reduce the number of boats plying Lake Winnipesaukee! In fact its the WinnFabs position that EVEN MORE boats will come to Lake Winnipesaukee if a speed limit were to pass!

Wakes stop eroding the shores

The only way to prevent boat wakes from eroding the shoreline is to eliminate boats completely. Is this your suggestion? Regardless of size or HP, every planing hull ever manufactured throws a tremendouse wake while transitioning from displacement to on-plane and viceversa.

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Kayakers & Canoeists have to share the lake with everyone else! Thier fear while real to some of them, is completely unfounded! There have been no incidents of any canoe or kayker being injured from a collision with a powerboat at any speed on Lake Winnipesaukee! The only accident involving a kayak or canoe in recent memory is the one that occurred last year... but ultimately, the kayakers were in the wrong! Paddling at night without a light, and intoxicated is asking for trouble... naked and without a life jacket just compounds the situation! How is a speed limit going to remedy this situation?

Water quality stops dropping

If you have an issue with water quality, why not push for a ban on ALL 2-stroke motors on Lake Winnipesaukee? They by far the worse polluters on the lake! Why not campaign for cleaner powerplants in the Midwest to alleviate the acid rain and help restore the lakes PH? I really dont see how using a speed limit to get rid of a few large fast boats only to replace them with a greater number of smaller boats helps the water quality?

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

Childrens Camps are a great resource, however, ultimately they have to share the lake with everyone else. A speed limit will not enable Childrens Camps to use the lake whenever they wish, especially if as WinnFabs states more boats will come to the lake if there is a speed limit! However, a "CAMP ZONE" NWZ that extends out 300'-500' might just do the trick! There is an idea that doesnt infringe on anybody and protects the children!

The loon population rebounds

Unfortunately, the Loon population is not going to dramatically rebound... it really isnt a question about boat wakes or speed, the reality is Loons are terratorial birds, and a nesting pair needs space... traditionally Loons nest in quiet calm coves. Not the place you find speeding Hi-performance boats! Lake Winnipesaukee doesn't have any habitat left for them to nest! People have built on just about evey piece of shoreline on Lake Winnipesaukee. Unless your advocating a building moratorium and taking peoples houses & camps by emminent domain there isnt much that is going to dramatically affect the Loon population on Lake Winnipesaukee. Perhaps your $200,000 space flight money would be better spent by tearing down your camp and converting the property back to its natural state? Maybe the Loons would appreciate it? :laugh::laugh:

Families that were staying away come back

Just where are these families supposed to stay? Where are they supposed to put thier boats? There are only a few cottage rental places left as most have been converted to condos. That leaves the expensive hotels like Church Landing, The Inn at Mills Falls, BayPoint, Chase House, NASWA and the Margate. All but two are owned by one company! Most of these places get between $180 -$330 per night during the summer season! How is this affordable to the average family? Especially given the state of the economy and the price of gas! How is a speed limit going to help make a visit to Lake Winnipesaukee more affordable for the average Joe?

Woodsy

Bear Islander

05-02-2008, 09:23 AM

So what your saying is...

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

ITD

05-02-2008, 09:38 AM

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

Let me make it simple, the lake does not need a speed limit. There is not a problem the speed limit will solve. The speed limit will cause meager MP finances to be further strained. MP will be taken from useful duties, such as monitoring the Weirs area for 150 foot violations and other concerns, to set up speed traps in the Broads and other low density areas to catch the less than 0.5 % who may travel over 45 mph. It won't save the loons, it won't make less wakes, it won't reduce noise, it won't reduce congestion. The speed limit will INCREASE the probability of a death, because the MP have LESS time for more useful enforcement.

Woodsy was quoting your written posts in this forum, that's not putting words in your mouth.

chipj29

05-02-2008, 10:24 AM

No, that's not what I am saying.

I am able to make my own points without your putting words in my mouth.

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

That is YOUR opinion. Here is mine:

The lake will not be better with a speed limit.

Bear Islander

05-02-2008, 10:42 AM

Woodsy was quoting your written posts in this forum, that's not putting words in your mouth.

Woodsy posted this...

So what your saying is...

It's perfectly acceptable for a 300HP family bowrider to have a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee?

Where did I say that?

That's called putting words in someones mouth. I never said that or anything like it, and I certainly never would. Woodsy knew that when he posted it. He was doing it for effect.

B R

05-02-2008, 11:24 AM

I'll make it simple. The lake will be better with a speed limit than without one.

In your Opinion (there ya go, you keep forgetting to add that).

Woodsy

05-02-2008, 11:24 AM

BI...

I did not put words in your mouth!

You stated....

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

Explain your meaning then? Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong? Your statement was crystal clear! I merely extrapolated the obvious. You want no accidents involving boats that might have left because of a speed limit.

Statistically, boating accidents are going to happen regardless of any and all laws & regulation. Your statement above would lead one to belive that as long as the accidents do not happen to involve a high performance boat, you're ok with it! So if some 300HP family bowrider causes a fatal accident, well then its ok because it didnt involve a high performance boat. The logic path you use is pretty simple.

The biggest problem with your argument is that there haven't been any accidents that caused serious injury or death "involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee in 5 1/2 years! The one accident that occurred happened at night @ approx 28MPH and get this... that accident involved ALCOHOL! By your own admission, high speed accidents are so rare you need to search far & wide to come up with a high speed accident, and when you do they all inevitably involve ALCOHOL! I am STILL waiting for you to produce the SOBER high speed accident data...

Ultimately, your mind is made up You just don't like High Performance Boats and thats that! You ought to just be straight up about it instead of using ridiculous, misleading, false propaganda coupled with a healthy dose of fear to prove your point.

Woodsy

fatlazyless

05-02-2008, 11:26 AM

HB167, which was the 2006 version of HB847, got nixed on March 16, 2006. And, as of today, May 2, 2008, which is six weeks later along a similar legislative schedule, the speed limits bill is still very much alive & kicking. Apparently, HB847 has legs otherwise it would have already been nixed.

Anyone know what is going on with HB847. Like, is it resting inside a plain manilla folder in the "in" shelf of the Senate President's 220 year old state house desk, or somewhere. Like, if you could pinpoint exactly where this bill is physically and intellectually located.....where's it at? How's it work? Do the 24 state senators all come back from a lengthy lunch where the senator who buys the final ice-breaker gets to decide what bill gets acted upon, or what? :rolleye1:

I got to wonder...wonder...wonder where-o-where it is...just a simple answer please...this simple inquiring mind needs to know? :banana:

B R

05-02-2008, 11:27 AM

You mean if there are no high speed accidents

No accidents involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit

People stop complaining about boat noise

Congestion stops being a problem on the lake

Wakes stop eroding the shores

Kayakers, canoers etc. are no longer afraid to use the lake.

Water quality stops dropping

Children's camps are able to use the lake whenever they wish

The loon population rebounds

Families that were staying away come back

What effect are you going for here? Is this the "kitchen sink" effect?

Bear Islander

05-02-2008, 12:17 PM

BI...

I did not put words in your mouth!

You stated....

Explain your meaning then? Perhaps I am interpreting your statement wrong? Your statement was crystal clear! I merely extrapolated the obvious. You want no accidents involving boats that might have left because of a speed limit.

