That's the point exactly. Someone can drive 80++ on 93 and WILL make a mistake. Did the speed limit on 93 PREVENT that person from making a mistake?? That's the whole point.

Sure. To the exact MPH? NO, because it would be almost impossible unless someone was watching with a radar gun when it happened.

• In 2006 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed of over 30 mph . . . this is for the entire year and includes all 970 lakes/ponds and over 12,000 miles of rivers and streams.

• During the entire year of 2007 there were zero boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 40 mph. There was 1 accident in 2007 that involved a speed of < 30 mph whereby an operator of a personal water craft (PWC) fell off and his craft struck another PWC.

• We hadn’t had a single boat collision fatality in New Hampshire for over 4 years. There was 1 fatality involving a personal watercraft (jet ski) at a speed less than 20 mph in 2007.

Somewhere on the forum there is an exact list of incidents from last year, I do not remember who posted it, but I am sure someone will chime in.

Bingo!!! :cheers:

The is plenty of data, many accidents. However the opponents live in a river in Egypt and will explain away every accident.

Single boats accidents don't count

Accident before mandatory certification don't count

If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't count

If alcohol has involved it doesn't count

Accident on another lake don't count

If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't count

Accidents before (pick a date) don't count

There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.

Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.

Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.

It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.

What does count?
 

The only accidents that should count are the ones in which speed (over 45 mph) was a major contributing factor. Period.

With that said, how many have there been?

Comments are in red.

Woodsy says, that's who. Others helped.

Thanks for pointing out one I missed with respect to the Double Fatality.

Accidents on lakes without speed limits don't count.

That means no accident that has ever taken place on Winnipesaukee counts (good one!). You once asked me to give a yes or no answer with no explanations, qualifications etc. and I did. Now you owe me one yes or no answer.

Is slower safer?

Is slower safer
 

If you need a yes or no question, the answer is no. But my real answer is "it depends". On Winnipesaukee, boats that go faster than 45 are safer. They hit few other boats, islands and kayaks than those going slower. This is because captains that go that fast are better, therefore safer pilots. This is why a speed limit of 45 won't help. The most dangerous boats are going 15-35. Slower than 15-35 would be safer, but there will be more crys of foul if you go after the real source of danger.

What is happening here in NH is all that counts
 

The pro-speed limit "few" keeps spinning things and posting things that are just plain not happening here.

We have a great rule with respect to safety: the 150' rule.

Things happening outside of NH, all in places without the 150' rule, just plain do not count. It is an entirely different boating environment! The 150" rule works. Enforce what we have.

Our law makers had great in-sight when they created the 150' rule. It makes things safer than it is in all other areas without this wonderful rule.

I liked yesterday's ideas about restricted zones around camps. That helps more people enjoy the lake and adds value to safety of the children. I fully support this proposal.

Today, we are back to the same-old, same-old. I guess the pro-speed limit "few" have figured out that their effort to get certain boat types off the lake is not supported with this thinking.

The pro-speed limit "few" are only trying to impose their will on the rest of the NH boating public and they will continue to stoop to the lowest levels to spin their agenda. This agenda includes removal of all fast boats and all cruisers.

After the speed limit will come wake sizes and/or HP restrictions. Trust me!! This is only "step one" in a well planned agenda designed to get all the vessel types they do not like off the lake. They will stoop to whatever it takes to do this.

Boaters Beware!

R2B

A thought for senators and opponents of the proposed law
 

Why are opponents to this bill falling into the trap of trying to defend how safe Lake Winnipesaukee already is? Anyone who cares to read the NEW HAMPSHIRE boating stats from either the NH Marine Patrol or the US Coast Guard can see that is is a very safe lake.

As I pointed out in my post #510 (it tended to disappear between the lag time and APS' entertaining picture posts) I put forward this argument;

I submit that speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee will have the exact opposite effect and make the lake less safe!

In my local paper last night an editorial suggests that New Hampshire's budget deficit could be $200,000,000! A much higher figure than the one that I had heard and used.

