So this speed limit is all Woodsy's fault?All this time I thought he was against it.

Answer = NO!


Explanation= A boat is traveling from six mile island towards the broads. It is traveling at 65MPH and there are no boats within 600 + feet of this boat and nobody on the horizon. Meanwhile a boat is traveling from Island towards Bear the at 30MPH overtaking a boat traveling no wake between two buoys with an oncoming vessel off the port side. This boat squeezes between the two boats leaving barely 30 feet on either side. Which boat is traveling safer?

I'll save you the time, The FASTER boat. ;)

Revised: The Director "Mis-Spoke"?
 

Hazelnut...(Now that THAT's settled...)

What effect did this have on the study? :eek:

From the state's largest newspaper:
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...f-a1eb92561e49

I answered you with a single word, as you requested. I would have liked to have added an explanation. I didn't!

....

...


...

.... Is that the rules? So sorry I forgot. ;)

NO!

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

Hazelnut,

Great explanation and an excellent example! It really supports your well thought out answer, clearly demonstrating that slower is not necessarily safer.

BI must not have liked it because it made sense. They get nervous when counter-points make sense.

I also believe that the WINNFABS "few" did not jump onto the CAMP ZONE idea because they have invested so much of their money in the speed limit campaign. They are trying to buy a law here and their money has already been spent.

The CAMP ZONE idea makes more sense than a speed limit if you really care about safety.

R2B

NOBODY Out-does FLL, But...
 

Type...type...type...type...type...fix...type...fi x...type...type...fix...!

There!—It's fixed!
:rolleye2:

I'm starting to get the idea that what you really don't like is people with money.

Your long bash was mostly about money as well.

BI,

You are 100% incorrect with that assumption.

I like everyone! I even like those who do not agree with me.

What I dislike is the activities of people who spend money to force their desires on others who may or may not have as much money than they have. I really think buying or trying to buy a law that discriminates against a particular sub-class is un-American. I dislike PACs and I dislike the way many laws get enacted through the use of ad agencies and lobbyists.

So, it is possible for me to like someone, but to dislike what they are doing in certain circumstances.

Your friend for life, ;)

R2B

I agree completely.

BI,

So, WINNFABS is trying to make Lake Winnipesaukee more like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and part of New York? :confused:

I did not realize this.

R2B

Now you know!

No, the speed limit is not Woodsy's fault.

It's Woodsy's fault there was no compromise solution, like one with an exception for the broads.

A Resurgence of Alternate Energy?
 

Rose, I was initially stumped by your earlier question—and since nobody has answered it yet... ;)
By its very nature, HB-847 will "skim" those serially impaired, those most seriously impaired, those with sociopathic behaviors—plus, the largest, the heaviest, the fastest, and the most dangerous boats we face today...will leave Lake Winnipesaukee's waters.

Those boaters become another lake's problem: I suggest Long Lake and Ossipee Lake take up the slack. :rolleye1:

'Better check that again. :rolleye2:

Your boat is probably equipped with an engine...:rolleye1:

And if he's weaving? He's over the limit—AND speeding.

I personally don't see the lake as overcrowded; unfortunately, there are some boats that use up more of the lake than others.

We may see a resurgence of sail on the lake: Sailboat manufacturers are crying "poor" too.

It prevents dozens of "mistakes".

Every day. :)

In many cases, it only takes a fraction of a million dollars to "force their desires" on us lesser boaters.

Many owners will die before selling out. :fire:

We desire the "by natural causes" route, however. :rolleye1:

A decline we can LIVE with. ;)

Question:

How many times have you and your friend been swamped while kayaking on Winnipesaukee?

Reminder...

Get a Life
 

GWC, I really don’t get why you feel that it is perfectly right to quote me out of context numerous times, by dredging up posts that I made over 3 years ago!

I don’t even get why you even used most of those quotes, since you didn’t even bother to comment on most of them.

If this is just another one of your lame attempts to discredit me on a public forum (which is such a cowardly act) why don’t you be a man, borrow a kayak, and try to follow me out on the main lake some time. I’ve put out that offer several times, but none of the speed limit opponents have had the guts to take me up on it yet.

Now it’s my turn to add the stuff you conveniently left out:

1.) With a kayak, being tipped over by a wake is not the same as being swamped by one. Swamping is when you take on water. On that particular occasion, we took on enough water that we had to paddle to a nearby island and bail out.