Statistically, boating accidents are going to happen regardless of any and all laws & regulation. Your statement above would lead one to belive that as long as the accidents do not happen to involve a high performance boat, you're ok with it! So if some 300HP family bowrider causes a fatal accident, well then its ok because it didnt involve a high performance boat. The logic path you use is pretty simple.

The biggest problem with your argument is that there haven't been any accidents that caused serious injury or death "involving boats that might have left do to a speed limit" on Lake Winnipesaukee in 5 1/2 years! The one accident that occurred happened at night @ approx 28MPH and get this... that accident involved ALCOHOL! By your own admission, high speed accidents are so rare you need to search far & wide to come up with a high speed accident, and when you do they all inevitably involve ALCOHOL! I am STILL waiting for you to produce the SOBER high speed accident data...

Ultimately, your mind is made up You just don't like High Performance Boats and thats that! You ought to just be straight up about it instead of using ridiculous, misleading, false propaganda coupled with a healthy dose of fear to prove your point.

Woodsy

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

Once again you are taking one small comment and running hog wild with it and assuming it says things it doesn't.

This is a quote by you from post #678 of the other thread.

While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake!

If there will be less high speed boats on the lake with a speed limit, then there will be less chance of high speed boating accidents.

Less high speed boats = Less high speed accidents

No high speed boats = No high speed accidents

B R-
It's an honest answer to a question I was asked

chipj29

05-02-2008, 12:38 PM

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

Bear Islander

05-02-2008, 01:08 PM

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.

No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

chipj29

05-02-2008, 01:49 PM

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.

No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

BlackCatIslander

05-02-2008, 02:03 PM

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

Merrymeeting

05-02-2008, 02:20 PM

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

Bear Islander

05-02-2008, 02:31 PM

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

ITD

05-02-2008, 03:02 PM

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

Ditto,

Democracy is messy business. I too have been following these exchanges and while they are certainly passionate, they have been for the most part respectful.

While these debates are outside of the normal course of these forums, our webmaster has set aside a special area for this topic so that people offended or sick of the debate can easily avoid it. Please use this option and avoid the debate if it bothers you, rather than complaining here about the debate and jeopardizing this medium. This sub forum has been priceless for ferreting out the truth as to what the speed limit is about.

Thank you Don.

Dave R

05-02-2008, 03:51 PM

If Senators are really reading this forum, they should know that Bear Island is adjacent to one of the busiest narrow passages on the lake. Any law that reduces the number of boats on the lake would benefit Bear Island residents, especially those on the northwest side, greatly. The support of speed limits, HP limits, and displacement limits by Bear Islander, clearly indicates his desire to reduce the number of boats on the lake. His motives are extremely self-serving.

I can empathize, but I cannot support a law aimed squarely at reducing boats when everyone in NH should be able to enjoy the lake in a safe and reasonable manner, not just those with lakefront homes near busy areas.

Most of the speed limit opponents are family boaters, like me, who do not have fast boats, and probably never will. We won't be affected by a speed limit, but we are not naive enough to think it's really about safety. It's not, it's pure, selfish, snobbery.

Islander

05-02-2008, 04:02 PM

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

GWC...

05-02-2008, 05:03 PM

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.
So, now we are to believe the Senate members have Old Timer's (Alzheimer’s) and must constantly be reminder that the Lake is unsafe and a Speed Limit is a panacea for its ills.

Finally, some rationale for the constant ranting...

And here I thought it was the old adage, tell yourself a lie often enough and you will believe it to be the truth...

chipj29

05-02-2008, 06:31 PM

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

Islander

05-02-2008, 07:17 PM

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

Littlefield

EricP

05-02-2008, 07:40 PM

Littlefield

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

Islander

05-02-2008, 08:25 PM

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

That's not what the jury determined.

VtSteve

05-03-2008, 09:18 AM

It seems that one of the most obvious things lacking in this argument is enforcement. The 150' law is not being enforced, they are not able to enforce it effectively, or it's the perception of many that it's not the law that's important, but the speed.

Fact is, the 150' law has always been a good one. If the marine patrol was able to enforce it diligently, it would deter unsafe boating practices. If they can't enforce that, how's the speed limit going to be enforced? In addition, any and all information available for the lake suggests that the vast majority of all lake boating accidents occurs at speeds lower than the speed limit set. It's pretty obvious what the intended result of the limit is.

My boat is only 22', yet can go 55 mph or faster. Many of today's boats can in fact exceed the speed limit. Speed clearly isn't the issue. Common sense and respect is. I'd be in favor of a 200' distance limit frankly. Maybe it would be easier for people to estimate. But then again, I've kept a safe distance and close lookout on boats for my entire life. There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave.

It's fairly obvious that many are disturbed by these large, and many times, noisy boats. That's obvious. Many will still be disturbed by them whether they are traveling at 30 mph or 60 mph. They simply want them to leave. They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by. I understand how hard it would be to pass a law that states "We Want Those Boats Gone."

USCG Rule 6, dealing with Safe Speed, is a universal standard that deals with common sense. Someone pointed this law out, but no responses. As always, it's usually the enforcement of existing laws that is lacking. BWI and reckless behavior are the two most prevalent causes of boating accidents. There are laws against them, but they continue to be the highest contributing factor.

The speed limit advocates should at least be honest. If the law passes, they should immediately start concocting excuses and spins designed to explain the accidents in the future. If history is a guide, the accidents, close calls, and fearful feelings will continue.

It's really very simple.

1) When in congested waters, be alert, slow down, be careful as heck.

2) When pulling a skier/tuber/wakeboarder. Do so safely, you don't own the lake either. Have some common sense. If not born with it, buy some.

3) PFC's. Come on already, buy a clue.

4) Unpowered vessels. It was not safe 50 years ago to be where some of you venture now, and nothing's changed.

5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

jrc

05-03-2008, 09:51 AM

Great first post, Vtsteve!

Dave R

05-03-2008, 10:36 AM

Welcome VTSteve. Perhaps I'll drop in ya on Champlain this Summer.

Bear Islander

05-03-2008, 11:05 AM

...There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave....

...They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by...

5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

Thanks VtSteve, for pointing out that large cruisers and GFBLs are create big destructive wakes and dangerous situations.

I don't think we can get them to comply so I think we should "get them to leave" as you suggest.

chipj29

05-03-2008, 11:20 AM

Littlefield

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

That's not what the jury determined.

You cannot be serious...

Islander

05-03-2008, 12:25 PM

You cannot be serious...

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

GWC...

05-03-2008, 05:20 PM

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!
The fact is the jury found him guilty of not keeping a proper lookout while operating a boat (http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/littl071.htm).

No mention of his operating a boat at an unreasonable speed.

To quote you:
I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

codeman671

05-03-2008, 09:05 PM

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

Cal

05-03-2008, 09:45 PM

Islander

05-03-2008, 09:51 PM

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

The question here is which boating accidents should be attributed to alcohol. I think accidents where there is a conviction for BWI can be attributed to alcohol. Are you suggesting the Coast Guard statistics should be based on the majority opinion of the people that frequent the local internet boating forum? That doesn't sound very scientific, does it.