I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer.

Sorry.......................you miss the point. As the speed increases so do the accidents and the SEVERITY. Just look back to when the speed limit on 93 was 55 mph.

The point is when you go slower there is more time to react AND the severity will be less. Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzz.

I think that is the most comical argument I have seen yet! Capt. Bonehead only drives slow boats. Some of you are drinking too much lake water or something. Anyway thanks for the laugh.

The national 55 mph speed limit was partially repealed in 1987, when they began allowing 65 mph on rural interstates. It was fully repealed in 1995. Please refer to the graph below as to the horrible human toll taken by the increased speeds.

http://geoff82.files.wordpress.com/2...0000-miles.gif

I understand that this is nationwide. Forgive me, but I cannot find a similar graph for NH, but it would certainly display the same trend.

JD eere

That IS a classic. If we could get all those slower boats to go faster, think how safe the lake would be then!

I could be all wrong about a horsepower limit, we need a horsepower MINIMUM. If we restrict the lake to over 300 HP we will never have an accident again.:laugh:


Then again...... slower is safer

Ok fair enough, I can't argue that logic. Now remind me once again how many fatalities we've had on the lake due to excessive speed?

(btw love the jeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...it reminds me of my kids when they are irritated with me!!) :laugh:

The 150' rule is a lot better than the speed limit proposal. It just needs to be ENFORCED. If they (the NHMP) can't enforce that then how will they enforce the speed limits. Answer: They can't.

The 45 MPH speed limit is certainly not the panacea you think it is either.

If slower is really safer, why didn't you folks go for a 35 MPH speed limit, or a 30 MPH speed limit, or even a 25 MPH speed limit?

45 MPH is a speed that excludes the faster boats from the lake. Ops, I'm sorry, I answered my own question. :):laugh::coolsm:

R2B

Hey your right for once! 35 mph would be safer than 45 mph. Finally you understand. I think 45 mph is fine but if you want to advocate for 35 mph I guess I could go for that.

Well maybe you got me. Not worth the time to go find something to argue the point. If your stats are correct I assume there is a correlation to airbags, seat belts etc...............

The 150' rule is hard for the MP to enforce. In almost all cases it's not possible to actually measure the distance, an estimate is required. And even harder if the MP is looking at a possible violation from a distance. And people will disagree about what is 150'

A speed limit is easier to enforce, point the radar gun and read the speed.

From my experience, more than an "occasional" boat travels over 45 mph on the lake, and some boats travel much faster than 45mph.

But to answer your question, yes - and I've stated why numerous times. I've spent a great deal of time on Squam, which has a 40 mph speed limit. Squam feels much safer than Winni - and for me, the main factor is the difference in the speed of the powerboats.

Personally, I would rather that the proposed speed limit was 40mph, because I've had a great deal of experience kayaking on a lake with an enforced 40mph speed limit - so I know what that is like. But 45 mph is close, and it's better than what we have now. I would also prefer that the proposed speed limit applied to all NH lakes and that it didn't have a sunset clause (as it was originally written)

Bear,
The problem is, it was my question. If you have your own I am sure you would be pleased to ask it.
I am very very sincere. If the argument for the speed limit is because some don't feel "safe" than it is a legitimate question. Your response is why I felt the need to be specific. If we need to give up a freedom for a smaller group, it is fair to weigh the benefits vs cost.

If a kyacker wanted to answer my question with "yes I would feel safe" it would say something. Your response also says a lot.

Often we have little choice but to settle for a little less freedom but we can try to understand the reason with more explanation than "because I said so".

Magic Number
 

JD,

I realize we all know that 35 MPH would not have passed the house.

45 MPH was a speed limit you folks thought you could sell and it did the job of getting the fast boats off the lake. It was your magic number.

R2B

45 mph is not magic, and where it came from is not a mystery. It is the limit used by Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Lake George.

Comical reprieve
 

Happy to oblige. I've had a laugh of two at the arguments for speed limits and there is no reason not to return the favor.