2.) You also failed to mention that I made that post over 3 years ago! And that this particular episode happen during the summer of 2003 – before I had even bought my sea kayak. A sea kayak handles large waves and wakes much better than a recreational kayak.

In answer to your question: My friend and I have only paddled sea kayaks on Winni – so we’ve never really been swamped while kayaking there (some water from waves and wakes has entered our cockpits, but not enough to be what I would call “swamped.” We’ve never had to pump out our sea kayaks.)

Happy? And my statement that “I have never been tipped over by the wake of a powerboat” is completely true.

3.) I have never suggested that I a speed limit will solve all the problems or that one will make any lake feel totally safe, from all power boaters, 100% of the time. When you’re in a kayak and a powerboat is heading directly at you – you always wonder if the operator sees you. Many don’t, until they get fairly close, but others are just intentionally trying to scare us, and often succeed in doing so.

Just because some boaters violate current laws does not mean that we don’t need a lake speed limit. I have also stated many times (although not in these exact words) that an idiot at 90mph is much more dangerous than one at 45mph.

Now why don’t you get a life, or at leastr take up a hobby or something.

My last post on this topic
 

It's abundantly clear to everyone that we are at an impass. So as my final post I will try one last time to show the supporters of the solution in search of a problem, why their solution will create a potentially dangerous problem

As Bear Islander wrote in post#541
He is 100% correct. Now here is where his logic goes off track
Okay, so he's agreed that the 150 foot rule is hard to enforce, and he's agreed that money is an issue.

So their solution?
DIVERT THE MARINE PATROL AWAY FROM SAFETY PATROLS!

What will be the impact of diverting manpower away from safety patrols and converting them to radar speed posts?

DIVERTING ALREADY THIN MANPOWER WILL MAKE LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE LESS SAFE!

If this bill becomes law I will remind all of the speed limit supporters when an incident happens because Lake Winnipesaukee's Marine Patrol was pointing radar guns trying to catch the .09% of boats exceeding 45 MPH.

Believe it!

How do boaters know the law?
 

You want us to believe that a 45/25 mph speed limit would have prevented those three accidents. Please share the source of that information with us so we can all be as enlightened as you claim to be.

I remember when there was no 150’ rule however it has been around here for many many years. I agree that a large number of boaters are unaware of that rule. If they don’t know about the existence of the 150’ rule how do you expect them to find out about any potential 45day/25mph night speed limit? NH boat registration has the 150’ rule in larger-than-small-print gray on the back of the form. Do many people really read the gray print on the back of things? It sure is not on the back of any out-of state boat registrations. It is not posted at most launch ramps but it might be mentioned at rent-a-boat or see doo places. How do you expect people to obey a law that they do not know exists?

Whatever method you would expect to use to alert all boaters to a “new” (if it gets there) 45mph day/25mph night speed limit surely would work to alert all boaters to the current 150’ rule. Again I say that education and enforcement of the current rules need to be properly done and widely publicized before new rules are introduced to fix what is allegedly broken.


Slower than what? Some arbitrary number? Some number that is used under vastly different circumstances? The 150’ rule would work as well as we wished it did with increased ENFORCEMENT, not additional rules. With your logic we should all stay at “safer” idle speed or not leave the dock at all.

Recreational or Professional Kayaks? Be seen & more
 

Really? You must have been reading too fast :laugh: to have seen Mee-n-Mac's message #347 where it is said: "Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have."

You do not use a recreational vessel but want us recreational boaters to slow down so you get a feeling of safety? Sport Kayaking vs recreational kayaking.

Your knowledge of boating goes back 5 or 6 years compared to those of us who have been boating on Winnie (and/or elsewhere) for decades. How can you expect IDIOTS to follow more rules when you say they can't follow the current rules? It is not logical.

Maybe you could adjust your Professional Kayaking to ease your visibility concerns. Add a thin flag to a 3 foot stick on your helmet. Or maybe add an always vertical whip (just a few feet would do) with streamers, a flag, pennant or even a balloon. Even if you flipped over, your thing would stick up and be seen. You could increase your visibility all by yourself without involving the entire boating community.

BTW, my boat can only go get to 40 mph DOWNHILL :rolleye1:.

Once again you twist my words, and put words in my mouth, please stop. Why don't you post what you think and not rewrite my posts?

