That was a sanctioned Race El
 

As you well know. I don't condone Nascar races through the city streets either. I'm not a thrill-seeker, nor do I have the need for speed. I have a 22' cuddy cabin. I love great scenery, the call of the wild, and lakes in general. I don't like pollution, nor extremely loud boats, nor drunken boaters. I think Rule 6 should be memorized and understood by every boater on the planet.

I also believe incidents should be looked at by serious adults that want to learn, and hopefully inform. You are not one of these people El, and never will be. You put the Uugh and Aarg in what were Nice days, make scenic panoramas black and white, and could conceivably turn boating into something your parents made you do that you hated. Heck, you even lie in broad daylight about the weather. Grow some stones and deal with facts. Life is too short to live in a continual lie.

Time to move on guys and discuss adult topics. I can see now where some people are truly a lost cause.

Nice TY Sunset, the Lemming approach is always impressive.

You, sir, truly are a piece of work. I hope all those folks you visit down in Concord truly are reading this thread.

I told you before, you are done getting under my skin; now you are pure entertainment. I will just say your first paragraph was a beauty- like saying "I'm not a racist, I have a XXXXX friend"

Have a great night:)

p.s I know you love smilies!!:rolleye1:

MP Alert!
 

Somebody enlighten the Marine Patrol! :eek:

The MPs failed to capture 2009 Winnipesaukee speeders using their ¼-mile-range radar—from a dock! :look: :emb: :p :laugh:

I'm surely setting myself up for a thrashing here but....what's going on? There's a lot of indignancy and venom being directed to El when he posts his opinions. He cites the limitations of the 150' rule and he's accused of ridiculing the boating laws of NH and the MP. He's criticized for calling people idiots when they put their own lives in jeopardy as well as those who rescue them yet we see on this forum the same name calling all the time when someone is perceived to be taking risks in a kayak or canoe. I think everyone understands that risk takers who pay the ultimate price have families who love them and that we all make mistakes, etc., etc. but we seem to have a self rightious double standard here for posting one's opinions.
Secondly, a reminder that the SL law is about other things in addition to safety. As you know many are concerned for people's right's to a peaceful and meaningful destination for recreation. When the SL was proposed my family thought, finally, now a chance to hold the line on the cowboy mentality which so many people comment on and that we read about so often when the lake is mentioned in the press. Last summer we saw many of the so called GFBL's on the lake, despite all the talk on the forum about bad weather and economy. Yet completely gone, for example, were the "idiots" who scream through the channel at god knows what speed at 11 at night, waking up the kids, totally disturbing the peace. For this I am totally grateful for our new law.

Had you taken the time to actually read the article you would see that this happened in a race boat, IN A RACE. In the ocean.

I used to see a lot of racing (unofficially that is) on Winnipesaukee before last summer. And we've seen race boats (like the one described last summer with a cockpit) on the lake even when there's no race (official that is). I think the point here is that boats racing around at high speeds can and do get into accidents, whether on Winnipesaukee or the ocean. All of this is now less likely on Winnipesaukee with the new speed limit.

I think it's simply a matter of tone; people are simply responding in kind.

For example, all of your posts (that I recall) strike me as honest, thoughtful, and respectful, so people (even those with differing opinions) tend to respond in kind.

Do you support this ludicrous statement of his?

The implication that somehow this is the only danger of being the lake is insane. There are many risks of boating, and we can legislate them away. The risk of a speeding boat hitting you is down around the same probability as getting struck by lightening.

I couldn't agree more sunset. You have always been clear and gone out of your way to make sure that you are not going after the "poster" but the "posts" themselves. While you disagree with many opponents views, you and BI have done very well at explaining your positions without misdirection or manipulation of the facts. I applaud you for keeping your cool even in many heated situations.

The fact is this law may make you "feel" safer but there are NO STATISTICS to back up this claim. Plain and simple.

Yes, if for no other reason than he is stating a fact. I agree the SL does indeed address safety problems but for the most part my concerns center around the "other" benefits of a SL (see my post from 07:44 today).

One thing I didn't make clear the other day is that my little 10 year old guy gets severe motion sickness and may well exhibit projectile vomiting in your v-berth next spring...will that be OK?

Just kidding...we both have cast iron stomachs.

Trying to debate or even have a civil conversation with him is like trying to teach a mentally challenged seal to drive an automobile.