Seriously though, if you take the group of boats going over 45, you see a lot less bonehead moves. Going fast demands attention. Its harder to be safe, yet they are. If they weren't better drivers, we'd see more accidents - but we don't.

Reasonable speed regulations are already in place in NH
 

Alleged facts repeated over and over again do NOT make them true or more true. A Bear Islander tactic: responded to me by asking me a question then a few messages later, to "save me the time", he answers the question himself, his way.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que - Post #414 (as quoted by BI):
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
Bear Islander answering for me with what he wants us to believe.

That is all Bear Islander can come up with in desperation (in my name). Here's more info than we need however it is proof of NH speed regulations. I can come up with these without BI's kind assistance. I apologize to forum readers for the length of this post and have made a few notes about skimming or jumping over certain boring parts.

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2-a
270-D:2-a Boaters Guide. – The department of safety, division of safety services, shall publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. Source: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-D-2-a.htm

From the State mandated Safe Boating handbook guide:
Handbook - safe speed and distance: http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/handbook/meet.htm

Boating Basics: On the Water

Safe navigation on New Hampshire waterways is everyone's responsibility. All operators are equally responsible for taking action necessary to avoid collisions.

Encountering Other Vessels

Even though no vessel has the "right-of-way" over another vessel, there are some rules that every operator should follow when encountering other vessels. It is the responsibility of both operators to take the action needed to avoid a collision. The navigation rules page shows what to do when encountering another vessel.

To prevent collisions, every operator should follow the three basic rules of navigation.

* Practice good seamanship.
* Keep a sharp lookout.
* Maintain a safe speed and distance.

----------------------

Some have claimed that the required handbook is not always correct. And maybe BI can claim that "safe speed" does not look like "reasonable speed". So I present more boating speed rules from the New Hampshire General Court.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Speed on Lake:
The page: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-D/270-D-2.htm

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
I. Vessels shall be operated at headway speed only, while passing under all bridges.
II. (a) It shall be the duty of each vessel to keep to the right when vessels are approaching each other head on.
(b) When the courses of vessels are so far to the starboard of each other as not to be considered as approaching head on, they shall keep to the left.
III. When vessels are crossing courses or approaching each other in an oblique direction which may involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on its starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other, allowing the latter vessel to keep its course and speed.
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants. No person operating a vessel shall abruptly change its course without first determining that it can safely be done without crossing immediately ahead of another vessel.
V. If, when vessels are approaching each other, either vessel fails to understand the course or intention of the other from any cause, such vessel or vessels shall immediately slow to a speed barely sufficient for steerage until the vessels have safely passed each other. If it appears the danger of collision is imminent both vessels shall stop or reverse and not proceed until such danger has been averted.
VI. (a) To provide full visibility and control and to prevent their wake from being thrown into or causing excessive rocking to other boats, barges, water skiers, aquaplanes or other boats, rafts or floats, all vessels shall maintain headway speed when within 150 feet from:
(1) Rafts, floats, swimmers.
(2) Permitted swimming areas.
(3) Shore.
(4) Docks.
(5) Mooring fields.
(6) Other vessels.
(b) These requirements shall not apply when:
(1) Starting skiers from shore, docks or floats, as long as neither the boat nor the skier is endangering the life or safety of any person.
(2) A vessel is in the federal deepwater shipping channel of the Piscataqua River between navigation buoys R2, Wood Island at the mouth of the river and R12, opposite the Sprague Terminal.
(c) The operator of a towing boat shall be responsible for compliance with this paragraph.
(d) The requirements of RSA 270-D:2, VI(a)(3) shall not apply to a vessel in the waters of the Androscoggin River from the Errol Dam to Umbagog Lake or in the waters of the Magalloway River within the state of New Hampshire.
VI-a. [Repealed.]
VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit.
VIII. When a vessel is required to keep out of the way of another, it shall, if necessary, slacken its speed, stop, or reverse, and avoid crossing ahead of any other vessel.
IX. Canoes, rowboats and sailboats shall be given the right-of-way. This requirement shall not be construed to allow deliberate impediment of motorboats by canoes, rowboats or sailboats.

