Clearly if Ryan can say this of the SL supporter's opinions
then I can call his arguments "contrived" without undue fear that I've hurt his feelings.

Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law!
 

For those of you wondering about Elchase's response to me in post 402

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=402

I direct you to the thread 'Economic dangers of an unnecessary boating law!' that elchase decided to respond to in this thead. Why not respond in the actual topical thread instead of this one?

Something you'll have to ask Elchase.

Sidestepping
 

Mr Chase,

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

No smoke + no mirrors + no spin = No answer! :laugh:

R2B

I will most definitely admit to having "tweaked" the speed limit on our roads(though it's been many years since I've gotten a speeding ticket in my youth). What I havn't done is bragged on line to my friends about tweaking the speed limit (usually the discussion with the Mrs. is that speeding isn't a good example for the kids). I also have not blamed the roadway speed limits on someone else and their agenda, nor have I said that someone else is in my ancestral home so they're not going to take away my right to speed. I have never considered the speed limits on our roads as symptomatic of a stealth loss of my rights and liberties. OK, time to get off the computer and head to work...I want to give myself plenty of time to get there.

I don't consider making statements pointing out real problems to be bashing. Just as on the roadways, there will always be incidents that involve a LEO that perhaps pushes when no push is needed. Most of us pointed out many times more that more enforcement was needed. This is not bashing, but a clear-cut statement that addresses a problem. Perhaps obscured in the entire SL discussion is safety. I think you'll find that the majority of SL opposers run in lockstep with the view of the Marine Patrol regarding safety and general boating issues on the water. They need more funds to do a better job, and that was pointed out many times as well.

The fact that you and others on the SL side do not share the MP's view of the real problems on the waterway is simply a reflection of a narrow view of the overall issues. This summer was a washout as far as weather goes, and boat traffic was way down, as were MP stops. We didn't invent the reality, reality just happened. Constructive criticism is always more beneficial than blind support or blind negativity.

Generic, again...
 

Re: I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL? Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

That's easy for this Supporter to answer: I'm on record here as doing 'way over the limit, and getting ticketed (Trinidad, Colorado). Since keeping it at "nine-over" since that 1988 occasion, lawmen have looked the other way. :confused:

Just one year later, I was a passenger in a car that nearly hurtled off a deserted Colorado roadway—above the treeline. :eek: The four of us were going about 60 on a roadway marked for 40-MPH. We were all distracted by something at the time, but my perception "clicked-on" and alerted the driver—just in time to avoid breaking through an Armco barricade!

The Opponents here ridicule my repeated admonition to "develop, hone, and keep one's senses at-the-ready" while on the lake.

(To include perceiving, watching, but especially developing one's listening capabilities).

But the other six months a year, I'm reminded of that phrase as I move about my Florida yard. THIS Florida environment is loaded—not with Cap'n "B's"—but with scorpions! :eek2:
|
|
|

I am sorry, but I have to laugh at this. You can't be seriously suggesting that a lake as big as Winnipesaukee is as calm as a much smaller lake such as Merrymeeting...because of the speed limit? :laugh::confused::rolleye2:

I did read them, pretty bad indeed. One guy was the brother of the deceased. The accident discussed was determined to be cased from mechanical failure, a fact ignored by those cheering about the demise of the person. I've seen this on many newsgroups, where a tragic boating accident (regardless of the reasons), have led to some pretty outrageous attacks on that entire segment of the boating world.

I might add Sunset, I have tried to engage in a rational discussion of many of the accidents force fed on this forum. I think Yosemite Sam was the only person that actually looked at the rebuttal, and read the ensuing follow up to the incident. APS is still bewildered.

There is a great deal of prejudice in the pro SL crowd amongst the most vocal members. We've been unable to get through the prejudice, and I think that's why a meeting was suggested to break the ice. There's at least one supporter that is trying his level best to make sure that the message of hate and prejudice is not snuffed out. You've probably been given instructions to not deal with these people. If you met some of the opponents, you'd most likely find out their intentions are good, and they all share a camaraderie with boaters of all kinds.

