BI understands the law well, and the real problems on the lake even better. He's not only a realist, he's a pretty good predictor of the future. If you look back over his old posts during and after the first bill's defeat, you'll see that he pushed for a compromise, and warned that if it wasn't achieved, it would become a dictate. The compromise was never fought for, and the bill was signed.

He also knew that there was very limited (if any), support for additional funds for enforcement. So in BI's mind, this bill wouldn't really solve any problems, but maybe it might limit, or even prevent, some of the GF boats from going to Winni.

Far too often today, government relies on premeditated plans to spread as much disinformation as they can to gain support for one cause or another. Kracken explains the theory and practice of the "Nudge". Spot on in many respects. Again, we have far too many people that are only too willing to support a cause by any and all means possible. Proof is not needed, nor are any substantial facts or debate. People will believe a large percentage of anything you throw on the wall, so just throw more than the other side to see what sticks. This happens in all levels of government, from the highest power down to the local levels.

Unfortunately, there's not too much chance in any of these debates for rational, common sense discussions. Careful analysis of facts mean nothing in debates where people choose sides, not solve problems.

BI and myself probably share a lot of common ground in this debate overall, while we may differ in the solutions offered. In fact, many of the SL opponents agree with his statements of concern far more often than the supporters themselves. Unfortunately, it's not folks like BI that have taken leading rolls in battles such as this. It's the combination of political hacks, lobbyists and special interest groups that know their way around that black hole called government, not to mention how to sway or misrepresent public opinion.

I'm going to spend some time in the off season discussing these issues with many fellow boaters and organizations that have been dealing with safety on the waterways. I'll try to share my findings as best I can.

Can I further state that is an extreme pleasure to have you back BI. I know we have butted heads big time in the past. I'll take some blame for that. I may have taken things way too personally in the past when you and I were discussing and I shouldn't have. I don't want to come off as belittling your opinion. I am not. Your concerns are valid, we just disagree on the solution.

To use your logic then, if the majority of boats are not capable of breaking the arbitrary 45mph law, then why do we need it? Waste the legislature's time and money on it. Seems redundant to me.

Hnut, I think you misspelled a word or two, get ready to be strung up!!! :laugh:

Great post above, hit the nail on the head.

Time has not passed on Compromise
 

The way I see it, time has not passed on the possibility of compromise. I have been in contact with several legislators in regard to allowing this law to sunset and replacing with one that actually solves the issues.

My suggestions have been:
Increased penalty for BUI.
Increased penalty for violating a NWZ.
Maintain a speed limit (not necessarily 45, but that works) in areas that the lake is less than 2000 feet wide.
Raise the night time speed to 35MPH to reduce shore erosion, this would remain lake wide .
In areas that are wider than 2000 feet, no speed limit, but increase distance from shore to 300 feet in these zones.
Adopting USCG rules and giving them teeth that NHMP can use.

Some suggestions that I think I may add.
Hnuts eliminating the online certificates (this also affects myself)
and my creating NWZ's around areas of specific concern for safety, i.e. BI's summer camps.

This law also has absolutely no affect on my enjoyment of the lake, as it stands right now, I have not owned a power boat in two years (16ft bowrider with 48HP outboard) and did not use the boat for a period of three years before I sold it. The boats that we are looking into purchasing now, are cruisers and would not realistically reach 45MPH.

My feelings on how the legislature has handled this and serveral other laws have been stated and do not need to be repeated.
But I am not in favor of supporting a law that was dreamed up by irrational or emotional thought.

Yeah unfortunately I brought that on myself. :laugh:

Thanks

It's been pointed out that the majority of boats on the lake are capable of exceeding the SL...25 MPH at night. Even if it is a minority of boats capable of exceeding the daytime limit, it's those few that have had a significant adverse effect on the boating experience for the many (and no I'm not going into the many ways in which those GFBL's have adversely affected the boating experience...it has been discussed here ad nauseum). I am thrilled that these boats cannot any longer legally use the lake as their personal speedway and so are many of my friends and neighbors and apparently a significant portion of the NH public. All this talk about the stealth erosion of our rights and liberties because of a speed limit on the lake seems rather contrived to me. Many on the lake have seen a stealth appropriation of everyone's right's and liberties on the lake due to a few who feel that Winnipesaukee should be their live free or die racetrack. This is why so many will fight to retain this new law. 45/25 was a good compromise.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about the 25mph at night.:rolleye2:
So I can see by your comments, it has not been about safety, but to rid the lake of a certain type of boat. I hope the legislature is reading this now.

I guess I missed this oldie
 

1/18/2008


New Hampshire May Raise Speed Limit, Ticket Dawdlers
New Hampshire could be the first northeast state to break the 65 MPH speed limit barrier.