Source. 1990, 171:1. 1994, 78:1. 1995, 191:2, eff. June 1, 1997; 191:3, eff. Dec. 31, 1998. 2002, 272:13, eff. May 18, 2002.

--------------------

The next batch of speed rules for the lake get to be pretty boring to read. You may want to skim down past all the “no wake zone” speed restrictions to PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES for other NH boat speed rules



Saf-C 402.88 Lake Winnipesaukee.

(a) That part of Paugus Bay between the buoy located 250 feet from the west side of the bay to the western-most black top buoy shall be a "no wake" area.

(b) The Weirs Channel, so-called, between the light buoy in said channel near the Endicott Rock in Lake Winnipesaukee, and the southernmost light buoy in the channel in Lake Paugus shall be a "no wake" area.

(c) That part of Alton Bay in Lake Winnipesaukee lying south of the line running east and west through the bandstand shall be a "no wake" area. Commercial vessels operating in this area shall pass on the east side of the bandstand.

(d) Between the red top buoy located by light buoy #23 and Sandy Point in Alton Bay shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(e) That portion of Lake Winnipesaukee known as Sally's Gut from the easternmost to the westernmost buoys marking this passage shall be a "no wake" area in either direction.

(f) From the red and white buoy situated off the southeasterly portion of Locke's Island in Lake Winnipesaukee to a point 600 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(g) From the red and white buoy at the entrance of Smith's Cove at Glendale and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(h) The channel between Loon Island and the mainland in the town of Meredith from the red buoy situated off the southeast portion of Loon Island to a point 400 feet northerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(i) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Varney and Kenniston Islands from the black and white buoy marking the southeast entrance to the red buoy marking the northwest entrance of the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(j) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Pine Island and Meredith Neck between the black and white buoy and the red buoy marking the northerly and southerly entrances respectively shall be a "no wake" area.

(k) On Lake Winnipesaukee in the channel between Horse Island and Meredith Neck, between the red buoy on the southerly approach and the black and white buoy at the northeasterly approach to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(l) Between navigation light number 69 and Governor's Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(m) From the entrance to Minge Cove at West Alton to the flashing light buoy located within the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(n) From the flashing light buoy in Minge Cove and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(o) Between Chase Island and Farm Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(p) In the cove on the southwesterly side of Governor's Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(q) From the no wake sign located at the southern entrance to Fish Cove to the northernmost point of the cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(r) From the northernmost black top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the southernmost point of the channel between Three Mile Island and the Hawk's Nest shall be a "no wake" area.

(s) From 150 feet beyond the northwest end of the Beaver Island Channel to 150 feet beyond the southeastern end of the Beaver Island Channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(t) From a point 150 feet from the west side of the Black Cat Island Bridge to a point 150 feet of the eastern side of the Black Cat Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(u) From a point 150 feet from the southwesternmost red top buoy to a point 150 feet beyond the northernmost red top buoy between Mark Island and Mink Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(v) From the red top buoy at the entrance of Glidden Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(w) From light buoy #75 to the southernmost point of Small's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(x) From light buoy #79 to the southeasternmost point of Robert's Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(y) From a point 150 feet southeast of the Basin Bridge to a point 150 feet northwest of the Basin Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(z) From a point 150 feet from the east entrance of Green's Basin to a point 150 feet beyond the western entrance of Green's Basin shall be a "no wake" area.

(aa) From the red top buoy located on the south side of Whaleback Island to a point 150 feet beyond the north entrance to the channel between Whaleback Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ab) From a point 150 feet from the southeastern entrance of the channel between Ganzey Island and the mainland to a point 150 feet beyond the northern entrance to the same channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(ac) From a point 150 feet east of the black top buoy located off the north side of 9 Acre Island to a point 150 feet beyond the southwestern entrance of the channel between 9 Acre Island and Moultonborough Neck shall be a "no wake" area.