It's not about agreeing, it's about discussion and rational thought. The accidents were pretty easy subjects for rational thought, because you can generally follow them to their conclusion. The 21' versus 40' boat accident generated discussion that I thought would point out the problems inherent with applying prejudice to law and/or opinions. It pointed out the problems for sure. I'm sure the only reason it was posted in the first place is that the OP doesn't read the articles :rolleye2:

Let's face it, some people love to target one group or another. There are some GFBL people that poke fun at others, and vice versus. I choose not to associate with those people, but I don't throw whatever group they're in to the wolves either. People that engage in this behavior cannot have any camaraderie with the other side. They require constant opposition to whatever is said to keep the level of vitriol up. It's not about the issue, it's mostly about them and whatever agenda they have. Nothing gets accomplished of course, and they'll be the first ones gone if proven wrong.

There is a better way, and everyone can well choose to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. This was a first step in at least creating civility and letting everyone know that there are real people behind these keyboards.

Yes

Not only have I violated the speed limit on roads I have violated the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, day and night.

Most people think going a little over a speed limit is ok. And we all know that the police allow it. It's just human nature.

While I wouldn't consider it 'bashing', there are ways the MP could enforce the laws pre SL that would make the lake SAFER. My contention from the beginning has always been Education and Enforcement of the existing laws will eliminate the real problem on the lake; Captain B.

In the end, the MP will present the facts in Concord. I would hope those that represent us can separate the facts from the spin.

The posting limit on me forces me to multi-quote. Sorry. This is really all just one big thread anyway. All the topics might start out about someone's prop, or the CG statistics, or FISHING, then turn right into the same old SL-bashing tripe...and all the players are the same...so what difference does it make where the answer pops up? As a SL opposer, you probably are allowed infinite unmoderated posting privileges, so if you'd like to quote my reply in the other thread, be my guest. Apparently nothing. But that's ok, it is not their responsibility to care about our feelings. And it is also not their responsibility to advocate for the high-speed crowd. It is their sole responsibility to enforce the boating laws that the legislature hands down to them. Not fully. The law was enacted because so many people said they did not feel safe on the lake and that their enjoyment of the lake was either being prevented or otherwise impacted. Recall that RSA 270:1 (II) states “the public waters ... shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment... ”). No matter how the Director of the MP, who is on record over and over advocating for the high speed crowd and insulting the majority of NH's citizens might couch things, he cannot speak for the lack of enjoyment we felt prior to the SL and wealth of enjoyment we felt last summer. I've seen no survey done by the MP where they have asked a statistically reliable and broad-based sampling of citizens whether they feel that "safe and mutual enjoyment" of the lake has been improved by the SL.
No. It's clear that what I meant was that it is calm when the wind dies down. As I said, it is more civil...similar in civility now to Merrymeeting, because of the SL. Jmen stated that he had been using Merrymeeting instead of Winni in past years because "it was much quiter and more relaxing". It is my experience, and the experience of virtually all that I speak with except the eight of you guys, that Winnipesaukee was just as "quiet and relaxing" as Merrymeeting this past summer, presumably because of the weather in many cases and because of the SL in others.

As I did answer; only a fool would admit to breaking the law on a public forum. There might be a number of fools among the eight of you, but just because you demand a yes/no answer does not mean you are entitled to one. Do you really think this issue is about a boater occasionally going 48MPH or about the MP not enforcing a 45MPH speed limit against him? We have people on this forum who brag about doing almost double the speed limit, and the rest of you high-five them. Then you talk about "allying" yourselves with our law enforcement agency and legislature, as if "allying" with admitted criminals and their abettors who flout the law that these civil servants have passed or are obliged to enforce against the citizens these civil servants are obliged to serve is going to fly. Don't try to drag me into this hole. I am not one of you and do not condone your illegal activities of your support for them.

Not their sole responsibility. In addition to enforcing the boating laws, the MP was also asked to provide a survey of speeding on the lake. We all know the results.

Don't kid yourself. There was no palpable improvement on the lake in 2009. The law was enacted based on fear and lies.

While I do not own a GFBL boat, I'm sure many that do own these types of boats get enjoyment travelling through the broads on a Tuesday afternoon on a calm day at 50MPH. Why do you feel entitled to take away their enjoyment through feel good legislation?

Enjoyment is tradition.
 

The same reason why the person that took away the tolling of the church bell in Meredith a few years back. So he can enjoy his peace and quiet.
Many folks grew up with that bell. It was here before that person move into town. Yet he had the right to shut down tradition. Pretty soon all traditions around the lake and on the lake will be outlawed.

Racing and the need for speed was a tradition on this lake. Another tradition bites the dust. And more traditions after that. :(

I know of similar cases in a town near me where the civilian police felt themselves to be omniscient and omnipotent and thought they were able to interpret what is best for people in their community...they were quickly relieved of this notion.

