1. Since the bodies of the Malia brothers were never found , alcohol factor is in question.

2.Speed was excessive for conditions. They came out of a relatively calm inlet into a very rough ocean. They had more money and courage than experience and sense. Frankly they had no business operating anything more than a 20' Bayliner with v6 power.

Their autobody shop is still 2 miles from my house but under a different name.
Didn't know them personally but have heard a lot of local scuttlebutt that never gets to the newspapers.

Just a couple of questions
 

So when, or if, the advocates of the speed legislation that seek to solve a problem that doesn't exist, accomplish their mission based on:
A. The lake has changed over the years and I can't use my kayak in the middle of the Broads like my grandparents did.
B. A boat bigger than mine went by my house, made some noise, and left a wake.
C. I tried to row my 12 foot aluninum row boat (with 3 kids and the dog aboard) accross Meredith Bay on July 4th and some boats went by and scared me.

What will the end game be?

Safer lake? No, there is no factual evidence that it will make the lake even a little safer.
Quieter? No, this has nothing to do with the existing noise laws.
No more 150 foot violations? No, those will still happen.
Smarter Captains? Nope, doesn't address that.
More Marine Patrol Officers? Nope, not mentioned.
Smaller Wakes? No, slower boats leave larger wakes.

Wow! A lot of noise and effort to take away your rights and acomplish nothing.

When the horsepower and speed laws are eventually established what happens if: I get a 40 foot Marine Trader displacement hull with a single 120 HP diesel engine and cruise the lake at 6 knots. Will the speed fairies cry about the wake? Will they try to establish a size limit? If I paint the boat pink will they want covenants in place to establish appearance standards?

Times change, things may not always remain as you want them to be. Get over it!

What happened to live free or die?

First of all there is a problem - apparently you’re not reading what I have posted. Name one other recreational activity where you have the “right” to use a motorized vehicle to travel at unlimited speeds in the same venue that is occupied by human powered vehicles.

My contention is that allowing power boat to travel on our lakes at unlimited speeds is just not a safe practice – and many others agree with me, including the US Coast Guard. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” (http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm)

I can only comment on “A”, since the other two don’t apply to me. I own a 16 foot sea kayak, which is designed to be used on large bodies of water – and I am an experienced kayaker. So why shouldn’t I be able to safely paddle my kayak “in the middle of the Broads”? I have just as much right to use the ENTIRE lake as any other boater.

If the lake has changed so much that it is no longer safe for an experienced kayaker to take a sea kayak out on the main lake, than the lake has changed too much – and this is a violation of NH laws.

My freedom and that of other boaters has already been compromised by what we feel is unsafe policy. Yes, times are changing, we’re finally fighting back. Get over it.

Although I was not involved with creating the legislation, I know some people that were. And I have been involved with support meetings. I have read the communications. There is no secret agenda. How could such a wide based loosely organized group hide its true purpose? Would that many people keep the real purpose secret? We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't make sense.

And if GFBL's were the target why not just say so. You can make a good argument (as some have) that the lake is to small and fragile for these boats.

Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is more likely to be true.

View has changed too!
 

Evenstar,

Anything that diminishes anyone's enjoyment of the lake shoud be outlawed. You wouldn't be trying to diminish the enjoyment that people in faster boats safely enjoy, would you?

There is not one piece of evidence that a speeding boat has collided with a kayak. You are really trying to legislate wakes. Don't worry, by slowing boats down you will see A. More boats on the lake because it will take longer to get where you are going at a reduced speed. B. Bigger wakes because everyone knows that the slower a boat goes the bigger wake it leaves. Hope you get what you are looking for.

Could you support a minimum daytime speed of, say, 44 MPH? That way no boat will ever overtake another slower boat and with everyone going the same speed it will eliminate the unsafe passing of other boats.

I've been boating and swimming on the lake for many, many years. I used to love looking at the mountians and trees. Is there any way to include in the speed legislation that people shouldn't develop their mountainside land. The view is changing and I don't enjoy the lake as much because I have to see those big houses that rich people own.