Forget the olive branch, just hit the ignore button. His insufferable rants, flawed logic and misrepresentation of facts are actually advancing our arguments more than he is helping the supporters. At this rate Sunset, Yosemite, and APS will be placing their orders with Fountain Powerboats and purchasing black cowboy hats by ice out. While I for one would welcome them to the correct side…I still don’t want his help.

Giddie up.

Sunset, you get better and better with each post about what the SL law has done for us folks who like to Kayak, Canoe, and swim on Lake Winni. As I have said in other posts, this year was one of the most enjoyable summers on the Lake that I and my family have had in many years. My friends who also like to swim and boat around the Lake have said the same thing.
I can understand why some people love the speed and sound of these powerful speed boats, but they have a time and place for them and Lake Winni is not one of them. The engines in these boats need to run at a certain RPM for a certain amount of time in order for them to stay healthy. That means if you use them on Lake Winni you will have to run them at a speed that makes it unsafe for other Lake users. GFB’s were designed to be used for racing on the high seas and not for Lakes that are used for recreational boating.
If GFB owners want to cruise around Lake Winni and enjoy what it has to offer then there is nothing wrong with that. But they should stay within the SL at all times so the rest of us folks can enjoy the Lake also.

First of all Yosemite good to see you changed your mind and decided to come back. I appreciate your questions on this matter.

First please explain why lake winni is not a place for them? It is the Largest Body of water in NH. Lake Winni has always had boats capable of breaking 45 mph. why suddenly is it not capable of handling these? what has changed?

Supporters keep saying "unsafe". Other supporters have stated that they FEEL safer but there is no stats to prove that. Perhaps you have data to back up this safety claim? So far NO DATA or STATS have been used to prove this.

This is why there is a 2 year test period to collect data to be reviewed at the legislature to decide if a speed limit is needed. So far NO DATA has been collected to prove anything has changed on Lake Winni and it is now in sudden need of a limit.

Boats don't speed when the MPs are around, do they?
 

Help me understand this: When the Speed Limit trials by Rattlesnake and Bear Islands showed no speeding problems on Winnie the SL supporters claimed the results were faulty because boaters saw the MP boats and didn't speed. Supporters claim that is a common experience when there is an MP presence. (No mention about concurring results from unmarked SL measuring sites during that trial.)

In the explanation quoted above, you credit the SL law with making it SAFE for the MARKED MP and police boats to perform a rescue. Your statement sounds like loaded propaganda to me.

BTW, in other posts, over the 45 mph limit does not automatically mean 75 mph or 95 mph or over 100mph. It could be 50 or 55 mph or any other speed above 45 (both reasonable and unreasonable for prevailing conditions).

disclaimer: I have no financial interest in boats or the industry. My boat can not exceed 40 mph (43mph max is stated in the manual). I do NOT like LOUD motor sounds on the lake but some people do and I respect those following the loudness and sound laws.

There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. (oh ya, drinking authorizes them to go fast ;)) Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.
I don't see how being on the wide open ocean versus a crowded lake makes it less dangerous here than there. Are you saying the physics of salt water made this happen there? Or are you saying that with so many other boats in their path, these boats probably would have already hit someone before reaching these speeds? If it can happen there, it MORE LIKELY can (and often did) happen here. Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.
They are. And while you guys are focusing on whether these drivers were drunk or underage, or whether the water was salty or the kayak was out too far, they are focusing on the sheer volume of crashes and deaths resulting from boats going too fast, losing control, and colliding into one another or into shore. While they had been told that high speed boating is safe and that deaths were a rarity...a fluke...they are seeing evidence that proves otherwise. They are recognizing that while each particular case may have some statement or detail ("he was drunk!"???) that can be twisted to excuse the tragedy or make it sound like that accident could not or would not have happened on a no-rules Winnipesaukee, the common theme is that boats going too fast are hard to control, that boaters who think they are in control are suddenly recognizing that they are not, and that it is most often the innocent (passengers or bystanders) who are getting killed...all over the world...in the ocean and on lakes...by teenagers and adults...by drunk pilots and sober pilots. Like me, you guys have a bias and will read this stuff through tinted glasses (as I admittedly do). But our legislators and the rest of our citizenry will come away with the realization that high speed boating is just plain dangerous, no matter where it occurs, and certainly does not belong on our crowded lake again. We gave that a try and it did not work. Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