The New Hampshire state House Transportation Committee on Tuesday heard testimony on legislation that would make New Hampshire the first northeastern state to increase its maximum speed limit to 70 MPH since the federal government ordered the state to drop its speed limits from 70 MPH to 55 MPH in 1974. The bipartisan legislation, introduced by David L. Smith (D-Nashua) was designed to bring New Hampshire into line with the states outside of the northeast, most of which already have roads posted at 70 MPH or greater with Texas holding the top position at 80 MPH. The measure would also make it a $50 offense to hold up traffic in the fast lane.

Smith intends to boost highway safety by allowing state police and other law enforcement to crack down on passive aggressive drivers who insist on driving slowly in the far left lane, obstructing the flow of traffic. The legislation requires that police issue a warning on the first offense and a $50 ticket for any subsequent offense.

The legislation applies the 70 MPH limits to any four-lane divided highway in the state and sets speeding ticket rates that range from $65 for being accused of driving 71 MPH up to $350 for 91 MPH. Anything over 96 MPH would require a court appearance.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2179.asp

I bolded my favorite part :laugh:

jmen, I'm actually all for a nighttime limit of 35MPH. Believe it or not that was one of my first posts on this subject all those years ago. I alluded to it a couple of posts ago. Nighttime is such a different topic. I almost think that there should be two separate topic areas. Speed Limit Debate and Nighttime Speed Limit Debate. The two scenarios are so completely different.

I'd be surprised if any Speed Limit opposer did not feel that a Nighttime speed limit would be acceptable no matter what. I think the hair splitting comes in when we discuss what that limit should be. After this summer I can most assuredly tell you that 25MPH is too slow. It became evident to me that a non-boater or at least someone with no nighttime boating experience came up with this arbitrary number. Even an extra 5MPH would make all the difference in the world.

As a matter of fact the majority of one particular members flood posts were highlighting accidents that occurred at night. If we were to all agree that there should be a nighttime speed limit what then would Supporters use for "stories" to back a daytime speed limit.

Aren't you getting a little prickley there gtagrip? I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. It's not ridding the lake of a certain kind of boat but rather a certain kind of boater(one that goes faster than 45/25).

It's also been pointed out that we all (or most of us) agree that there needs to be a Speed Limit at night. But this has nothing to do with 'the boating experience', sense of safety, perceived civility and the like.

Although most would agree travelling at 'unlimited speeds' at night is unsafe, I can recall more than a handful of times this summer sitting on the beach at night watching and listening to boats roaring through the Witches. While I did not have my Lidar gun handy (neither did the MP) there was no doubt that these boats were exceeding the SL. These are strictly my observations of where the SL will never work without funding to properly staff the MP.

Sunset, Nice answer. Remember, boats don't kill people, people kill people. And we've we already gotten rid of these people...except for you know who and you know who.


Here's to show what happens when a boat is going very fast and suddenly the surface conditions change...as they often do on Winnipesaukee;
http://www.break.com/index/speed-boa...d-crashes.html

Here's a video of a canoe tipping over. Fortunately, these boaters were wearing life jackets. This would never happen if we could ban these dangerous canoes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ITPj09ocA

Most think the funding issue is a no-win situation. Since none of the SL proponents pushed for it, and barely mention enforcement, I can only conclude that BI is right. Ain't gonna happen.

I have done a fair amount of research into boating accidents the past three years, so I was at least vaguely familiar with most of the accidents posted here. The overwhelming majority of night time accidents on the waterways in the country involved alcohol. I'm not blaming alcohol any more than I blame guns for killing, or a specific boat for hitting things. It's the boater's fault, 100%. There have been some horrific accidents at higher speeds at night, but mostly they are not going that fast.

Some say the SL law gives the MP a good reason for stopping these boaters at night, while even some SL supporters think that drunks often drive slower than the SL to avoid getting caught. Either way, there are still a lot of drinks out there boating at night, SL or not. I hesitate to call people that have a BAL near or at the legal limit drunks, but I try not to get into issues that some fly off the handle with.

SL or not, enforcement at night has been cut back all over the country due to budget problems. So as some people contend, many are quick to pass laws that they know won't be enforced. Maybe there should just be no powefred boats at all on the lake, day or night. :rolleye2:

Holy Guacamole...boats used to go by like that where I live too. I hope the legislature is watching that one now.

Although I disagree with your views, you seem like an intelligent person.

Please answer this for me, because I dont recall receiving an intelligent or reasonable answer to date:

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?


I should also add that my boat does not have a loud thru hull exhaust when I am at wide open throttle.

I can answer my own question and the answer is NO ONE, because I did this almost everytime I was out this season and will continue to do so when it is safe, regardless of what ridiculous laws there are.