(ad) From the westernmost black top buoy located off the Long Island Public Beach to a point 150 feet beyond the eastern side of the Long Island Bridge shall be a "no wake" area.

(ae) From light buoy #65 to the red top buoy located on the northeast side of Devens Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(af) From the southwesternmost red top buoy to the northeasternmost red top buoy located southwest of Hermit Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ag) From the southernmost black top buoy to the northernmost black top buoy in Salmon Meadow Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ah) From the no wake sign which is located on the southeast entrance to Kelly Cove to the northwesternmost point of Kelly Cove shall be a "no wake" area.

(ai) From a point 150 feet northeast of the no wake sign located at the entrance to Gilford Marina and southwesterly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(aj) From a point 150 feet north of the entrance of Lake Shore Park and southerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(ak) From a point 150 feet easterly of the channel markers marking the entrance to Duck Trap Cove and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(al) From a point 150 feet southwest of the channel between Farm Island and Tuftonboro to a point 150 feet northeast of the entrance to the channel shall be a "no wake" area.

(am) From the no wake sign located on the eastern side of Shep Brown's Boat Basin and westerly thereof shall be a "no wake" area.

(an) The cove portion of Lake Winnipesaukee west of Black Island, between Geneva Point Center and Black Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(ao) From a point 150 feet south of Ledge Island and proceeding northward into Fish Cove shall be a "no wake" area. This "no wake" area shall not include the interior of the unnamed cove to the east of Fish Cove.

(ap) The area 150 feet north of the Bear Island mail dock to 150 feet south of the mail dock in the channel between the Bear Island Post Office and Pine Island shall be a "no wake" area.

(aq) Hanson Cove in Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area, including that area between the mouth of the cove, 150 yards due west of the large rock, to the large rock's corresponding black top navigational marker near Toltec Point.

(ar) That portion of Langley Cove in Paugus Bay, beginning from the city of Laconia Tax Map 69, Block 248, Lot 6 and running westerly to the western most point of Christmas Island in Paugus Bay, shall be a "no wake" area.

(as) The unnamed cove easterly of Light 41 on Cow Island, in the town of Tuftonboro, shall be a "no wake" area.

(at) Raoul’s Cove in the town of Moultonborough, from a line drawn beginning on the northern side of Lot 35 and the southern boundary of adjacent lot 33, proceeding across the cove to a point on the northern most side of Lot 91 and the southern boundary of adjacent Lot 92 on Moultonborough tax map #32 shall be a "no wake" area.

(au) That part of Meredith bay in Lake Winnipesaukee running from an imaginary straight line as drawn from the Town of Meredith Tax Map U-2, Lot 7 southern boundary to Map U-15, Lot 48A southern boundary, to the northerly end of the bay on Route 25 shall be a "no wake" area.

(av) The channel named Eagle Island Narrows between Egle Island and Governors Island on Lake Winnipesaukee shall be a "no wake" area.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 402.75), amd by #8614, eff 4-25-06

----------------------------------

PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.01 Operating in Fog.

(a) When vessels are running in a fog, mist, falling snow or heavy rain storm, or when vessels cannot see each other, it shall be the duty of the pilot to cause a long blast, 4 to 6 seconds in duration, of the whistle or horn to be sounded at intervals not exceeding 2 minutes.

(b) A vessel hearing the fog signal of another vessel, apparently forward of the beam, the position of which is not ascertained, shall immediately slow to headway speed only, and then navigate with caution until danger of collision is over.

----------------
Saf-C 404.04 Meeting or Passing Log Rafts. All vessels when meeting or passing rafts or logs being towed shall, during such meeting or passing, reduce their speed to such an extent as to prevent their wake from causing logs to break away or washing out of the raft or boom.

-----------

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.

(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.

(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:

(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;

(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;

(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and

(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

(d) Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, this section shall not apply to the following:

(1) Water events as set forth in RSA 270-D:4 and Saf-C 413; and

(2) Law enforcement agencies and their representatives acting in their official capacity.