No official determination of BWI was made. However it WAS officially determined that the speed was 28 mph. And that, as we all know, is more than the proposed limit.

jrc

05-03-2008, 10:38 PM

.... However it WAS officially determined that the speed was 28 mph. And that, as we all know, is more than the proposed limit.

Actually if you believe Skip, then Littlefield was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.

...The proposed law this year is in the same format as previous proposals, the speed limit will be a "prima facie" limit based on the unreasonable speed concept and not an "absolute" limit, as found in nearby Maine.

The difference? Significant to law enforcement personnel.

In Maine and other States that have "absolute" speed limits, it is an accepted concept that regardless of conditions any speed over the posted limit is proof of guilt.

In New Hampshire the proposed boating speed limits will be based on the same principles as our terrestial limits, the "prima facie" and "unreasonable speed" concept.

Simply stated, while any spped over the posted limit is "prima facie" evidence that an offense has occured, the operator can use an affirmative defense that given the time, place and conditions the speed at the time was not "unreasonable".

Let's say that it is 5:00 PM on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of the Broads. Its a bright and clear day with unlimited visibility. Its only you and the MP radar boat. You will not receive a ticket for 46 in a 45 unless that poor MP officer never wants to face the wrath of that particular court again.

It is a pretty poorly kept secret that in New Hampshire, depending on the Department, the leeway under normal conditions to succesfully get a conviction before a Municipal Court judge is anywhere from 10 to 15 MPH over the posted limit.

Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.

Islander

05-03-2008, 10:58 PM

Actually if you believe Skip, then Little field was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.

Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny:laugh:

The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.:laugh:

Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?

Skip

05-04-2008, 06:09 AM

It is unfortunate that even though the public record of this felony is published and readily available, some still have not taken but a moment to review the case they cite.

We have covered this several times before, but once again I will provide the link to the full transcript of the Littlefield appeal HERE (http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2005/littl071.htm) and accentuate pertinent portions of the following paragraphs where the Court clearly recognizes the jury’s right to consider the ample evidence provided of Daniel Littlefield’s intoxication on the night of the tragedy.

As this transcript and the original trial transcript clearly show, Daniel Littlefield committed, was convicted and served his sentence for the felony of Negligent Homicide while failing to maintain a proper lookout while operating his vessel due in part to his intoxicated state.

From the appeal:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening. The defendant testified that he drank four beers during the afternoon of August 11. He also testified that he drank two full glasses of wine, and a portion of a third glass, over the course of the evening in Meredith. Steven Plimpton testified that at approximately 9:00 p.m., he observed the defendant grab a railing after apparently stumbling up the stairs from the beach to the bar area of the Town Docks restaurant. Plimpton also testified that he commented to Tsakiris, "Wow, he seems intoxicated." Tsakiris testified to this same incident. Diane Girard, who had known the Littlefields for a number of years, testified that she started to talk with the defendant that evening, but eventually walked away because she couldn’t understand him very well; it appeared to her that he had been drinking too much — he was slurring his words, and was unsteady on his feet. Jeff Jaran, the chief of police in Sandwich, knew the defendant as an acquaintance for many years. Chief Jaran testified that he spoke with the defendant that evening. He believed the defendant had had "a lot to drink"; the defendant was obviously impaired and "visibly intoxicated," his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet.
Judith Kelley, a long-time friend of the defendant’s, spoke to the defendant at the Town Docks restaurant that evening. Aware that the defendant had returned the previous day from a two-week business trip overseas, she testified that he "looked tired," and she thought "that maybe he had jet lag or . . . he just didn’t seem wide awake and bright-eyed." Robert Phelps testified that as the Baja prepared to leave the Meredith docks shortly before 9:30 p.m., he observed that the operator had difficulty installing the boat’s stern light, and in pulling away from the dock, because he "realized that he hadn’t undone the stern line." The defendant testified that as he piloted the Baja, he held the boat’s wheel with one hand and had his other arm around his wife, with whom he carried on a conversation. He further testified that prior to the collision, he was looking "straight ahead" at the lights on the Weirs and some boats "way out in the distance."
Given our standard of review in this case, we believe there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s intoxication, his attention level while piloting the Baja, the speed at which he operated his boat on a dark, moonless night, and his failure to see a properly illuminated boat in front of him.
The defendant contends, however, that the jury’s verdict of not guilty on indictment #03-S-007 meant that it had reached a unanimous decision that Mr. Hartman’s death did not occur because the defendant’s ability to operate the Baja was impaired by alcohol to any degree. The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257...

brk-lnt

05-04-2008, 07:27 AM

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny:laugh:

What's even funnier is that the best example the pro-speed limit crowd can come up with is a case where the details are highly debatable, at best.

I'd wager that you, and everyone else, reading and commenting on these threads have gone "28 in a 25" on many occasions, even if you were attempting to adhere to speed limit laws. Trying to get an accurate MPH (or KPH) reading in most boats is an exercise in futility. For the purposes of the arguments here about speed limits, 28 MPH is equivalent to 25 MPH. You can turn this into a statistical argument, but I've personally never heard of someone getting pulled over for 3MPH over the limit.

You trumpet on and on about how a speed limit law will be some magic savior for the lake. Soon the sun will shine, kayakers will be able to paddle without fear and camp directors can raise a new generation of little sailors. This Rockwell-ian magazine cover is not brought about by slowing down 2% of the boats on the lake.

The pro-speed limit group is operating off of NO solid evidence or statistics to support their position. The majority of the "pro" cases are peoples own guesses and interpretations about how a speed limit law will help the lake. However, reality shows that speeding is not really an overall issue on Winnipesaukee.

The senators who read this forum must also know that a speed limit for the lake won't really solve any problems. The bill is written as a 2 year "test drive". With ZERO deaths or accidents on the lake attributed solely to speed IF the bill passes you had better hope that number stays at zero. A single case after the bill would be a 1000% increase in the wrong direction. The other "quality of life" type factors touted as benefits from a speed limit law are difficult to measure, at best, and near impossible to link to any laws passed.

If there was a bona-fide case for speed limits, these debate threads wouldn't go on for hundreds of posts. It is difficult for even the most pig-headed person to argue against a well organized list of sold statistics. Despite what you might think, there is no such list of undeniable pro-speed limit facts in play here. This is nothing more than an emotional issue.

Should HB847 pass, the only thing on your side is the current economy, which will do more to minimize boat traffic on the lake than all your rally cries amplified 100 times.

Islander

05-04-2008, 09:04 AM

Skip

05-04-2008, 09:24 AM

Skip why do you do this. You sit back saying nothing then jump in with an accusation and long non-responsive answer. I'm sure you are aware that what I posted was correct, yet you pretend I have made some sort of mistake.

I posted that Dan was not convicted of BWI

I posted that his speed was determined to be 28 mph.

Both of those things are true! Why do you pretend I have made some kind of error? Please just answer the question. Was Dan convicted of BWI or found not- guilty of BWI? Just because you don't like his being found not-guilty is not a justification to pretend it didn't happen.

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions. :)

Islander

05-04-2008, 09:36 AM

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions. :)

Except that you are not presenting the facts in the case are you. You can not answer a couple of simple questions.

I only claimed that he was found not-guilty of BWI. Was my statement true or not?