But back to my question:

If I am traveling 65mph across the Broads on say a Tuesday afternoon and there is not another boat or land within 2000 feet of me-What is the Harm?

Then we should be getting rid of all the "boneheads" that seem to drive all types of boats on the lake that are the main cause of problems on the lake. Not only the ones driving in your so called "GFBL's".
You're only targe has been GFBL's.

Those changing water conditions appeared to be rocks in the river? Looks like he tried to slow down (rocks will do that), and caused the boat to pitch and roll. Certainly not the safest boater on the water.

Most accidents during the day occur at under 45 mph on most waterways. So you're correct, getting rid of problems has never seemed to be a primary emphasis of the Sl crowd.

But that's just my perception, other people may not share my opinion on that.

I came to this discussion only this year, but that is my impression as well.


======================

Can someone educate me on how to find out about testifying the next time this issue comes up in Concord.

My wife and I would love to testify and explain what we do for work, how we enjoy the lake and our thoughts on this issue. Might be interesting for the folks in Concord to see that Performance Boat Captains are not the devils some describe us to be.

I'll answer the question with a question. I'm traveling down Rt. 93 at 100 MPH; there is not another car within 2000 feet of me. I feel this is reasonable and prudent(good car, low to the ground, good tires). Another question. I'm driving down my street at 60 MPH (better yet, somebody else's street). The speed limit is 35 MPH. The road is straight, school is in session, and I have a good car, low to the ground, good tires. It seems reasonable and prudent to me. What is the harm? I've heard these boats without loud thru hull exhausts at full throttle. They're only quiet when you have ear plugs in.Until you get caught that is. There may have only been 1 ticket written this year but that may well change. And the hassle of waiting for the MP to write your ticket, going to court, possibly paying a fine and having it affect yout driver's license may change your mind. Like most of you on this forum, I too am for enforcement of all of our existing laws on the lake, not the least of which is our existing speed limit. Perhaps with the inevitable increase in registration fees this will be improve. If not, a speed limit in and of itself is a deterrent for most.So that was you this summer. Now I remember. My wife kept saying "who is that noisy fool who keeps going back and forth across the broads?" (Don't get mad at me, get mad at her...she said it.):)

You did it! Nice multi-quoting.

FYI- Blame me I think I taught Sunset how to multi-quote. I created a monster!!! :laugh:

J/K

This is not an attack on your grammar, but these questions lack question marks or any resemblance to a question.

We have speed limits on roads that are a result of years and years of facts and studies. Speed limits were intially put in place as a means of conservation and not safety (please see my earlier post). Unfortunately, there are no facts to show that speeding is a problem on any of NH lakes.

Nice "story" about the Tuesday boat. When will this nonsense stop?

You got me there...fixed it. And I ought to be able handle an attack on my grammar...I wouldn't hesitate to attack someone else's.:):laugh:

And I won't be getting any speeding tickets for how long it took me to do it.:laugh:

The law is working.
 

The definition of a law "working" is when it accomplishes its intended goal. The intended goal here was to make those people who did not feel safe using Winnipesaukee feel safe again...to restore use of the lake to all...to adhere to RSA 270:1 (II) (“It is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances”). The people who sought the law are saying it is working, so it is working by definition...period. Whatever "funding to properly staff the MP" was done last summer was obviously enough, as it made those of us who used to be wary of boating on the lake except during off times suddenly feel comfortable and safe again. Meanwhile, you guys are all saying either that you never went that fast anyway, like 99.9% of Winnipesaukee's boaters, or that you are ignoring the law. And except for the tiny fraction of boats that can go that fast and still do, (you know who you are...see below), those who can and use to exceed these speeds apparently have stopped out of respect for the law. THE LAW IS WORKING. The harm comes when you realize that there is a boat within 2000 feet of you...one of those small boats that you claim are so hard to see suddenly becomes visible and he is only 200 feet directly in front of you. Because you are human, your reaction time is greater than the time it will take you to reach him at that speed so you don't even have time to start to slow down or to start to change direction. You hear a thump as you run him over and chop him and his boat in half. You are convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 12-25. If a tree falls in the woods and lands on a deaf guy, does it kill him? Thank you for that. And this makes you a scofflaw and a criminal and you should be soundly reprimanded by the rest of your crowd for bringing the wrath of society down on you all. You are the very reason laws like this get passed. People like you choose what laws suit you and disregard the rest. They think they are above the law and better than everyone else. Some of your ilk ignore our BUI and DUI laws (If I drive drunk and no one else is on the road...what is the harm?), our safe passage laws (if I drive close and nobody gets injured...what is the harm?), our wildlife laws (If I shoot a doe out of season, what is the harm?), our tax laws (if I cheat on my taxes and don't get caught, what is the harm?) etc, etc, etc. They justify their behavior by claiming that laws that were in fact passed exactly because of them were not really meant for them. They drive too fast because they believe they are super-human and have faster reaction times, better coordination, and superior boating skills...until they kill someone. When a speed limit has to be enacted just because of them, and the rest of their friends have has to suffer for it, their friends blame the victims and the legislature instead of blaming them. You and the others of your group (OCD et al) who brag about ignoring this law are exactly what was wrong with our lake and exactly why we needed tougher laws like the speed limit. You are the worst enemy of the rest of your cult, but they are too blind to recognize that. You are why your hobby is on the endangered species list and will likely be extinct in a few years...it is not because of people like me or our law makers. Our target was those drivers who insisted on driving too fast for our lake. Since only GFBL's are capable of going that fast, it might appear that we were targeting those boats, but we were not. You are an admitted SCOFFLAW (see above). You should look for some other forum that caters to CRIMINALS. Our legislative process is for law-abiding citizens. If you dare show up at one of our hearings I am going to make sure every legislator in attendance knows of your bold disregard for our laws that you decide are "ridiculous". Our legislators will not be able to distance themselves from you fast enough. Then you better send someone else who has not been all over these threads bragging about his criminal behavior.