I think your freedom ends at the bow of my boat. I too have the right to liberty. The difference between you and me is that see your version of liberty (to go as fast you want) infringing on my liberty to enjoy the lake with out people traveling at high speeds.

I boat and have boated in many places. Speed limits are a way of life in boating and slower is safer. How you can argue the inverse makes no logical sense to me.

Bravo Evenstar
 

It think she nailed it in this reply although I would say "we know" it is an unsafe policy.

Slower is safer.

The freedom to not be afraid?
 

Re-read ad the posts about speed limits and the logic should become apparent to you. Speeds above 45 scares people into fighting for limits, but there is no data which shows 45+ is the cause of accidents to any statistical significance. So, its a battle between those that are afraid of something they can't control or understand and freedom fighters. Here, the fight is to retain the existing right to persue happiness by going fast under appropriate conditions. Speed limit proponents are entitled to push for laws that restrict others, so they can feel safer. It should make sense to you that others will not accept what they feel are ineffective restrictions of freedom without a fight.

The right to not be scared is indeed one that has emerged into our culture over the past 8 years, but not everyone buys into the new agenda of fear based politics. If that doesn't make sense, go read the documents that founded this country - and see if you find anything about freedom from fear in there.

Ok I'll bite,How about the ultra light planes and similar craft which fly right over the lake or with hang gliders?Hey you asked.

Why shouldn't you be able to use your SEA kayak in the middle of a shipping lane? Because it's too busy!
What law would that be or are we just making stuff up again?

And the other side feels you are trying to compromise their use of the lake and they are fighting back also.So why don't YOU get used to it and stop whining when others have a different veiw than yourself.You get over it!Right back at ya.

This is what NH LAW states” “. . . 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, . . .” (I quoted it in my previous post, but you just ignored it.)
Unlimited speed compromises the “safe and mutual enjoyment” of other boaters. You can disagree with that all you want, but the NH law is on my side. Kayaking on the lake does not infringe on other boaters’ rights.

Speeding boats have hit each other and have even hit islands – so how safe are paddlers out there? So far we’ve been very lucky. It shouldn’t take a fatality to enact a law. I’ve had numerous close calls with speeding boats, so have other paddlers. Safety is an issue - and speed has been statictically proven to be a major cause of collisions.

No, I’m not trying to legislate wakes. If I was trying to do that, I would be doing it openly and directly. I'm supporting a bill that will force boats to slow down to a reasonable maximum speed. Period. No hidden agenda. No conspiracy.

I paddle a sea kayak, which is made to handle large waves. I happen to enjoy waves – and I often surf on large wakes.

I have kayaked and sailed on the ocean – I cross shipping lanes all the time. Commercial vessels are not going all that fast, so it is no problem to stay out of their way.

Excuse me? What have I ever made up? Look back at my previous post – I referenced and quoted that NH law.

How is paddling a kayak on the lake compromising any other boater?
Read all of this post. My “view” is supported by NH law.

This is the the type of argument speed limit proponents are facing.

Show them clear and recent US Coast Guard statistics that excessive speed is a major contributing factor in boating accidents, and they respond by saying I am digging myself into a pit of deception. Then add a few laughing faces.

The Coast Guard knows that speed if a bigger factor than alcohol, but that's just the Coast Guard, what do they know!

The opposition theory that speed in not connected to safety is absurd. The truth is obvious to anyone not committed to the "NO LIMITS" agenda.

US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

How many of the above factors are not already controlled by law?

Speeding is a relative term.
 

Variety of uses doesn't mean all. Some kayaks won't want to be out with boats going between 20 and 45. Those above 45 are just more of the same. I think the lake meets the requirements of variety of uses.

Define speeding? I sure see a lot of complaints that about speeding, yet not at speeds above 45. A speed limit of 45 won't solve the problem. Few of the "to fast for conditions" accidents are above 45. I suggest that those going above 45 are better drivers, and there are fewer of them. You're point of speeding is well taken, but the speed limit won't address it.