Here's another perfect example from this summer. An innocent 12 year old girl gets killed. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2386204/posts
And yes, I did read the article and know the guy was drunk...that is not the point. Maybe this drunk would have ignored a speed limit anyway and still killed her. Who's to say? But does that mean we should tell him his speed was ok and legal just because he would not have slowed down anyway? At the end of the day...at the moment of impact...it was his SPEED that killed her. The fact is that when his speeding boat hit her, THAT killed her. As Ryan will confirm, the energy of impact (which is what does the killing in most collisions) is a function of the SQUARE of the speed. Boats going fast are much much ("much squared") more dangerous than boats going slow. So we need to encourage slower and safer boating speeds. We do that with laws...with reasonable speed limits that tell idiots who cannot judge for themselves what top speed is appropriate. And the rest of us, who are not idiots, have to respect these limits as a consequence. Saying to these idiots "there are no hard rules...just decide for yourself" is not appropriate. It does not work. 45 is a fair and reasonable limit for any appropriate boating activity on our lake. And it is a good compromise already. It has been shown to work all over the country and to work here. Why fix what ain't broke?
Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends, but I really think you guys are just offended because you know in your selfish hearts that what I am saying is right and you just don't want to hear it.

There were NO concurring results from unmarked MP boats. The Marine Patrol claim that they did use unmarked boats in the speed test, however they failed to record which tests were done with marked boats and which were done with unmarked boats. So a piece of information that would go a long way to validating the data was never recorded.

Just one more indication that nobody ever took the study seriously. The study, none the less, did what it was intended to do. It delayed the SL by one year.

Skip,
Here's a post of yours from the archives from back before we had a speed limit. Were the MP officers chasing this Donzi Poker Race around the lake at high speeds more or less safe than the ones retrieving the bodies? Had these MP officers been out there fishing these guys out of the lake when this poker race came flying by, which risk (pulling in the bodies or dodging the Donzis) would have been more endangering? And you guys are saying it is ME who doesn't care about our safety officials?;
Forum Archive
I am a radio nut - What I heard about Poker Run
Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 at 12:13 a.m.
In Response To: Marine Patrol can't keep up with Donzi's (Don Zee)
Well folks, I have to get my 2 cents in here. I would have loved to join the Donzi Poker Run, but I have a Four Winns (and couldn't find Donzi decals big enough to cover all the Four Winns logos on my boat ).
Anyway, I have been called a radio nut. I prefer enthusiast. Ham radio, Broadcast Radio, Public Service radio, Short Wave, Medium Wave and all that. At the Lake I often monitor the Marine Patrol Radio Frequencies (at least the 2 known to me). In addition to VHF Marine Channel 16 which is not the same as the Marine Patrol 800 MHz radio system.
What I did NOT hear on the Marine Patrol Radio was information supporting Woodsy. What I DID hear supported the reports of Sue and Don Zee. The Marine Patrol did NOT talk too much about the Donzi Poker Run on their radio system, rather they encouraged officers to TELEPHONE headquarters for information (in effect, making it so that people like me can't monitor those conversations). In my opinion, the MP officers on patrol did not know about the poker run. I believe they did try to chase some of the Donzi boats and gave up.
Now, I did not witness these events. What I know comes from various sources, including the Marine patrol 2-way radio (and I assume the MP officers report situations accurately). I need to review the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) before I reveal exactly what I heard on my radios. I think monitored Public Service communications can be repeated but I forget. The law may say I must keep what I hear on those channels to myself - so, I won't specify exactly what I heard. But what I did NOT hear (no law says I can't tell you what I did NOT hear - boy that's convoluted) was anything contradicting Don Zee or Sue. Read between those lines. I think Don and Sue are right.
As for MP finding and stopping anyone when they really want to... I'm not sure I buy that. Radar and radios are not enough. Radar does not read hull numbers. Ship radar doesn't follow boats around or over islands. Of course Radar could have changed a lot since I got my FCC Ship Radar Endorsement on my (FCC Commercial Radio) license (to test, install, maintain and repair Radar equipment).
Sorry to ramble but I had to get this out of my system. Plus, I wish there were a Poker Run I could get in on. I think my family would love it.
AL, Radio Operator of the Sea Que (CQ)

Sorry if the tone of this response is unintentionally offensive.

AND, it did something it was not intended to do. It slowed boaters down because they knew their speeds MIGHT BE under watch. Just like last summer's speed limit did.