I really believe both supporters and opponents should attend. It is clear that every member that is posting is concerned about safety. The disagreement is in the method. I can be objective and see the underlying philosophy of the speed limit supporters. I hope the speed limit supporters can understand the objections.

Maybe a face to face meeting will produce better results than the forum has. We do have a common ground here (safety), we need to build on it and develop a solution to present to Concord. Don’t get me wrong, the forum has been entertaining however after months of debate, nothing has been accomplished.

I just want to point out one thing. There are a lot more than eight speed limit opponents. According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8368, only 46 people out of the 263 that voted are in favor of the current speed limit. It means that 217 people are speed limit opponents. 217>8. This poll was taken in August/September 2009.

According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8420, 112 people out of the 437 that voted were in favor of the speed limit. This means that 325 people are opposed to a speed limit. 325>8. This poll was taken in August-October 2009.

Therefore, your statement that you put in a large majority of your posts that says that eight people are against the speed limit is factually incorrect, and cannot be argued. There may only be eight people that are vocal about it on this forum, but it is obvious that a lot more are against it than you may think.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?

Are you saying the MP is irrelevant, or are you saying that we do not need one group making blanket laws based on what they feel is best for the people?

Thanks. I think?

Does anybody know how many registered boats there are in New Hampshire?

Thank you and Sunset for your honesty.

I agree with your assessment (that magic less than 10 on 93) on the roadway SL. My point was we all break or bend rules (some probably by using this forum right now) but that does not make us criminals or even scofflaws.

I wonder what the enforcement wiggle room will be if MP actually starts trying to measure speed.

The fact is that everyone breaks the SL (except maybe my mother), the worst offenders are often LEO. In VA they have installed traffic cams that automatically send tickets to offenders, quite a few were handed out to the police (and not going to calls).

Anyhow it is too bad that we strayed off topic on many of these threads regarding the SL. There has been a lot of talk about compromises and a few members call this the compromise. What if this law sunsets? Let's assume that for my next statement. I have read some great points from many on both sides, such as

1) Doubling the the distance from shore that requires headway only
2) Creating more NWZs near camps
3) 35 MPH SL in our tighter areas (such as the run from Moultonborough Bay to Green's Basin)
4) Increased SL out on the broads with an increased distance "bubble"
5) Adopting a version of the USCG Rule 6 (as follows)

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

We all want to have a safe lake, I believe adopting and enforcing some of the above would accomplish that better than the law that is set to sunset next year.

Did you just make that up? They certainly were not "asked to provide a survey". In fact, if you look back at the history, you'll see that they took it upon themselves to conduct a contrived and unscientific "survey" that most impartial observers said did more to slow boats down before clocking them than it did to see covertly what was really going on out there. And the Legislature saw through this attempt to circumvent and sidetrack the pending legislation and got upset, actually publicly scolding the MP over it...so the "survey" was debunked and discontinued. The MP did a wonderful job last summer by accident. It must have killed them to see things slow down so much that they could only find one speeder all summer. But the truth eventually surfaces, no matter how hard some try to obscure it. If boaters are not speeding, you just can't give out tickets. Because "their enjoyment" prevents "mutual enjoyment". It's not all about making sure that the high-speed crowd enjoys the lake, its about making it mutually enjoyable for a variety of co-existable uses. Its either a choice of the need-for-speed over everything else or a choice of everything else over the need-for-speed. Which do you think a legislator is going to choose?

Sanctioned racing under the supervision of the MP over a closed-off portion of the lake, as has always been the tradition until the advent of the GFBL, boat can still be a tradition. Nobody is going to object to a return of the weekend of offshore boating races...provided it is appropriately planned, noticed, and supervised. As to the "need for speed" this sounds like something worthy of therapy.

Please tell me exactly how many of these were citizens of NH, how many times each voted under different names and from different computers, how they were RANDOMLY SELECTED, and how you can be sure of all this. Otherwise, these are not "polls" just because you call them "polls". They are recruitment sheets.
I loved the CG thread until it morphed into just one more Anti-SL clone. It gave me a chance to enlighten readers to how CG categorizes fatalities according to the speed that the boat of the victim was in...so that if a 85MPH cigarette boat runs over a stationary canoe, it is a 0MPH fatality, not an "excessive speed" fatality.
Exactly. Boating is a huge source of income for the state and we can't risk that income just to satisfy the "need for speed" of a tiny few.