Common thinking is that boats going above 45 make less wake, so the issue of legislating wake and speed limits are totally different issues - as you seem to acknowledge.

Its not. Boats that want to speed need to stay clear of you and when you get in the way, the boats have to deal with it. Now if you'd only stop trying to restrict them when you aren't around.

In the context of the statistics that you posted, what is the definition of excessive speed?
A. More than 45 mph at day?
B. More than 25 mph at night?
C. Travelling too fast for the conditions?
D. Travelling faster than someone else thinks he should have?
E. Exceeding an existing speed limit?

How do YOU think the USCG defines excessive speed?

Evenstar
How can you find the ability to ban certain boats and certain operations in the phrase "the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses" ?

Unless a boat or operation can be shown to be unsafe, it would seem that this phrase would require that it be encouraged. So show me direct un-biased evidence that traveling over 45 MPH is always or at least usually unsafe on Lake Winnipesaukee. You can't because there isn't any. All we have is fear, derived from estimates of speeds in anecdotal close calls.

Bear Islander

Show me in the Coast Guard safe speed rule where sets a numerical speed limit? From a USCG point of view excess speed means breaking this rule, it has nothing to do with speed limits. You know this, stop pretending.

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

The statistics show that speed is a factor in boat accidents. "You know this, stop pretending".

Slower speeds are safer than higher speeds. "You know this, stop pretending".



All I am trying to prove is that slower is safer. And I have done so.

If you crash your boat while attempting to dock at 10 mph, then USCG will label speed as a factor. If you run aground at 30 mph in thick fog, then USCG will label speed as a factor. Given that, how many of those 464 speed related accidents do you suppose were similar to my examples? How many were above the proposed speed limits? 10%? 50%? 90%?

The Coast Guard did not determine that speed was a factor in those accidents. They determined EXCESSIVE SPEED was a factor.

I doubt that the Coast Guard will make a determination of excessive speed when you are docking at 10 mph. You are being silly.

Why don't you answer the question. Is slower safer?

NWZ speed is the safest speed possible. I think the whole lake should be NWZ.

See above in bold. You are being silly.

You have proven the slower than EXCESSIVE speed is safer than faster than EXCESSIVE speed. We all agree to that.

What you haven't done is provide any information to prove that 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee is EXCESSIVE or unsafe.

Evevstar, Slower is safer?
 

So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?

If that same boat at 20 MPH left a wake that rocked another boat passing by 200 feet away, and someone fell overboard and drowned, would you still say that "slower was safer?"

If someone gave you the authority, would you like to see all powerboats off the lake?

Do you feel that you should be able to go out to play in your little kayak, at any hour of the day, in any place on the lake?

RSA 270:1 dates back to 1941 and the law was made to help prevent (among other things) the very things that we are debating here, which is that high-speed powerboats are making the lake unsafe for others. I, and many others, contend that the current unlimited speed limit is a very unsafe policy, and this law explicitly states that NH lakes are to be “regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment.” An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer.

Paddlers were on this lakes long before any powerboat – so you can’t really argue that canoes and kayaks are not among the “variety of uses.” Kayaks are the fastest growing recreational boat, so it’s not like their popularity is decreasing. I’m also not saying that it is ok to use a boat beyond what it was designed for or for an operator to use a boat beyond their own ability. That is putting yourself in danger.

What I am saying that if a boat that is designed for large bodies of water cannot be safely used by an experienced paddler on NH lakes, due to the actions of other boaters – that we have a major problem that needs to be addressed by regulation (which is part of RSA 270:1 requires).

Speeding simply means going fast. But fast is extremely subjective, so you need a speed limit to objectively define speeding: which the dictionary also defines as, “the act or practice of exceeding the speed limit.”