Source. #8172, eff 9-21-04 (from Saf-C 404.11)

---------------------------------

Saf-C 405.04 Regulatory Markers. Regulatory markers shall be geometric figures painted international orange and white. They shall indicate the existence of danger, speed zones, swim areas and other controls. Spelled-out words or recognized abbreviations may appear on these markers to convey their meaning to the operators of vessels.

------------------------------------
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/.../270-D-2-a.htm

Over DONE - have a nice day now. :)

Wow Skipper, that is an incredible post!

It is the most over the top, none responsive post I have ever seen.

There is no "reasonable speed law" in New Hampshire.

You can highlight every time the words "No Wake" appears in the regulations but they are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

Recommendations made in the boaters guide are in no way a "reasonable speed law".

The fact you are required to slow your boat when you hear a fog signal of unknown origin is not a "reasonable speed law". I could continue with every other off topic answer you posted, but then my post would be as silly and unreadable as yours. NONE OF THEM ARE A REASONABLE SPEED LAW!

Based on my personal experience on the lake I have not found there to be a difference between bonehead moves of boaters of fast or slow boats. I have seen a performance boat sink because it was taking high speed turns and he lost control. I have seen a performance boat create a wake then go over it to catch some air. I was in a cove and although the boat was 200 feet away I got out of there as fast as I could. because one mistake on his part and I became a statistic. I also had a very close call when an idiot did a 180 and turned directly toward my boat. I have always thanked God that he was only going 30 mph or so because any faster and I could not have gotten out of his way He missed my by 2 or 3 feet! (MP charged him with reckless endangerment)

I once was trolling near Welsh Island and it was just after sunrise. I saw a boat traveling at a high speed coming directly in my path. As he approached I was wondering if I should jump off the boat. He passed within 30 feet at 60 mph+++. As he passed me he gave a me a warm one fingered wave. I must have annoyed him somehow. Damn those fisherman. It is those types that have created a legitimate fear in boaters.

I firmly believe that anyone who has spent enough hours on the lake understands the problem and slower will HELP make things safer for EVERYONE to enjoy the lake.................oops I guess everyone who is happy traveling at 45 mph or less but that is almost all of us!

The skipper may not understand what we are talking about when we say reasonable speed law.

A reasonable speed law is a speed limit without a specific number. Instead of saying 45 day 25 night the law says that a boats speed must be reasonable and prudent under prevailing conditions. Or other word to that effect.

Back to "The Survey"...
 

A "similar graph" takes just 0.28 seconds: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departm...33_NH_2006.htm

Among the 50 states, NH is a tiny sampling and subject to extreme statistical peaks and valleys.

In NH, most alcohol-related roadway fatalities occur in counties contiguous with Massachusetts. The majority of fatalities occur "departing the roadway"—hardly an Interstate issue. :rolleye2:

Among boaters, where seatbelt compliance and airbags are irrelevent, this is a non-starter. :rolleye1:

Great post Skipper.
 

I planned to congratulate you on a thorough post Skipper. As you indicated it was overdone but made the point that reasonable relevant speed laws do exist on Winnipesaukee.

That is all I was going to do until I saw the response by Bear Islander. I do not want to get sucked into his game. I'll just point out a few salient rules from your posting that he ignored or considered irrelevant.

CHAPTER 270-D
BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS
Section 270-D:2
270-D:2 General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. –
IV. When vessels are running in the same direction and the vessel which is astern desires to pass the other, it shall do so only when sufficient distance between the vessels is available to avoid danger of collision, and at such a speed that its wake will not endanger the boat being passed or its occupants.

VI. VII. When a vessel is given the right-of-way, such vessel shall hold its course and maintain such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Boats converge using such speed as the circumstances prudently permit. Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.
---------------------------------
PART Saf-C 404 BOATING RULES

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
If you are not operating at a reasonable speed you are obviously not operating in a safe manner.

Again, nicely done Skipper. Thank you.