The results do not support your cause, so your spin is expected.

Looking back in history, the NH Division of Safety Services used MP resources to conduct the survey. Unscientific, hardly. There is so much relevant, factual data in the report all you can do is attack the MP and spin the data. The DSS published their findings in a report, so to say the survey was discontinued is false. Public scolding....laughable.

Average daytime speed on the lake 22.72MPH. :eek:

Sounds like the Wild West!!!!!

Count me as one of the 217 who voted against the SL in the poll. And yes I am a NH resident and one of my boats was on Winnie. Not all of us have to continually post (if we did El would wear out his keyboard) and I doubt there are many with 25+ screen names.

Actually the transportation committee was the one that ask for the survey. I was at the fact finding meeting. The supporters says there is 'mayhem' on the lake and NHMP says it is not so. The supporters have no fact to back their claim and neither did the MP. So the committee wants the fact, hence the survey.

Funny thing is, the supporters shut down the survey early, because it was not in their favor. They claim the boaters knew where the survey was taking place. Not so. The MP posted two location, with 4 others that was indisclosed.

Same reason why they want to remove the sunset clause, the facts are not in their favor.

You are correct about the disclosed locations for the speed info gathering. There were at least 4 undisclosed or covert positions from where MP gathered their info which they presented to the transposition committee per their request. Those are the simple facts, no spin.

WOW! I never knew that. So in fact it was the transportation committeee itself that asked for the test?

These Senators must be banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out a way to spin the facts that support a Speed Limit. I really would like to see a televised explanation from one of the senators who supports the SL. It would be a riot to actually hear the words, "there have been no tickets, every single person has adhered to the law and we have stopped all those speeding boats from speeding all over the lake." I wonder if the good senator could actually say it with a straight face. :laugh:

SL supporters never requested or wanted the survey. The survey was proposed at the 11th hour by forces opposed to a speed limit. The purpose of the speed study was to hold the speed limit bill in committee and thereby delay it from going to the full legislature for an additional year.

As a delaying tactic it worked beautifully. However it was all a sham and nobody knowing the facts, including the Marine Patrol, ever took it seriously.

Adding insult to injury, the opposition then claimed WinnFABS requested the study.... pure fiction!

Um, you must have misunderstood me. I was stating clearly that there are more than eight of us here on this site that are opposed to speed limits. It is a "poll" because that is what it is called on this forum. Who the people are, and where they are from makes no difference to me, since I am referring only to this site. I didn't realize that polls on an internet forum had to be from randomly selected individuals. :rolleye2:

The facts are the facts. The fact that I am stating is that there are more than eight people who post on this site that are opposed to speed limits.

How true that statement is, they knew what the results would be and the survey clearly showed there was NO speed issue on Winnipesaukee!

If absolutely no one was going faster than 45/25 then what is the problem...the SL hurts no one? Oh, I forgot, another unnecessary law on the books. Of course we know this isn't the case at all...many on this forum have admitted to significant violations of 45/25.

Around and around and around we go, when will the spin end?

Laws should be and are for the most part are made to correct a problem. No problem which in this case was cleary shown by professionals did not exist then no law is required. That is the way it is supposed to work unless as I suspect there is a hidden agenda here. :rolleye2:

But I just told you...many on this forum have admitted to speeding. This is why so many SL opponents are against the SL...they want to go fast...so there's the problem.

I too voted in the poll against the speed limit and I too live in NH.:)

I think about 4 or 5 have admitted to going over the limit, is that many? And even BI was honest and admitted he did, does that make him a scofflaw?

Of course it doesn't make BI a scofflaw, he supports the speed limit.:rolleye2:

Actually, of the 3852 boats that were surveyed 36 boats were clocked over 45MPH (<1% of the total). These 36 boaters must not have received the memo to keep their speeds under 45MPH to skew the results of the survey. :rolleye2:

Ok, back to our regularly scheduled program...
 

For the meeting, I'm in for the 2nd, I can make that happen... I'm in St. Maarten and St. Barths for the week of Jan 17th - 24th, that is my only exception right now.