You can suggest anything you want. But my experience is that some of those “better drivers” have been going so fast (above 45mph) that they have violated my 150 foot zone, before they even saw me. Is that safe?
I don’t “get in the way” – according to navigational rules, I have the right of way. Having said that, I don’t cut powerboats off and I try my best to stay out of their path. I have had to slow down fairly often for powerboaters who have cut me off.

The problem (which I have brought up many times) is that some boats are apparently traveling too fast for their operators to be able to see me in time – so they violate my 150 foot zone. If these boats were going slower, they would have more time to see me – so I would be safer.

The only real way to address operators who drive faster than their ability to maintain proper clearance is to impose a speed limit – so that they have to slow down. From what I have observed, most of my close calls did not happen because the operator intentionally violated my 150 foot zone. Most did not mean to put me/us at risk – but they still did.

For or against 45/25 mph speed limits on Winnie &
 

All of the above factors are controlled by law.

Show us where USCG defines excessive speed as over 45/25 mph or ANY solid numbers. Excessive speed could be 10 mph. Excessive speed is a relative and changing number which depends on many factors and circumstances.

BTW BI, you never gave an answer to the question that assumes all current boating laws are obeyed 100% what more would this 45/25 bill accomplish. Your style is to just dismiss the question saying that 100% compliance will never happen. We can all agree 100% will never happen. This simply takes away a variable for discussion.

Not only do you avoid and dismiss certain questions you raise doubts about the personality of the questioner (and I'm being very polite). Your posting style and debate tactics often appear hostile or designed to "press buttons". We can debate and discuss on this forum and still be friendly or do you want to change that too?

You claim that those who are against the 45/25 mph speed limit on Winnie are therefore advocating NO LIMITS. It's not true. The debate is about the proposed 45/25 mph speed limit or NO 45/25 mph speed limit. That is the question put to the NH House and Senate. BI Spin at work.

A side note. Just like there is a speed at which it becomes unreasonable so too is there a point when too many POSTS becomes unreasonable. Point in case: My (now locked) thread about riding on the Bow. There were 79 total posts in the thread. 18 were by Bear Islander. Not even ONE of his posts addressed the thread topic. Bear Islander responded to asides but failed to deal with the subject. He can claim that he was not the one to hijack the thread. Still, Almost 25% of the messages in that thread were by BI but none mentioned the topic, the safety or legality of riding on the bow of a boat. If I used BI tactics I'd say that BI must NOT be in favor about safety of riding on a bow. No PFDs and no seats designed for that activity but not on the agenda of Bear islander.

How many posts are too many? If you look at numbers, your USCG report shows that Excessive Speed (whatever the actual numbers are 10 mph or 100 mph) was listed as a factor in 18% of the total accidents. Your not-on-topic posts were almost 25% of the messages in the ride on bow thread. Just talking about the percentage for a moment and not the topic, which % is excessive, 25% or 18%?

A casualty of Speed Limits seems to be the thread I started about riding on the bow.

Teach me to come out of lurking and get involved.........

Speed, excessive speed, WHATEVER. Thats actually what I meant. 10 mph while docking is excessive speed, and is the likely direct cause of any damage you receive. What about my fog example?

Is slower safer? Yes. Is 90 mph safer than 100 mph? Yes. Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. Is is 35 mph safer than 45 mph? Yes. Is 3 mph safer than 6 mph? Yes. What's your point?

First of all, I have never suggested banning “certain boats” – but I do contend that an act that is repeatedly putting other boaters at risk should be regulated. No one has the right to put others at risk.

Traveling over 45 mph is always unsafe when that speed is above the ability of the operator to maintain 150 feet of clearance from other vessels, shorelines, objects, or swimmers. Traveling over 45 mph is also always unsafe when the operator is under the influence, or when the operator is not being 100% attentive, or when visibility (or the operator’s eyesight) is less than perfect.

Those are all very un-biased reasons. And it has been my experience that those conditions happen rather frequently on Winni.