I was responding to a post that claimed we don't need a speed limit because we have a 150' rule. I pointed out that the 150' rule didn't prevent those accidents. I was not making any claims about speed limits, just pointing out that the 150' rule is not the panacea the poster represented it as.

I think you understand this very well. But your method is to attack, attack, attack.

Slower is safer. I don't have to explain that, everybody understands it. Even the opposition faithful understand it, they only pretend they don't.

Speed laws that are reasonable
 

Non-responsive? You must not read some of your own posts. To the point: Operating at an unreasonable speed is unsafe. That makes it illegal by law. To promote the idea that unsafe speed is “reasonable” is irresponsible. So reasonable speed is addressed by the law.

Unreasonable speed is unsafe. Unsafe (speed) is illegal or unlawful. It follows that unreasonable speed is illegal. To think otherwise is quite foolish.

A great example of Bear Islander misdirection is his response to The Commodore’s message #552. Follow this one regarding Saf-C 404.12.
Sounds like a conniving omission the way Bear Islander explains it. His “trick” here is: he is right about the rest of 404.12 not a big help to the immediate discussion nor does it hurt the position - however. nothing in 404.12 helps BI’s cause either so he spins it, misdirects readers and distracts us from the facts!. Read 404.12 yourself in (lengthy) message #547 or The Commodore‘s edited version in msg #552 along with a few comments he made, in a completely different font, that BI tries to discredit. Does Bear Islander really think that the law would include this sentence? Quote from Msg 552: “Sounds like a reasonable speed limit law Mr Islander. It certainly addresses speed and collisions.” Ya think intelligent people would believe that the name “Mr Islander” and the comments in a different font are tricks and pretend to be part of the law?

I am attacking what? Statements and alleged fact. As for putting things in the mouths of others - That's what you seem to do.

What is a Reasonable Speed Requirement?
 

No, they are laws that require reasonable speeds.

You have been concerned about errors of omission but you conveniently omit that which does not help your position. For instance.
You dismiss the boating handbook but you do NOT mention the FULL TITLE and description of that required publication. It is the Handbook of New Hampshire - A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities. A few boating responsibilities may not be specifically written in the law but that does not detract from the fact that they are boating responsibilities as published and distributed by the State of NH. Irresponsible operation is illegal regardless of speed. To suggest that the NH Boating Handbook advises or authorizes anything irresponsible is ludicrous.

Maintain a safe speed and distance. Does that mean a “Reasonable Speed” or an Unreasonable speed? Is this not a reasonable speed requirement? Yet there is the false claim that NH does not address reasonable speed.

The State of NH is mandated to publish this handbook: Section 270-D requires the division of safety services (the same dept as the Marine Patrol) to publish the New Hampshire Boaters guide. In New Hampshire it is titled a the Handbook of New Hampshire - A Handbook of Boating Laws and Responsibilities. You may dismiss it because there may be a few instances where the Handbook describes boater responsibilities more strict than the written law. It is sponsored by Marine Patrol and distributed free to the boating public. Very few boaters will do further research into the chapters and sections of the laws and rules. A quote from the handbook: The handbook does not replace what is specifically legal for boating in New Hampshire, which is found in the New Hampshire Statutes and federal law. That is an important stipulation.

It should not take a rocket scientist or even a rocket rider to understand what this means. Within 150’ of most things it’s 6 m.p.h. or slower. What is this safe speed outside this 150’ radius you ask - it is one that is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions and not a one-size-fits-all magic number. If a vessel is not traveling at a safe speed and distance then it is obviously operating in an unsafe manner and is therefore illegal. If Bear Islander believes that those three basic rules of boater responsibilities are unreasonable then he has frozen a few too many brain cells.

Who has the better ability to decide what a reasonable speed is at any given time and lake condition? Would it be a politician sitting in a big room in Concord or a boat captain at the lake?

Ok so I have to make another post to defend myself yet again from another series of lame comments. You guys are getting really pathetic.

I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348 (so who isn't paying attention here): "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline." He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does.

A sea kayak is a recreational vessel. So aren't white water kayaks, touring kayaks and recreational kayaks. I didn't make up these categories - that's just the way that kayaks are classified - by their design. A sea kayak is a long touring kayak.