You live on a river that has jet boats doing time trial racing on it?

There is no harm in either situation, I wish more people drove like that. The speeds you mentioned are pretty common in England where 90 MPH is the de facto speed limit on highways and 60 MPH is the actaul speed limit on back roads (roads that NH and NH towns would post at 25 to 35). The reasonable speed limits are about the only thing I miss about living in England.

PULL OVER!!! This is the grammar police!!!


Nice work on the multi quoting. I'm glad you figured it out. Now for some guidelines. Don't be going all Acres Per Second on us and using 625 quotes per post. It gives me a headache. :laugh:

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

This horse has been beaten and he has been beaten severely and I believe unfortunately he will not survive. ;)

I'm in for a meeting.

"It's not about the money, but..."; "Don't get me wrong, I love him like a brother, but...."; "This is not an attack on your grammar, but ..." - Famous insincerities. This was nothing less than another attack by the grammar police. Now "you're" grammar better never stray or you get what you deserve.
Maybe in some cases. But in most cases they were just routinely assigned according to the highway type. If what you say was the case, then it would be a HUGE coincidence that almost all interstates have the same two or three limits (55, 65, and 70), and almost all parkways have the same 45MPH limit. If what you say was the case, one highway would have a 54MPH limit, another would have a 63MPH limit, and another might have an 88MPH limit...each based on those years and years of facts and studies that determined just what the exact right speed limit was right for each stretch of each highway. Do you really think that they did studies on all of NH's highways and determined that almost all of them deserved the exact same 65MPH speed limits for almost all portions of each? The 65 limit on 93 was assigned with the same degree of specificity that 45/25 was chosen in HB-847...65 is the speed that "works" on almost all highways and 45/25 is the speed that "works" on hundreds and hundreds of lakes around the country. It lets the other boaters feel safe while allowing for any appropriate activity. It is a pretty fast speed in a boat, yet slow enough to allow for mutual enjoyment of the lake by all boaters. It is a good COMPROMISE.
Just because you cite your own earlier post does not make it so. Original speed limits were most certainly established for safety purposes. The temporary reduction to the nation-wide 55 max limit in the 70's was a fuel conservation measure.
Common sense and all those thousands of people attending hearings and writing letters was all the "facts" that were needed to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that speeding was a problem. Speeding is not a problem on Winnipesaukee anymore. Let's keep it this way.
Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

Any chance the NH legislature could put a ban on multi quoting. It is killing this website.:D

Sir, I have been reading your posts as I had decided I was not going to put you on ignore. Instead, I decided to effectively ignore you- I was letting you get under my skin (my bad, I know better, lesson learned).

I will say that this quote of yours is a new low- SL opponents are criminals and scofflaws, legbreakers? You think that if you met with your so called gang of 8, a police presence would be necessary? Really? I am sorry you feel that way. What a terrible way to go through life.

I will ask any SL supporter that feels someone who breaks the 45/25 is a criminal and scofflaw to please honestly tell me you obey every roadway SL. If you do not, do you consider yourself a criminal and scofflaw?

Have a good night.

How did you know that one/some of us are Law enforcement officers?????

Dont worry I plan on admitting in a public hearing my blatant disregard for the law. That will support the fact that many of us can exceed the 45mph day limit in a safe and prudent manner and it does not seem the MP are doing anything about it, if it is being done safely. That will be right before I educate them on the lies and misinformation you and some of your cronies allowed to slip by them last go around.

I just hope you show up, because once you open your mouth my points will be confirmed.