[quote=TiltonBB;67721]So.....If a boat slowed from 45 to 20 and then left a larger wake that tipped you over in your Sea Kayak (Note: It's a "Sea Kayak, not a "Lake Kayak" I bet they named it that for a reason!) you would still say that was safer?
Where do you think kayaks got their origins? Most recreational kayaks are not “sea-worthy” sea kayaks are. I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat – and I have experienced what you described many times. Is it safe, no – but I never felt that I was in any danger when that happened.

Yes, I still maintain that, overall, slower is safer. But that doesn’t mean that accidents can’t be caused by idiots who are traveling at slow speeds. I have never read where any speed limit supporter has ever suggested that a lake speed limit would solve all the boating problems.

Now you’re just baiting me. But I’m used to that here.
First question: No – I’ve stated many times on this forum that I have nothing against power boats.
Second question: First of all my kayak isn’t “little” – it’s longer than some powerboats. The sailboats that I race in ocean waters are shorter. And I don't play on the lake - I kayak - I'm very serious about my sport.

But my answer is: No, no more it would be safe for most powerboats to be out on the lake in any conditions. During daylight hours, under decent visibility and weather conditions, I do feel that I should be able to safely paddle on any part of the lake. (But I’m an experienced kayaker and I have the proper clothing and equipment.)

"Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer.

Coast Guard Rules vs. NH Rules
 

I think many are missing an important point.

In all bodies of water where the CG has gathered the data BI keeps pointing to, there is no 150' rule. So, any comparison to what is being proposed in NH were we have an existing 150' rule is completely bogus.

Excessive speed in CG's assessment can be any speed deamed too fast for existing conditions. Without a 150' NWZ around every other vessel, boats in CG waters are often moving at 25 MPH or faster even when within 25' to 50' of each other. It is a much more dangerous situation than we have on the lake. If you do not believe me, go out of Boston Harbor some summer week day, not even on a weekend, and you will see many things, much faster and much closer that we ever see on the lake. This is within the outer harbor, from Deer Island inwards to Logan airport.

We have a rule on the lake, the 150' rule, that works when enforced. The CG has no rule like it. Therefore, the boating environments are totally different and the data is not applicaple to this discussion.

It is like comparing apples and watermelons!

R2B

Good Lord, I should have known you would do that. My point is that any speed is safer than every speed higher than it. Why 45 and not 35 or 55? Its an arbitrary limit pulled out of somebody's butt with no research to back it up.

I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer.

Speed limits = A Less Safe Lake Winnipesaukee!
 

This is part of a posting I wrote on the "Proposed Law" thread (#241) that seems appropriate here.

Islander

Since you do seem to have some sources for insight that I lack, I'd be quite interested in discussing the subject with you once the season gets rolling (though the way ice-out is going, it may be a moot point by then!)

My opposition to the speed limit started back in the days of HB162 based upon my feeling that it was unjust to penalize all GFBL operators for the misbehavior of a few Captain Bonehead types.

The Bear Lover post that I quoted stating that the speed limit was intended to get GFBLs off the lake and naming my type of boat (cruisers) as the next target :eek: solidified my opposition to the speed limit; that opposition has been reinforced by the numerous posts along the same lines made by various forum members.

It would be nice to be able to believe that this legislation really is about safety rather than about an attempt by shorefront property owners to dictate who gets to use the lake. Who knows, maybe one of us actually does have a chance of convincing the other....

Silver Duck

Question for kayakers....
If you feel unsafe crossing the broads with the occasional boat traveling over 45 mph, do you anticipate feeling safe (not safer) under the same circumstances with boats going 45?

What is wrong with safer?

There is no "safe" in this life. Safer is the best you can expect. Very often you have to settle for "just a little bit safer".

What you mean to say is there is no data that you will accept because there is always a second element that factors into accidents. Slower means more reaction time!

How do you argue with the statement that slower is safer?

I don't think anyone is arguing that slower speeds give you more time to react. The historical data on accidents in NH indicate the trend to be lower speed accidents instead of high speed. Take a look at the deaths, hit kayaks, etc in NH. How many took place at speeds of 45mph+ compared to less than 45mph? It is not the reaction time that has caused the accidents that we have had, they mainly have been alcohol contributed.