Skip

05-04-2008, 09:43 AM

Except that you are not presenting the facts in the case are you. You can not answer a couple of simple questions.

I only claimed that he was found not-guilty of BWI. Was my statement true or not?

Any reasonable person can determine for themselves whether the question asked has been answered.

Spin on.... ;)

Islander

05-04-2008, 10:02 AM

Any reasonable person can determine for themselves whether the question asked has been answered.

Spin on.... ;)

Thanks Skip.

Skip has confirmed the not-guilty of BWI verdict. He was charged with BWI, he was found not-guilty of BWI. I hope that is the last we hear on that subject.

chipj29

05-04-2008, 10:06 AM

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

Silver Duck

05-04-2008, 10:14 AM

Islander

You are correct that Dan was not convicted of BUI (though the jury seems to have considered alcohol to be a contributing factor to "failing to maintain a proper lookout") and that the speed at the time of collision was determined to be 28 mph.

However, I'm curious whether you think that, had an otherwise identical collision occured at 25 mph rather than 28 mph, the outcome would have been materially different? If so, on what do you base this conclusion? To me, it seems counter intuitive that 3 mph would have made a big difference. However, I'm willing to listen to scientific evidence to the contrary if you have some to present!

I'll happily admit that 25 mph at night is a safer speed than 45 mph, or 65 mph; I limit myself to hull speed after dark (about 7 - 8 mph). I just don't think that 25 mph is slow enought to eliminate the likelihood of another tragedy should a collision occur. Personally, I think that safety at night can only be attained through a combination of operator vigilence and, perhaps, something that makes a boat easier to spot from astern. I know from exoperience that it's sometimes difficult to tell from a distance whether the white light in front of you is a boat's stern light or somebody's porch light!

I just don't think that, by itself, the 25 mph speed limit after dark will be enough to make it completely safe to be out there at night.

Silver Duck

Islander

05-04-2008, 10:20 AM

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

Possibly, we will never know. If there had been a 45/25 speed limit in place for many years before the accident, Dan might have been operating a bow rider. Or someone on board may have said "hey isn't there a nighttime speed limit?" Or Dan may have said to himself "I need to be careful not to break the speed limit, I don't want them to stop me for speed and find out I have had two glasses of wine tonight and a couple of beers this afternoon!".

hazelnut

05-04-2008, 10:31 AM

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 10:34 AM

Lakegeezer

05-04-2008, 10:43 AM

Evenstar

05-04-2008, 11:05 AM

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this?
There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.

Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

VtSteve

05-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

Thanks for posting that decision, first time I had read it all. To use that case, or any of the others, in relation to a discussion over GF boats or speed limits is quite telling.

It's obvious, not just from the testimony, but from his actions leaving the dock, he was at least somewhat impaired. If he was piloting a 18 foot bowrider, he would be equally impaired. The fact that he was doing 28 mph, is a pretty ludicrous analogy to supporting a 25 mph speed limit at night. Now if you want to state your gut feeling that a Baja boat owner is more likely than an 18' bowrider owner to get involved in such an accident, then by all means, do so.
It's been my experience on this bog lake over here, that the really dangerous boaters tend to be the smaller boats, particularly 18 feet to 24 feet or so. Just a broad observation I know, but many in the $100,000 dollar an up crowd tend to realize what they have. Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good :rolleye1:

As for water quality and erosion debates. There can't be a reasonable debate about the size of waves from a cruiser versus the go fast boats can there? The cruiser's wake is pretty large from 10 mph up to higher speeds. The GF boats have a momentary larger wake getting to plane, then it levels out to very normal.

I can understand the unstated intent of the law, or at least, the supporters. I really can. It would have been far more reasonable to attack the alleged problems by first, targeting enforcement of the 150' rule. I note that nobody commented on my post, which specifically mentioned the problem. Wonder why? Enforcement requires funding, step 1. If you want a speed limit to quietly address the fact that you would love to rid the lake of "those boaters", then at least have the common sense to enact a speed limit that doesn't limit the huge percentage of boats that safely can travel at 60 mph. I'll bet many proponents of this new law PO me when their boats go by as well. Go 15mph or so in front of my soon to be rocking boat, and I'll think up some new laws myself.

Rid the waters of violators, and you'll have a safer boating experience.

Disingenuous arguments leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

Airwaves

05-04-2008, 12:52 PM

It's clear that the supporters of HB847 aren't pushing the measure because of safety issues.

I have proposed, several times, a measure already in place for most of the boating community that would give the Marine Patrol the "tools in their arsenal" that supporters of HB847 say they need without having to spend additional money or divert manpower. No takers!

I have asked several specific questions of supporters that have made strong claims to provide data, they have not.

So now let me ask, why this bill now? Why would they be pushing so hard during this and the prior leglislative session for this speed limit bill?

Could it be that because safe boating certificates are now mandatory and it has been shown conclusively that boater education reduces boating accidents and that in all likelihood the lake will become an even safer place to enjoy? That fact will make it more difficult for them to perpetuate the lies that the lake isn't safe in order to get a bill like this passed later!

Not a single supporter of HB847 that claims that this is about safety has even commented on the suggestion that the language of HB847 be replaced with the language of Nav Rule 6.

Since the proposed compromise has been out there for a while without comment from those claiming that this is about safety I now submit to you that even those supporters who claim that this is about safety realize that everyone is finally aware that HB847 is nothing more than an effort to ban a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

chipj29

05-04-2008, 01:20 PM

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 01:34 PM

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

brk-lnt

05-04-2008, 02:03 PM

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

Almost every recreational activity has some amount of deaths associated with it. Do not take this to mean that the world needs more laws...

parrothead

05-04-2008, 02:07 PM

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny:laugh:

The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.:laugh:

Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?

Islander, OK if the boat was traveling above the speed limit. Are you happy? It has been said. He was guilty of speeding. He was above the posted speed limit . If HB-847 is passed. But can you look beyond your agenda to see that is not the reason why this accident occurred? Are you going to sit there and say the only reason why this accident occurred was because Littlefield was going 28 mph instead of 25. Nothing else contributed to the accident. Can you say with absolute certainty that this accident would never have occurred because the speed limit was in place. Can you say that he wasn't intoxicated at the time with certainty. How fast was the other boat going? Was it going 25 mph? If both boats were following the speed limit law to the exact MPH then obviously they would have never collided. So ok I provided the one scenario that would cause the speed limit to be pertant here. If both boats were going exactly 25 mph, not 1 mph less or more, then the speed limit would have saved this accident. But the real reason was that Littlefield wasn't paying attention and ran over another boat. If he had seen it he would have avoided it. We can't say for certain he was drunk because he ran, and there was enough time before the police got him for the alcohol he allegedly drank wore off. But according to eye witness accounts, which I don't think you are one, he was slurring his words and stumbling. I mean come on we are not sheep here. We can reason on our own and come to a conclusion. You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

chipj29

05-04-2008, 02:08 PM

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

Islander

05-04-2008, 02:17 PM

You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

See post 158

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 02:26 PM

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

Yes, it does. I-93 is not safe. No highway is safe. The lake is not safe and it never will be.

With respect the last summers accident. You posted "there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now" A fatal accident is evidence the lake is not safe no matter what the cause.

We can never make the lake safe. We can make it safer!