The number of boating years doesn't mean all that much. I've probably paddled more miles in NH lakes than most anyone on this forum. I've also run class II and III rapids, and am a collegiate sailor and a registered member of the Inter Collegiate Sailing Association. My sailing team is on the water from the end of February until mid November. During the school year were out on the bay practicing 4 days a week, and compete all weekend. We also have team meetings each week - just to study the racing rules of sailing - plus morning workouts. So I probably have more actually real time in a non-motorized vessel and actual knowledge of non-motorized boats than most of you on this forum.

Here we go again . . . This just shows how little most of you know about a sea kayak. And I never claimed to be a "professional." You don't wear a helmet on a sea kayak - helmets are for white water kayaking. If I added all the junk to my sea kayak - it would surely tip over in the first light breeze. Few of you could even sit in my kayak without tipping it over. Heck, most of you would never even fit in my kayak.

A speed limit is a pretty simple rule to follow - and the Marine Patrol would make sure that they followed it. What is not logical is allowing powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on lakes that are shared by small, slow moving boats.

Why don't you answer the questions?
 

Challenging, answering or correcting allegations in a post is not rewriting it!

Who is attacking and putting things into the mouths of others? You have "answered for me" in a post (419) and here you tell the "opposition" what you claim they understand. I won't go into your style of attack that uses carefully chosen wording so it looks like an attack.

As for what I think on the subject of additional speed limits, it's been written and dismissed by you many times already. In short: More education, more enforcement of the current rules.

Skipper,

I'm having trouble following your posts.

I support HB847 because I hope it will change the direction I see the lake going in. I don't believe it will "fix" the lake, just improve things a little bit.




I hope people on both sides of the issue show up at the hearing tomorrow and have their say where it really counts. I'd be there if I could.

Nice Post Skipper!!
 

Skipper of the Sea Que has successfully and with ample facts and direct statements put Bear Islander on the mat. Only a fool would stand up and respond, only to take another punch.

B.I., I'm begging you, just admit you are wrong (and misguided) and go hide under Evenstar's kayak.

The freedom we all enjoy on the lake will be forever jeopardized if we have to constantly worry if our speedometers are accurate, or who is watching us. That freedom is one of the many things that makes operating a boat so much more enjoyable than driving a car.

[B]The speed limit remains a solution search of a problem and should be put to bed once and forever.[/B]

Are you sure about that. I feel that Skippers posts are incredibly well written and well thought out. I think he does a fantastic job dispelling the myth that you keep perpetuating that the current laws don't address reasonable speed. If the current laws were followed we would have no issues. Making new laws that people will continue to ignore does nothing.

Bravo Skipper nice series of posts.

There is no reasonable speed law. You know it, I know it, Skipper knows it. If you go to the hearing, try and convince the Senators there is a reasonable speed law!

"Slower is safer", you say...

Guess a speed limit of 40 mph is not slower than a speed limit of 45 mph?!?!

One can only imagine what life on Winnipesaukee will entail with a speed limit greater than the speed limit on Squam.

Perhaps the Senate needs to amend the Bill to allow a charge for paddlers to use Lake Winnipesaukee, since it would seem that there will be a lot more paddlers with a false sense of safety and a busy MP, as a result of swampings.

Try to follow along. We already know that by rule any operation that is unsafe is illegal. So by using simple English the opposite of unsafe is safe, right? So only safe operation is legal right?


No comes the tricky part, is there a safe speed that is unreasonable? Nope, is there a un-safe speed that is reasonable? Nope, so in effect we have a reasonable speed law. You cannot legally travel at an unreasonable speed today.

Maybe you're right some politicians won't be able to follow.

We can of course do the same with the careless and negligent law.

To be honest, a reasonable and prudent law is really no change, it's redundant but I would not oppose it. It's the 45/25 portion of the law that is misguided and vindictive.

I understand the theory. We have a reckless driving law on our highways, why then do we need speed limits. In fact we can erase most of our highway laws and just keep reckless driving. Driving drunk is reckless, so we can eliminate the DUI statutes. NOT!

You can try and unscrew the inscrutable all day long but.... the is no reasonable and prudent boating speed law in NH.

Bear Islander and Co. myths busted
 

Excellent work Skipper of the Sea Que. You didn't let Bear Islander's spins, spews and distractions get to you.

Great suggestion for Evenstar. A flag that always stays perpendicular to the water would help her be seen from a longer distance.

I'll echo everything jrc, GWC, hazelnut and TiltonBB said in their recent posts.

Thank you Skipper.

Mashugana is well named!
 