Evidently you don’t do much on Lake Winni other than use your GFB. If you did you might be more aware of how it is to feel unsafe when a GFB is going at top speed and you are in a Kayak within the sight and sound of it. One GFB is bad enough at high speed but when you get more than one of them going side by side just to see which one can go the fastest, then I feel very, very uncomfortable on the Lake.
The only data that I have is that I did not see this happening as much this year on the Lake.

Question: Why is that even when you talk about Pontoon boats you have to know how fast they will go instead of how comfortable they are and how you can have fun by just going slow and enjoying the scenery. I have a friend that has one of these party boats and we have fun cruising around the Lake and have never even talked about how fast they can go. I really don’t think he bought it to see how fast it can go.

I have some statistics that indicate just how large a body of water Winni is, since many of the SL Supporters try and make it out as a Pond!!!

Lake Winnipesaukee is the largest lake in the state of New Hampshire and the 6th largest lake in the United States that lies within the boundaries of one state..

Area of water surface = 72 square miles

Maximum Depth: 200+ feet (off Rattlesnake Island)

Average Depth: 40-45 feet

Volume: 625 billion gallons

Length: Approximately 28 miles

Width: Approximately 15 miles at widest point

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

According to some people Winni is the smallest 72 square mile Lake in the world :D

Please elaborate...how close are these Go Fast Boats to you and where on the lake are you when you are uncomfortable and feel unsafe????

Another good example of a constructive post Sam. The original question was why does one certain member come under "attack" from other members. It is because his posts look nothing like this.

Now on to my rebuttal of the POST not an attack on the POSTER. I think as I have said before that people are mistaking this years so called quiet and calm due to the law. It is unfortunate that we cannot truly assess the effect of the Speed Limit due to the unique nature of this years tourism season. I think that some of the SL Supporters have a false sense of what the lake was this year. For one although there was "less traffic" this year I saw plenty of idiotic behavior out there taking place. The Speed Limit has done nothing to promote safety and that is the concern of many of the opposers.

Sam, I am glad to see you are back posting. The more you and sunset distance yourselves from the other poster the better your messages are conveyed. I may disagree with your stance but you do a good job expressing your position. I will always rebutt your statements on all things Speed Limit but I'm sure we would agree on just about anything else with regard to the lake and how fortunate we all are to be able to use it.

I can recall seeing the MP off to one side, sitting in one spot, in their www.protectorboats.com patrol boat observing Buoy-3, south Bear Island passage traffic in August 2008.

The geography of that passage pretty much requires boats to slow down, plus the protector patrol boats are easy to id from a distance as the MP. Whether marked or unmarked, their silhouette is unique on the lake. Believe the MP has three protectors; two marked and one unmarked, all 28' aluminum center consoles w/ twin Merc 150's two-strokes w/ rubber-kevlar, air-filled floatation bumpers surrounding the hull and tee-tops........a police boat.

FYI, I rounded both. The result is offsetting. It's 0.81 seconds of difference, you overbid. Hardly 'milliseconds' between the two, so again, your logic fails. Sorry these numbers don't support your cause. Great attempt on spin.

In clear conditions, at any rate of speed, I can see a piece of wood floating in the lake at 1000ft and take evasive actions accordingly. If you cannot spot a kayak at 1000ft, you should probably schedule an eye exam (maybe we can make an eye test law!!!!!)

In clear conditions, at any rate of speed, if a child has decided to swim past the marked swim lines underwater 1.27 miles to the Broads or any other high traffic (notice I didn't say speed) area and suddenly 'pops' his head up to take a breath before continuing through the broads and finally Alton Bay, is just plain stupidity that cannot be stopped by any MP or feel good legislation. I would probably refer this case to DSS. But again, what if, what it, what if! The fear mongering never stops!

Transportation Committee
 

The transportation committee ask for the findings to validate supporters and opponents claims. As neither sides can support their claims as pertaining to Lake Winnipesaukee. The marine patrol being on the lake far more hours than any of us boaters, (except maybe elchase as he claim he spends more than a thousand hours every year on the lake) have said speed limits were unnecessary and rightly proved. Yes, both sides, can pick apart and approve or disapprove the study. There will always be flaws in a study. That is why there is a margin of error. have anyone seen 'perfect legislation?' If legislation is perfect, we wouldn't have legislation!

The delay was sought the make both side 'feel good' about the law. Politically speaking. As the law is one of the biggest 'hot potato' NH have seen. After the two year test period, the transportation committee and the Dept of Safety will have a valid report to present to legislature to prove that we need or do not need the SL law. Right now there is no substantiated valid claim to either side!