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 02:31 PM

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

That is not true. I have presented many arguments. You reject them.

There is a difference between not presenting arguments, and not presenting arguments that you like.

KonaChick

05-04-2008, 03:17 PM

From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!

http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/0208/feature8/fulltext.html

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 03:41 PM

From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!

http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/0208/feature8/fulltext.html

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

brk-lnt

05-04-2008, 03:47 PM

That is not true. I have presented many arguments. You reject them.

There is a difference between not presenting arguments, and not presenting arguments that you like.

Technically your arguments have been more discredited than rejected.

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 03:55 PM

Technically your arguments have been more discredited than rejected.

In your opinion

parrothead

05-04-2008, 03:58 PM

See post 158

But the speed limit wouldn't have saved Mr. Hartman. Littlefield would still have over taken the Hartmans and collided with them if he was going 25.

brk-lnt

05-04-2008, 04:09 PM

In your opinion

And I don't think I am alone in that opinion.

You've presented some insightful opinions on how a speed limit law might have a positive impact on the lake. However, it's been just that, opinions and emotions.

Airwaves

05-04-2008, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick
From what I can tell and from what's reported in this article, camps on Bear Island are doing just fine!!

http://yellowbordermagazine.com/ngm/.../fulltext.html
That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.
It seems to me it's perfectly germain to this discussion if you're bringing up accidents that have nothing to do with speed on Lake Winnipesaukee and insist that they are relevant to this discussion. The article KonaChick links to discribes a very pleasant place to be, not the fear gripped kids, counselors and directors that you would like us to believe populate the camps.

EricP

05-04-2008, 05:39 PM

It would take some guts for the Governor to veto or let the bill die. It's popular with the general public and will have passed the Senate, and by a large margin, the House.

Any future accidents would be on his head. Imagine he veto's the bill and there is a high speed, fatal accident on the lake! Fair or unfair, he would take the heat.

I think he should sign it, but I would respect his courage if he didn't.

That's an opinion. Based on a rough 2-1 turnout in Concord against HB847 my opinion is that it's NOT popular with the general public!

EricP

05-04-2008, 05:56 PM

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.
Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Not true, we're saying we don't need a speed limit because the stats don't support it.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

Based on the very low number of boats that actually travel over 45MPH the the unusually high number of close calls with these boats you say are traveling over 45MPH I suggest you really don't know what 45MPH looks like as you claim to. I have had my 150' zone violated by idiots before. And that's the real problem, and a speed limit won't fix that. You can't fix stupid. But we can enforce the laws on the books and this is our first full year with mandatory boater certification so I already feel "safer" (not that I felt unsafe).

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

Actually the bill is about fear and perceived safety. The 150' rule addreses your concern about fast moving boats getting along with small, slow boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

Squam is small and a totally different lake than Winni, not even a valid comparison.

VtSteve

05-04-2008, 06:06 PM

That's an opinion. Based on a rough 2-1 turnout in Concord against HB847 my opinion is that it's NOT popular with the general public!

Since nobody's even addressed the issue of enforcement of Existing laws, let alone what impact the new laws, all the arguments are off target.

It has been noted by BI that people now flaunt the existing laws in place. That's wrong, and needs to be addressed first. IMO, because of emotions and fear, they feel a new law will solve the problems and rid the lake of the trouble makers.

IMO, enforcement of existing laws will do that. If not, additional laws targeted AND ENFORCED, could be the means towards the end result.

IF the MP cannot enforce the exiting laws, they need to be given the means to do so. All of the efforts toward getting this feel good law enacted will be for naught.

winnidiver

05-04-2008, 06:43 PM

It's terrible when it rains all weekend,there is nothing to do.So you sit at the computer and argue about speed limits, on the lake.I was laid off in Feb.One of the things I did was read the forum every day It was fun and I found the speed limit debate interesting.Now it's May.You people are saying the same thing you were saying in Feb,March and probable in Dec too.Everyone has made some good points pro and con.Now I have one thing to say.Get out on the water.GET A LIFE.
I am going out and enjoy the lake no matter what they do in Concord.Happy Spring everyone.

KonaChick

05-04-2008, 06:53 PM

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

I think the point being that camp directors, counselors and kids at the camps on BI seem pretty happy and safe even though we have no speed limit. :) It's a great article btw and I'm happy to see you read it!! :)

Bear Islander

05-04-2008, 07:33 PM

I think the point being that camp directors, counselors and kids at the camps on BI seem pretty happy and safe even though we have no speed limit. :) It's a great article btw and I'm happy to see you read it!! :)

I was there is 2001 when the National Geographic reporter and photographer were at the Island. Of course this was years before the speed limit talk started. They took pictures of the Sophie at the Mail Dock and several cabins, but it was the camps that got the coverage.

We all purchased several copies when it was in National Geographic the next year.

KonaChick

05-04-2008, 10:07 PM

I was there is 2001 when the National Geographic reporter and photographer were at the Island. Of course this was years before the speed limit talk started. They took pictures of the Sophie at the Mail Dock and several cabins, but it was the camps that got the coverage.

We all purchased several copies when it was in National Geographic the next year.

I wonder if 7 years later the talk wouldn't be of boy/girl dances, toasting marshmallows over an open fire or the tranquility the lake has to offer but of the unsafe conditions facing these campers on a daily basis as they wander into the waters of Winnipesaukee...it would be interesting to compare.

ApS

05-05-2008, 08:00 AM

"...Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good..."
How about professional athlete Cedric Benson arrested yesterday—drunk—"driving" his 30' CIGARETTE BOAT?

I mention this as the following appears today at Yahoo!

"He should be kicked out of Chicago, but it has nothing to do with this. Seriously, driving a boat drunk isn't serious at all. I know its a crime and all, but come on...no one driving a boat is sober, its just a fact...obviously you've never been on a boat."
('Not going to link to a site that allows foul language—Google "Bearsfan", "NY Guy".)

"...IF the MP cannot enforce the exiting laws, they need to be given the means to do so..."
Your laws on Lake Champlain are undoubtedly enforced by full-time officers. You may not know that Lake Winnipesaukee has a Marine Patrol composed of part-timers employed seasonally.

BTW, have you voted in our newest poll yet? :coolsm:

"...BWI was indeed part of the conviction..."
Once again, he was acquitted of the count of BWI—otherwise he'd still be in jail. Concord mandated a brand new law after the lake's most experienced and most educated performance boater had his "incident".

"...It is difficult for even the most pig-headed person to argue against a well organized list of sold statistics..."
"Sold"?

I think the MP statistical survey was sold —during two months of an announced "Temporary Speed Limit".

The survey was conducted during a Temporary Speed Limit, that was in effect. THAT is a published FACT. :look:

"...However, reality shows that speeding is not really an overall issue on Winnipesaukee..."
Time for a Reality-Check?

Erosion is not an issue,
Pollution is not an issue,
Hartman is not an issue,
Speeding is not an issue,
Unlimited speed is not an issue,
Education is no longer an issue,
Inappropriate boats are not an issue,
Drunks in 4½-tons boats are not an issue,
There is "No Problem" on Lake Winnipesaukee,
Long Lake and other states' tragedies are not an issue,
and Woodsy says, radar doesn't work on water (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16192&postcount=1).