Once again, none of them are a reasonable speed law, not even close. Perhaps, as Islander points out, there are those that do not understand the term. More likely they are grasping at straws.

I notice that the Commodore only posted the first part of Saf-C 404.12 He could not post the entire thing because the rest does not help his argument. He even adds his own comment in a way that makes it seem like it's part of the rule.

It is all just part of the agenda....
 

Its really sad how this speed limit debate has torn apart the once fun community that was Lake Winnipesaukee...

Instead of everybody working together for real and meaningful changes that will appease everybody... (like the "Camp Zone" idea) and perhaps a few more No Wake Zones in selected areas, maybe even a nighttime speed limit.
WINNCRABS have chosen to pursue a 45/25 speed limit. Something I view as an unreasonable restriction on my liberty. A speed limit that will ultimately prove unenforceable for many reasons. Those of you who attended the meeting in Franklin and witnessed the NHMP testimony know the NHMP testified that while the radar units worked in a few certain situations, meeting the burden of proof in a court of law and the cost of operation was a concern. But I digress...

The reality of the speed limit is far more sinister!

BI, Islander, JDeere, Evenstar, FLL and the rest of WINNCRABS have an agenda, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it publicly. The sad part is, that while they wave the flag of safety, the agenda has absolutely nothing to do with safety... just ask Rep. Pilliod the original sponsor of HB-162! I have the message he left on MY answering machine where he SPECIFICALLY states "IT'S NOT ABOUT SAFETY!!"

The WINNCRABS agenda is to change the lake to THIER liking by ELIMINATING those who THEY consider undesireables... hi-performance boats first.... followed by the cruisers (told ya so) then the PWC's after that!

Unfortunately, WINNCRABS have no safety statistics or data to support thier need for a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, so they resort to using other states & lakes as examples.... all the while never having boated there! In fact none of the states & lakes they use as examples have a 150' Safe Passage Rule. It is this 150' rule that keeps NH unique among the the other 50 states. It also keeps our boat to boat collisions to a minimum.

WINNCRABS dismiss the speed study done by the NHMP as useless because it didnt fit in with thier agenda. No doubt if the study had shown a different result they would be raving about it! The study conclusively shows that speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Lake Winnipesaukee has a long and storied love affair with hi-performance boats. To be sure there have been some accidents, and no doubt there have been a few Boneheads behind the wheel too. Overall the boating safety record on Lake Winnipesaukee is exemplary. The NHMP yearly safety report supports this.

NH should follow the existing law so often quoted by Evenstar and work towards making Lake Winnipesaukee INVITING to everyone, from the Hi-Performance boater to the canoeist/kayaker. Boat registrations will no doubt be down for the next few years with gas approaching $4/gal. This will also result in a smaller budget for NHMP. The first to feel the pinch of high fuel costs will be the daytripper family boater in the small runabout. They will be the first to severely limit thier trips or just not use it thier boat altogether. Next to feel the pinch are the average folks with camps and property around the lake... between the property taxes, fuel costs and the overall crappy state of the economy, thier boating will no doubt be severely limited. I know of several families that have thier boat for sale and have no plans to use it this summer. If HB-847 passes the next to go will be the hi-perfomance boats. As an example, there probably wont be a Donzi Poker Run if there is a 45MPH speed limit. While some of you think thats just dandy, thats 30 boats and about 100 people that won't travel to the lake and spend thier $$$ on food and lodging. (not to mention how much $$$ us local guys spend that weekend) If the local hi-performance guys don't feel welcome anymore, they will just trade in thier big $$$ hi-po boats on big $$$ cruisers. This trades one problem for another... more cruisers = more wakes! If the WINNCRABS agenda continues unabated, and they somehow manage to make the big cruiser folks and the PWC's feel unwelcome... Then then who is left to patronize the businesses around the lake that depend so much on the boating economy? What happens when Rusty Mclear can't blame the hi-performance boater for his lack of room bookings or boat rentals?

The steady decline of Lake Winnipesaukee begins with HB-847...