Creating a law that is not needed according to factual data in NH, and striking on peoples fears instead of facts is not what laws should be based on.

No Speed Determined...
 

Since the USCG makes no speed determinations from waters where they have no jurisdiction, the USCG relies on the reports of mostly part-time Winnipesaukee officers. However, nobody's seen any determination of the speed at which Winnipesaukee's Eagle Island crash occurred, as one example.

Who would find "THE FACT" of excessive speeds on Winnipesaukee where no speeds are ever determined? :confused:

Every weekend boater—willing or not—participates in some way in a Poker Run. One might empathize with this Winnipesaukee bass fisherman on one Poker Run weekend.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...intafeared.jpg

In 2007, it was nice to see that Donzi finally filed the required NHMP permit after years of "fun". :rolleye1:

The oldest brother's body was found; however, as in so many other cases, a determination of alcohol's metabolites was never announced.

Thanks, but what the request was, "What would those three brothers be telling us about a 'Need for Speed' on Winnipesaukee's protected inland waters?" (Where they could endanger more boaters, and boat even faster than they did).

Is the special training available to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (Yes). :)

Is the special training required to operate a boat capable of over 50-MPH? (No). :(

Three brothers lost to the thrill of speed together is an especially tragic loss—I can't readily dismiss it.

What was the speed of the Rattlesnake Island crash? The fatality in Tuftonboro collision? The Parker Island crash? The Camp Island crash? The fatality off Parker Island of a seasoned boat mechanic? The upside-down crash into a cottage that took three lives? The most recent Long Lake collision? The kayak collision?

Answer: Nobody knows—not the NHMP and, most famously, not the Coast Guard itself.

Sorry, I've never heard of Wharton. (Sure sounds important, though).

Mine was a "real" prototype: think of a Jet-Ski only 18" high, but with a tunnel-hull underside. Here's what the tunnel-hull design looks like underneath.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...p_saturday.jpg

However, a wake overwhelmed me on its first outing. (And how I discovered that a 6-gallon gas tank can be a floatation device!) As a 17-year-old—and not yet a high school graduate—I could only afford a 15-HP outboard. (And it was second-hand).

Since then, it's always been closed-course speeds for my thrills: the option of being extracted trying to "crawl away" from a collision has always been more appealing than trying to "keep from drowning".

I don't have the disposable income that would permit me a REAL toy that even some local governments can't afford. I also don't have the disposable income that would permit me to pay an annual five-figure insurance premium: I'm one of those "lesser" boaters, with one of those "lesser" credit ratings.

I should own a 20' Bayliner, I guess. :rolleye2:

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...sPoster357.jpg

I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.

As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?

First of all can you show me any statistics that show the actual speed being traveled when an accident took place.

Second, if you look at the stats a few things become clear.

Operator inattention and careless, reckless are the 2 top reasons for an accident. Most accidents are from open motorboats, and collision with another vessels being a predominant accident. I wonder why sailboats are so far down the list................maybe because they are going so slow? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.............................

Speed is number 3 on the list. No kidding. The first mistake is lack of care regardless of speed HOWEVER slower speeds gives everyone more time to handle those mistakes and we all make mistakes. Slower just gives us more time to deal with those errors.

BI knows this. He can't be THAT stupid. He just uses a partial truth from the Coast Guard to spin in his direction. And here's some laughing faces for you:laugh::laugh::laugh:

We don't need safer? What?

Everyone agrees that 45 mph is arbitrary but so what? So, is the speed limit on Route 93. I am sure we could easily drive that at 80mph+++.......................until someone makes a mistake and then what happens.

Your side would argue any speed limit.

When you side says the speed limit proponents have an irrational fear I say that you folks have not spent enough hours boating because otherwise you would get it.

One thing we can agree on................I will not change your mind and you will not change my mind.

Anyway I just chimmed in to take some of the shots BI was getting.