How's this summary so far? :coolsm:

Neanderthal Thunder

05-05-2008, 10:28 AM

]Parrothead wrote,

You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

brk-lnt

05-05-2008, 10:35 AM

]Parrothead wrote,

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

This is assuming that they had been there to speed check the boat in the first place. Most indicators are that this is somewhat unlikely.

Additionally, if the speed was only 28MPH, it's unlikely they would have done anything about a boat going 3MPH over.

Woodsy

05-05-2008, 11:07 AM

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

There is SERIOUS problem with your assumption....

1. The accident occurred just past the Meredith NWZ... the offending boat was or just had transitioned to on-plane... not a whole lot of time for the NHMP to grab a speed reading...

2. Unless the NHMP radar gun was on the EXACT same path & bearing, the Law Of Cosines WOULD have shown the offending boat traveling at a speed LESS than 28MPH! So they wouldn't have been stopped anyway!

3. Perhaps had the Common Man not overserved Danny that night (and convieniently LOST the recipt that showed just how much alcohol had been consumed) this tragedy might not have occurred at all!

Woodsy

Neanderthal Thunder

05-07-2008, 06:12 PM

jrc

05-07-2008, 08:17 PM

Sorry for the delay. I was out of town, having surgury.

It doesn't matter where the Marine Patrol nails his butt. At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence.

Again, there is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunk boater under existing laws.

You think we should have a law in place that's sole purpose is to provide the police an opportunity to violate the 4th amendent? If the police don't have a good reason to stop you, I don't think that traveling 3 MPH over the speed limit would give them reason. The MP are very good at spotting drunks, they don't need to violate our rights to do it.

Now I agree that the MP should stake out waterfront gin mills. But they should do it day and night. Remember the goal is to prevent drunk driving, arresting drunk drivers serves that goal. Scareing drunks not to drive also serves that goal.

Airwaves

05-07-2008, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Neanderthal Thunder
At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence
Originally posted by jrc
Now I agree that the MP should stake out waterfront gin mills.
I wonder if that would even be legal if done on a regular basis? If it is legal then I would speculate that it isn't done more often because of political/economic or even legal (harassment) pressure that the owners of the establishments would bring to bear?

ApS

05-08-2008, 08:23 AM

"...The MP are very good at spotting drunks..."
Yup. The MPs start by looking for debris fields: shards of fiberglass, styrofoam coolers, sponges, engine compartment hoods, PFDs, hats, shoes, swim platform fragments, ejected passengers...et-cetera.
:rolleye1:

Hey...Nobody's noticed that it got through Transportation? With "Ought To Pass"? :confused:

fatlazyless

05-08-2008, 08:57 AM

Today's www.citizen.com has a news article about yesterday's Senate Transportation Committee vote of 3-2 to recommend approving HB 847. It says that the full 24 member Senate will probably vote next Thursday.

One interesting thought to consider. Senator Joe Kenney (R) Wakefield has mentioned that he supports the Winnipesaukee speed limits. His district includes Wolfeboro. As you probably know, he is running for Governor, and he works a communications specialist in the US Marine Corps where he has been an officer since 1980.

Semper Fidelis, Senator Kenney!:)

Island Lover

05-08-2008, 10:03 AM

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

Jeff Thurston of Thurston's Marina in Weirs Beach is among the local dealers supporting the proposed law as a way of ensuring that everyone can use the lake with a sense that they are safe.

Thurston said he has traveled to Lake George in New York and witnessed that a speed limit can work and not have negative consequences on business.

"I think it's long overdue, and I applaud the insight that was displayed by the House and now this committee. Families and children should feel safe being out on the water," said Thurston.

The Weirs Beach business owner expressed his feeling that officials must act to "nurture" a lake that is among its biggest tourist draws in the state.

codeman671

05-08-2008, 10:18 AM

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

Probably because he has no stake in it, all of his lines are small and will not be affected in sales. What does he care? A few of his Cobalts (the ones that don't end up on the bottom) would be the only ones that would break the proposed limit-and not by much.

The opponents list contains almost every dealer on the lake besides them. Here is a portion of the list-mostly marine related:

ACL Industries - Manchester
Adam's Marina - Winnisquam
Andrew's Marine Service - Alton Bay
Atlantic Watercraft Club (charter of American Watercraft Association) - Salem
Averys Auto & Marine - Newport
Back Bay Marina - Wolfeboro
Biggart Marine - Plaistow
Bob's Beacon Marine - Newbury
Browns Auto and Marine - Newport
Center Harbor Dock & Pier Co. - Center Harbor
Channel Marine - Laconia
Dasilva Motorsports - Hampstead, Moultonboro
Dave’s Motorboat Shoppe, LLC - Gilford
Derry Marine & Salvage - Derry
Diamond Shine Boat Detailing - Gilford
Dock Doctor - Gilford
Dover Marine - Portsmouth
East Coast Marine Storage - Epping
Eastcoast Flightcraft Marine of New Hampshire - Meredith
East Coast Performance Center - Salem
Epping Motor Sports - Epping
Extreme Motor Sports - Windham
Gator Signs - Gilford
George's Marina - Dover
Gillan Marine Inc - Alton Bay
Granite State Boatworks - Milford
Glendale Marina - Gilford
Gray's Marina - Enfield
Great Bay Marina - Newington
Green's Marine, Inc. - Hooksett
Goodhue Marine, Inc. - Center Harbor
Hampton River Marina - Hampton
Harpers Boat Restoration - Meredith
HK Powersports - Laconia, Tilton, Hooksett
Irwin Marine - Laconia, Hudson, Alton, Litchfield
Jack Willey's - Tilton
JFG Enterprises Prop
Jim's Mopar Performance - Salem
JP Boating, LLC - Laconia
Lakeport Landing Marina - Laconia
Lakes Region Fiberglass - Laconia
Lakeside Boat Rentals - Alton Bay
Little Bay Marina - Dover
Lucky Lenny's Power Place - Tilton
Marine USA - Milford
Marlin Products Div. Pompanette LLC - Charlestown
Melvin Village Marina - Melvin Village
Miles Marine - Gilford
Moultonborough Canvas - Moultonborough
National Boat - Deerfield
Nault's Windham Honda - Windham
New England Boat & Motor - Laconia
New England Correct Craft - Rochester
Nimar International, Inc. - Walpole
Norm's Marina Inc. - Hinsdale
North/South Performance Boats - Alton Bay
One Stop Toy Shop - Epping
Outdoor Performance Center - Bridgewater
Outdoor Prop Service - Laconia
Owen's Marine - Hooksett
Philbricks Sports Center - Dover
Plaistow Motorsports - Plaistow
Pompanette, LLC - Charlestown
Production Trailer + Dock - Meredith
Professional Mariner, LLC - Rye
R & R Cycles - Manchester
Ray’s Marina & RV Sales, Inc - Milton
Ray Marine, Inc. - Nashua
Rochester Motor Sports - Rochester
Rockingham Boat Repair and Sales - Hampstead
S & W Sports - Concord
Sargents Marine - Georges Mills
Shep Brown's Boat Basin - Meredith, Gilford
Ship Shape Marine Works - Meredith
Shorline CoverWorks - Laconia
SilverSands Marina - Gilford
Sonic Power Marine of New England, LLC - Weirs Beach
Sunapee Harbor Marine - Sunapee
The Trailer Outlet - Tilton
Vintage Race Boat Shop - Wolfeboro
Ward's Boat Shop - Center Ossipee
Watermark Marine Construction - Gilford
Wentworth by the Sea Marina - New Castle
West Marine - Portsmouth
Windham Marine - Windham
Winnipesaukee Motorsports - Meredith
Winnipesaukee Marine Construction - Gilford
Winnisquam Marine - Winnisquam
Y Landing Marina - Meredith

Thurston won't see any of my money going forward...That is for sure.