Be very very careful in what you wish for.... you just might get it!

Woodsy

Please explain why Squam property with its 30 mph speed limits is more valuable than Winni property. Just does not add up to me. I would hate to see my property value increase. I hate when it does that or at least the tax bill that comes with it.

Speed limits will not hurt Winni. For now gas prices will do the damage to the the lakes economy.

Wow
 

WOW this just keeps going. Its been interesting reading all the different views on this subject. And it's pretty obvious that everyones opinions are pretty set. I came in to this with no real opinion, and was interested in readings everyone's views. On the surface the speed limit sounds like a good idea. Slow everyone down, give them more time to react. The majority of the boats on the lake go slower than 45 mph anyway, so who cares let them pass the bill. And my opinion is that a speed limit isn't a bad idea, BUT I have other concerns. The speed limit passes, now who is going to enforce it? The Marine Patrol is already stretched too thin as it is. In an already stretched budget where is the money going to come from to get the radar, laser or other equipment that will be needed to enforce the speed limit.
Now the bill itself. The drafters of this bill do seem to have had an agenda against certain boaters. I don't really want to get into whether it was intentionally done or not, but according to general opinion that is how you came across. The bill could have been written to be more inclusive. Why wasn't there a section of the lake designated as a "go fast zone" perhaps the Broads.? And everywhere else is 45 mph? Maybe the blanket 25mph at night is all right. Since the bill is Winni specific why can't it be written to be "more Winni specific" with certain landmarks used to stratify different speed zones.

The bill is written and set now so all the bickering back and forth is kinda moot. Many of us wish that it had gone down differently, I guess that wish is kinda moot too. But I just feel that as a boating community we have had our chance to make a difference stolen. While speed is an issue on the lake it is not the biggest issue facing the boating community. And our "voucher" (can't think of a better word here) has been used. If it passes the state officials have done something, they passed a speed limit!! So they look like their doing something. But will it really make a difference in the scheme of things? I don't think so, I hope I'm wrong, but this bill has probably set us back from really getting something passed that could make a measurable difference to the general boating community.
Just my $.02. Remember folks this all supposed to be fun!!!!! It is still a beautiful place to go and spend some time. And in the scheme of things it could be a lot worse.

It is actually 40mph, not 30mph and what makes you think Squam properties are worth more?? How many $12 millon dollar boathouses do you see on Squam? I think Winnipesaukee property values are plenty high, too high for many.

To answer a couple of your comments...

The Marine Patrol already has the Radar and Laser units from the speed study. No additional purchases are needed.

I think a "go fast zone" like the Broads would have been a great compromise. However Woodsy and the opposition thought they could win easily. They would not compromise and developed a "NO LIMITS" campaign. To bad really.

The Woodsy post starts out with a "can't we all get along" attitude but then sinks into calling his opposition "WINNCRABS". I ask you to consider who is really serious about solving the lakes problems, and who is just pissed off that they can't go fast anymore.

I submit to you that you are 100% emphatically NOT serious about solving the lakes problems. If you were you would understand how flawed this law is and how it does not actually address the problems plaguing the lake. If you were serious about solving PROBLEMS you would NOT support this law, you would be advocating for education and enforcement and increased marine patrol presence. You would be advocating for things such as the "Camp Zone." You are merely SETTLING for what has been put on the table in front of you. You can then feel good about yourself and claim that you support a law that is going to make the lake safer, when you and I know that it will not even begin to scratch the surface.

Stop pretending like this is anything different than GFBL repellent.

This law will address the fact that slower is safer. I am also in favor of increased education and enforcement. Must it be one or the other? Why not all three?

The only real problem with putting your efforts into increased education and enforcement is that they are NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Wonderful ideas that will not be implemented do not do it for me. They cost money, and the money is NOT THERE. However if you wish to start a movement along those lines I am with you. We need to tilt at windmills now and then.

You are correct, I am settling for an imperfect solution. However imperfect is better than nothing.



Where is that one word answer you owe me?