You guys are priceless. Is this a comedy routine? Skipper posts several long rambling posts. Richard answered with a few sentences including wishing both sides luck at the hearing. And he is called to task for "spins, spews and distractions".

News to me, and I could have witnessed this fatality from my living room. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

Please advise us why a performance boat flying into a Winnipesaukee cottage, killing three, doesn't count. :confused:

Maine has "Reasonable and Prudent" written into their boating laws.

Long Lake users may be wishing for a 45/25. (Especially the 25 part).

Most of those opposed are their own worst enemy, even on shore. Who told us that, "Radar doesn't work on water"?

The first letter of commentary HERE is by "Moose" (not a member here).
Nobody has spammed boating and fishing sites like "Moose" but he states—h was for HB 847—before he was against it!

Look for "Moose" to be trying to convince NH Senators of his genuiness.

I notice most of the Marine Trade Associations begin their remarks with, "We have not taken a position on this". (Of course, that is supposed to give them credibility). :rolleye2:

Maybe in Massachusetts, they have "safety patrols". You don't want to be swamped, collided, or drowning in a New Hampshire lake. I'll go for days without seeing an MP on the lake—particularly on weekends. (Except when I call them—as I did when I saw two small boys in two small paddling boats roped together at dusk.)

New Jersey requires a flag for water skiers and kayakers, but has a thoroughly-enforced 30-MPH limit on its premiere lake!

Do they know Cal? :confused: :emb:

Dave R says that kayaks are not difficult to see—and I agree.

Who's correct? :confused:

Finally Bear Islander is put in his place
 

I admire Skipper of the Sea Que and the others that were on the side against the 45/25 m.p.h. limits. They showed remarkable self control. The thread was started by Skip to point to a Speed Limit letter by a Marine Patrol official who was directly involved in the speed testing. Then followed a barrage of posts from pro 45/25 limit supporters championed by Bear Islander. They challenged the MP statements and a heated exchange of posts ensued.

You are spinning right now Islander. Your poor buddy (Richard) Bear Islander's last message and a small percentage of others were so sweet. That notwithstanding he had a heap of posts with gyroscopic spin. There was massive spewing, many distractions and misdirections. Bear Islander ignored numerous questions and statements. Many of his posts had an undertone of ill will and insulted some respondents IMO of course.

The funny part is you look at just one message. You think that erases all the others he has authored. He was not taken to task for his last post. Get real.

Reasonable speed limits are reasonable. 45 m.p.h. day and 25 m.p.h. at night in many cases is not reasonable.

My thanks to The Skipper of the Sea Que and the others that are against this bill.

By the way. Has anyone ever seen Islander and Bear Island in the same place at the same time?

Good job Skipper
Let the debate end.
Sandy

Lt. Dunleavy's remarks in support of Marine Patrol
 

598 messages ago Skip started this thread. He posted a link to a letter in the Union Leader by Lt. Dunleavy of NH Marine Patrol speed data untainted responding to allegations critical of Marine Patrol regarding HB 847 (the 45/25 proposed speed limit). Just look at what we did with that thread and information.

Many thanks for the show of support from those who found my posts beneficial. The feedback is/was appreciated.

I am not used to or comfortable with the style of debate exhibited in this thread. We do not have to agree on everything but we can discuss it calmly, rationally, in a friendly manner and with a little bit of fun thrown in. This thread was not enjoyable in my eyes.

As a long time Forum member I have looked forward to checking out this web site as often as I can. Not so since this speed limit harangue. I come here to read about and sometimes talk with old (as in long time) and new forum friends to share information, ideas, thoughts, experiences and enjoy all that this web site has to offer. Not to be insulted or called names and etc..

As for Bear Islander. He has demonstrated a few things to me (at least 2) to use his words, he claims to be an "obnoxious smart ass". Click that for his complete post.

In that same post Bear Islander's summation says it all: "If I ever get the chance to put in a plug to a large audience you can bet the farm it will not be about speed limits on Winnipesaukee. In the great scheme of things, it's just not that important." Amen

Let's hope that this is over and done with soon so we can concentrate on the fun and friendly aspects of the best site on the web, Winnipesaukee.com :)

Happy and SAFE boating to all. Bring on summer.

I am repeatedly accused of calling people names. Twice in recent posts. I would certainly be wrong if I did, but I don't think I have.

It's a perception thing, you don't like what I say, so I must be calling them names.

I have! Why insinuate?