Dave R

05-08-2008, 11:13 AM

brk-lnt

05-08-2008, 12:23 PM

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

This is about more than bad/not bad for tourism, it's about more needless laws that will go unenforced and solve no issues.

Bear Islander

05-08-2008, 12:47 PM

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

This is about more than bad/not bad for tourism, it's about more needless laws that will go unenforced and solve no issues.

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

The Common Man
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography
Hobo Railroad
Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore
Phoenix Leasing, Inc.
Silver Top Ventures
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration
Millie B
Wolfeboro Trolley Company
Wolfetrap Restaurant

codeman671

05-08-2008, 01:29 PM

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

Funny to see Y-Landing on both lists... Even more funny being that since they sell higher octane gas they are the preferred fillup spot for many performance boaters.

I have heard of Glendale not being a supporter as well, especially being that they are pushing high performance pontoons. When I see Gary this weekend I will ask what their true stance is.

chmeeee

05-08-2008, 02:14 PM

Funny to see Y-Landing on both lists... Even more funny being that since they sell higher octane gas they are the preferred fillup spot for many performance boaters.

I have heard of Glendale not being a supporter as well, especially being that they are pushing high performance pontoons. When I see Gary this weekend I will ask what their true stance is.

Glendale is on both lists as well. Something funny going on there.

Dave R

05-08-2008, 02:21 PM

Glendale is on both lists as well. Something funny going on there.

Probably has to do with the age of the lists. I think the one BI posted is HB162 vintage, it looks like the list of "businesses to avoid" that I printed a couple of years ago. The other may be newer. Anyone know which is newer?

Wolfeboro_Baja

05-08-2008, 03:29 PM

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?
I was wondering the exact same thing!! :)

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.
8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

brk-lnt

05-08-2008, 03:48 PM

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

The Common Man
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
The Common Man Inn

Why not pad that list some more... I'm sure the Tilt'N Diner is a supporter as well. How about the Airport Deli or whatever it is in Manchester that's a CMan property as well..

:emb:

Islander

05-08-2008, 05:48 PM

I was wondering the exact same thing!! :)

8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.

Neanderthal Thunder

05-08-2008, 06:26 PM

jrc wrote:
You think we should have a law in place that's sole purpose is to provide the police an opportunity to violate the 4th amendent?
Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened.

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Islander

05-08-2008, 06:46 PM

Why not pad that list some more... I'm sure the Tilt'N Diner is a supporter as well. How about the Airport Deli or whatever it is in Manchester that's a CMan property as well..

:emb:

Check the opposition list for padding as well. There are many a long way off. And a toy store in Epping.

codeman671

05-08-2008, 07:16 PM

Check the opposition list for padding as well. There are many a long way off. And a toy store in Epping.

You actually think that is a toy store??? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Epping Motors Inc. "The One Stop Toy Shop"
253 Route 125
Epping, NH03042
603-679-9800

It is a car dealer that sells boats, snowmobiles, and whatever "toys" they get in. They recently had a 22' Scarab on their lot. Not one in a wrapper or made by Mattel.

The list was actually a lot longer, I posted one section of it. The list of opponents is clearly much larger. So is the results of the online poll found here...

codeman671

05-08-2008, 07:32 PM

Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Do you understand what happened that night? How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. It is hard to convict someone of a crime without proof that they did it, in this case BWI. Nobody had any doubt that he was drunk and not paying attention, but proving it is a different story.

In this case, a speed limit clearly would not have saved anyone. My boat will do 55mph, does that mean I do it wherever/whenever I go out? No. is it big enough to squash a 21' boat? Yes it is. Speed limit or not, am I deterred from the lake? No I am not. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???

Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.

No, there certainly is not 80 marinas on Winnipesaukee, but out of the 8 supporters highlighted on BI's list, 1 is on Squam not Winnipesaukee, and 2 are on both lists. Adding in marinas on other lakes/bodies of water only tips it even further way, probably 2x if not more. Try again.

I can post the entire list of opponents if you like, it is considerably larger.

Islander

05-08-2008, 07:39 PM

jrc

05-08-2008, 07:54 PM

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened....

There's no law about walking around drunk (within reason). Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function...

Well if you can have roadblocks, you don't need to trump up a 3 mph speed limit violation to pull the guy over.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

No one on this board, pro or con on speed limits, has defended a drunk boater. I'm sure that if I took a poll, every one would vote for strict enforcement of drunk boating laws.

Having a speed limit makes drunk boaters more likely. Every MP looking at a radar gun, is distracted from his real job, keeping the lake safe from drunks and reckless operators.

A boat operator too drunk to know he is dangerous and he should not operate, is too drunk to obey a speed limit.

You can't enforce BWI laws by accidently catching drunks while looking for speeders. Wouldn't you rather look for drunks?

Islander

05-08-2008, 08:18 PM

8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

Please explain the 80+

tis

05-09-2008, 06:38 AM

I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.

Islander

05-09-2008, 07:03 AM

I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.

With only 9% of the general population opposed to speed limits, how effective can that boycott be? You can't even get a majority of the Marinas.

Woodsy

05-09-2008, 07:21 AM

I know that Thurstons missed out on a couple of Cobalt Sales because of thier position on HB-847.... too bad for them!

Woodsy

hazelnut

05-09-2008, 07:46 AM

I know that Thurstons missed out on a couple of Cobalt Sales because of thier position on HB-847.... too bad for them!

Woodsy

Woodsy you and I both know that is not just opinion but FACT. Thurstons position directly affected recent purchasers that we both know of to take their business elsewhere.

Shep's will be getting my gas money this summer, that is for sure.

Woodsy

05-09-2008, 07:57 AM

I think Thurston's is or will be for sale shortly. They condo'ed the boat houses and a bunch of slips. Thats usually the first sign of trouble.... maybe East Coast Flightcraft will take it over!

I have it on pretty good authority that Y Landing is another Marina that was listed that doesn't support HB-847...

Woodsy

codeman671

05-09-2008, 07:59 AM

Woodsy you and I both know that is not just opinion but FACT. Thurstons position directly affected recent purchasers that we both know of to take their business elsewhere.

Shep's will be getting my gas money this summer, that is for sure.

I hope the buyers make it a point to let Thurston's know that! All of the marinas that I use do not support HB847, with the exception of Fay's gas dock. I will make it a point to plan ahead and go elsewhere. I won't do other business with them anyhow. If the walls in that place could talk many would be amazed...

hazelnut

05-09-2008, 08:46 AM

I hope the buyers make it a point to let Thurston's know that! All of the marinas that I use do not support HB847, with the exception of Fay's gas dock. I will make it a point to plan ahead and go elsewhere. I won't do other business with them anyhow. If the walls in that place could talk many would be amazed...