Aside of that, let's get a list going - who's gonna show and who's gonna stay "hidden" behind the keyboard!? There will be no limits as to who can come and what they can say - with one simple exception. There will not be any personal attacks allowed during the discussion - period! Yes, that's right - I just appointed myself the "personal attack police" for this meeting! :) We can debate the topic at hand - the speed limit, pro's - con's - good - bad - etc... We NEED to keep it productive and positive, there is no room for variation and wavering on that, agreed!?!? Know now - and I am sure we all agree - attacks get personal, you WILL be asked to leave, a "zero-tolerance" policy if you will. I'm not driving up there, taking a day away from my family and whatever else I might be doing to listen to bickering and petty BS grade-school-level name calling. I can log in here and get more than enough of that and not have to leave my house. Let's remember, it shouldn't be a "for vs. against the SL" thing, it should be a "how do we reach a compromise, and what is it" thing!

Remember, we are all adults (chronologically anyway) so let's act that way... I am willing to bet that before the whole SL topic became an issue, we would have ALL been able to sit down, have a beer and share stories about the lake - good and bad - and get along. I for one, would love to hear more about BI's stories of trekking around the globe, or heading into space, it's like the Discovery Channel, but in real life HD!

So - list 'em folks - location can still be TBD for now, but the general lakes region should be the locale - Meredith, Laconia, etc...

DoTheMath - I'm in.

hazelnut - you're in, you're always good for a road trip up! ;)

Who else...?

Reason why I don't support the Speed limit
 

Again, I have to remind everyone the reason. It is a known fact that WinnFabs is planning on more laws. Specifically horsepower and length limits. When I approach Rep. Pilliod about this he said, 'Speed Limit is a good start, we have to start somewhere'. So he didn't deny it. Many of us have heard the Winnfabs folks talking to NH Lakes Association representative about more restrictive laws. I'm just trying to prevent erosion of our rights to boat on the lake. If it is about safety, then let's pass safety laws, not laws that discriminate class of boaters.

I'm all for the penalty portion of the law. And to put in our DMV records. Let's replace the 45/25 with the reasonable and prudent clause and give it some teeth like the USCG rules. This will effect all class of boaters, not just the 2%. We need to reel in the boneheads and 'cowboys'. Any speed can be unreasonable and unprudent if the condition warrants. Setting 45/25 as an arbitray limit will send the wrong signal that this is the safe speed on this lake. Even when the conditions do not warrant. Just like the 150' limit. There should also be a reasonable and prudent clause. There can be conditions when 150' can be dangerous. :cool:

And therein lies the rub. What I have been saying all along. This is the beginning of a very slippery slope. I know that some of you supporters think we are being paranoid but I'm telling you we are not. There are people out there looking to try and shape this lake into "On Golden Pond." Horsepower limits, length limits, two stroke bans, etc. etc. are just around the corner.

Sunset if we do as you suggest, just turn a blind eye and accept this, we are losing the beginning battle in a long war. So perhaps you don't care if HP limits, length limits and two stroke bans etc. are enacted. I don't know your stance. I for one think that this is the beginning of a bad, bad time for Lake Winnipesaukee.

This is not a "sky is falling" mentality. It's reality. I know there are many on your side telling you that it's just not true but it is. I can tell you that BI will at least be honest and tell you that the HP limit is a not too distant reality. Bye bye cruisers. Some will applaud, the same individuals who are applauding the speed limit. It is biased targeting. I think it is a shame. This is not Squam lake. This lake has its own identity. If you want Squam move to squam. Many chose this lake due to its personality. Many are trying to shape it into something it is not nor will ever be.

So as I read the threads and the always constant back and forth between sides. I always come back to something. The same thing really. The one thing that both sides want. What is that you may ask. That is SAFTY.

Now why does OCD keep saying that he would like to see both sides at a meeting. Because he understands the overwhelming concern here SAFTY.

Look all kinds of laws can be passed speed limits, size restrictions, cahnging the 150' rule to the 1000' rule.... but in the end it comes down to education. Education about safe boating practices. Laws really aren't the solution here folks finding a way to educate new boaters that is the key. Making legislator pass laws that make sense like a safe and prudent speed law..... these are the things we need.

Now some people have comment that the lake felt safer this year. Well here is some food for thought. 1) we have a boating certificate law, so no one comes up and rents a boat on a whim any more. And buddy doesn't come up and take his uncles boat out for a quick spin either. 2) The economy is bad and gas pricies are high, so while us die hards didn't let it get in our way there are plenty of people that didn't use there boats all that much the past couple of years. 3) Instead of running around in thier boats all day people spent much more time at anchor or docked.

Anyway you look at it you can't say the speed limit in and of itself help change the lake. Their are to many other factors.