By the way I used to get gas at Trexler's. Thank you BI for posting that list I have printed it out.

VtSteve

05-09-2008, 09:06 AM

jrc wrote:

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened.

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Drunks don't obey laws, otherwise they'd not be operating while drunk.

Nobody, but nobody, has ever defended the drunk.

The Drunk hit a boat while going 28 mph. What if he had been going 20 mph, or even the hallowed 25 mph? Would that make you feel better? How would enforcement, given the facts stated in this case, been able to prevent this?

The real culprits in that case were on land. A police officer of all folks, and all of the witnesses that testified to his condition.

I think we should have laws on the water to prohibit operating while drunk, and to prohibit hitting another boat.

Oh, wait, it's already illegal to operate while drunk, and the 150' distance limit should eliminate all accidents above headway speed. Why is it they don't? Why didn't the marine patrol issue a ticket for the guy being so close to the boat he hit?

Why don't all the proponents of the bill go back to the truth, which has been mentioned maybe twice on here.

1) You want to discourage the GFBL boats from being on the lake.

2) You "think" the lake would be better, safer, quieter, less congested.

3) You have no idea how to get additional enforcement dollars, and hope like heck the boaters obeying the speed limit don't break every other rule in the book, like many do now.

4) Most everything else you stated is pure rubbish.

Dave R

05-09-2008, 09:07 AM

With only 9% of the general population opposed to speed limits, how effective can that boycott be? You can't even get a majority of the Marinas.

The majority of the general population does not patronize lake side restaurants and boating facilities. That would be boaters. Since most boaters are against the speed limit, the economic impact of a boycott could be substantial. Voting with the majority of the population but against the majority of your customers is not too smart... I think the decision to advocate a speed limit by a lake-based restaurant owner, or a motor boating business owner, will prove regrettable.

Maybe the flood of kayakers will make up the difference though, you always see so many tied up to gas docks, and public docks near restaurants.

fatlazyless

05-09-2008, 09:43 AM

Helloooo out there Winnipesaukee boaters...need to access your brain trust...got to know....as this local business was not on either list. What about the McDonald's restaurant? Is MickyDee's pro or con on HB 847?

If McDonald's is against the Winnipesaukee speed limits, then I will regretfully find it necessary to discontinue my $3.24, three-course, less than a gallon of gas, Meredith McMeal!

Please, please, please, tell me that McDonald's is pro HB-847.

Some things are just more important than lunch! :D:D:laugh::D:D

EricP

05-09-2008, 10:22 AM

I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.

I would be very interested in a list of places that support the bill, and I will boycott them as well. I haven't been in a Richdale convenient store in 25 years (for non-speed limit reasons ;) ) so i know how to boycott. I realize it may be impossible to not go into a business that supports the bill, but it would be my last choice. I am interested in where I'll be buying a boat, and the list will be very helpful.

Wolfeboro_Baja

05-09-2008, 11:49 AM

Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.

Please explain the 80+

My apologies; when I looked at the list in codeman's post (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=69932&postcount=197), I looked at it quickly and, at a glance, they all LOOKED to be marinas. SINCE you are asking, I have gone back and actually counted the entries that use either the word "marine" or "marina" in their business name; I counted 43 MARINAS or MARINE-type businesses opposed to HB 847 and that's not including the other businesses on the list posted by codeman that may be carrying on a marine or marina-type operation and DON'T use either of those words in their business name! Granted, it's not the 80+ I originally thought it was but it's STILL significantly more than the 8 marinas in support of the bill mentioned in the list posted by BI!! :laugh:

Now, are they all located on Winnipesaukee? No, but if the list posted by BI can contain a marina not located on Winnipesaukee, so can the list posted by codeman! :)

Neanderthal Thunder

05-12-2008, 05:54 PM

Codeman wrote:

How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???
The best solid witness that night is the NHMP. The stop and arrest could have been prior made before anything worse happened.

Drunks "not using their heads" will be stopped by the NHMP, before a night crash over 25.

jrc wrote:

Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?
*A MP stop of the boat would still be necessary.

*Without a 25 mph speed limit, there is no way to identify a drunk with the power and speed to kill other boaters at night. A speed over 25 is not trumped up if the results are a warning, a field sobrity test, or the arrest of a drunk boater.

*Woodsy defended him, saying that he was overserved, not up on a plane, and leaving a NWZ. That's "Victimhood". Llttlefield is not the victim.

*Except for a collision with an island or another boat, enforcing speeds would result in the most dangerous drunk boaters being arrested. I don't know how to catch drunk boaters any other way. What police officer would say "I saw the defendent weaving", when no boat takes a straight path on the lake?

*A close up view of the driver's condition would require a police stop. At night, there are just no other means to determine a driver's condition.

*At night, there is no way a drunk can see that the NHMP is monitoring his speed by radar.

*Any poll you post supporting enforcement of drunk driving laws is just handwringing and will continue do nothing to halt 2008's drunk boaters.

*If he's too drunk to obey a speed limit, ONLY a speed limit offers the NHMP any opportunity to stop the nighttime drunk.

jrc

05-12-2008, 07:28 PM

Codeman wrote:

The best solid witness that night is the NHMP. The stop and arrest could have been prior made before anything worse happened.

Drunks "not using their heads" will be stopped by the NHMP, before a night crash over 25.

jrc wrote:

*A MP stop of the boat would still be necessary.

Why. MP can stop a suspected drunk today, they just have to be there.

*Without a 25 mph speed limit, there is no way to identify a drunk with the power and speed to kill other boaters at night. A speed over 25 is not trumped up if the results are a warning, a field sobrity test, or the arrest of a drunk boater.

Any power boat has the power and speed to kill other boaters at night and an MP can easily stop a suspected drunk for a field sobriety test, no speed limit violation is needed, just articulatable suspiscion.

*Woodsy defended him, saying that he was overserved, not up on a plane, and leaving a NWZ. That's "Victimhood". Llttlefield is not the victim.

Reread Woodsy's post you are misunderstnding it. People are responsible for their drunk behaviour even if another is also responsible for overserving them.

*Except for a collision with an island or another boat, enforcing speeds would result in the most dangerous drunk boaters being arrested. I don't know how to catch drunk boaters any other way. What police officer would say "I saw the defendent weaving", when no boat takes a straight path on the lake?

All a MP needs is articulatable suspicion, ask our favorite LEO, Skip. Yes weaving would do, so would trying to leave the dock before he unties his lines. If an MP was there he would have stopped him.

*A close up view of the driver's condition would require a police stop. At night, there are just no other means to determine a driver's condition.

You keep making the same mistake

*At night, there is no way a drunk can see that the NHMP is monitoring his speed by radar.

Why not a radar detector?

*Any poll you post supporting enforcement of drunk driving laws is just handwringing and will continue do nothing to halt 2008's drunk boaters.

You are right polls don't stop drunk drivers. Neither do speed limits. Look at the roads, speed limits existed for a long time before MADD forced people to pay attention to the drunk drivers.

*If he's too drunk to obey a speed limit, ONLY a speed limit offers the NHMP any opportunity to stop the nighttime drunk.

You keep making the same mistake