Sorry to burst the opponents bubble on this, but most of the representatives are sitting on the fence to see the clear picture. The reason why 162 was defeated was the 'not in my backyard' syndrome as it effected all bodies of water. You can see the seacoast representatives voted against it. The latest reincarnation is Winnipesaukee only. So the representatives voted just to get it out of the way. I.E. 'not in my backyard'. That's politics folks. Pork barrel at its best!

Great observation. Off Topic?

My Jet Ski is almost silent, but on occasion, I opt to jet ski to breakfast. While the top speed of the jet ski is maybe 10MPH faster than the temporary speed limit, theoretically, you and your family will NEVER lose any sleep while I am travelling through the broads at 50mph. I only make this point because you are clearly singling out one type of boat (7 times) in your post above.

Why is it Off Topic?

The MP placed their boats in narrow passages where boats had to slow down to pass them. So obviously the recorded speeds were useless data. Sorry but this entire "Speed Study" was a farce and a waste of time and money. Except of course that it achieved its purpose.

Fast boats
 

Someone mention in another post about a pontoon boat that can exceed 50 mph! WOW! Aren't pontoon boats 'the darling of the SL supporters'? IMHO, the pontoon boats that are rented out are the biggest boneheads.

I remember a Hobie Cat that exceeded 50 mph a while ago. I guess we need to outlaw any vessel that exceed 45 mph. Not just GFB boats. :cool:

...because the Speed Survey ended in September of 2007?

Personally, I NEVER heard of any sort of speed survey being conducted on the lake.
I never even had an opinion on speed limits until I began to regularly read the forum roughly 2 years ago.
I don't own a GBFL.
I don't believe the speed limit and safety are synonymous.

Well Yosemite - first off evidently you don't read all my past posts. And what specfically "I do" is not the topic, the merits of the speed limits are. This is where some posters get called out.

But to answer 'peronsal' question. I have been boating on the lake over the past 30 years in everything but a GFB. As you must know, having already read from my past posts concerning my personal activities on the lake and my
"GFB" - A. I just purchased her last year B. Due to engine trouble I was not using her on the lake after June 20th. C. I also have kayaks, a row boat, paddle boat, pontoon boat, and a fishing boat. (not a bass boat that you may label a GFB)

As for discussing how fast my pontoon boat will go: I do not remember the context but it could be that I was explaining that a GFB is not the only type of boat that is capbable of exceeding this "safety threshold" My tri-toon is extremely comfortable. I refer to is as my living room on the water. It also doesn't have near the capacity of engine it is rated for. So if mine is able to go beyond 45, with this living room on the water, how is that hurting the safety of the lake?

Also since data can not be provided by you or any other supporter other then your personal observations on the lake this year, during the second worst economic downturn in United States History since the great depression, wouldn't it be safe to say we should wait to hear from the Marine Patrol what that data is before personal observations are used to control the laws that effect everyone on the lake?

I for one may sway in my opinions on the speed limits if the Professionals i.e. The Marine Patrol, said there is a need and they are in support of it. But at this point they are against it. Mind you the people charged with safety and the overall protection of our already Safe lake.

I am sorry if this unintentionally offends, but did you happen to get the part about the article you posted that the accident occurred in a RACE. You know, an actual RACE where RACERS RACE their fast boats. A sanctioned race. You know, a race with a start/finish line, officials, safety boats etc et. Nice try on the spin though.

Sorry if this unintentionally offends. There...I feel better saying that.

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;112509]Why is it Off Topic?

The MP placed their boats in narrow passages where boats had to slow down to pass them. So obviously the recorded speeds were useless data. Sorry but this entire "Speed Study" was a farce and a waste of time and money. [QUOTE]

Not quite true BI. There were numerous non posted areas where MP stationed their boats and recorded speeds. Those speeds were included in the final report but not broken out according to you, I take your word on that. Over 3,800 readings were taken and about 3 or 4 boats were over 60 mph. Also a mix of marked and unmarked boats were used by MP in an effort to gather this data in a way that most people would understand was not biased one way or the other. Those are the facts, not all speed data was gathered in narrow passages like you think. Please stop the spin. Thanks.

Boats don't break laws, people do!
 

You might want to give me another nickname so forum readers don't confuse ME with my good friend SKIP :).

You quoted a message by me from 8 years ago. The 2001 thread started with a post claiming: This is very different from the Donzi group heading FOR marked MP and police boats. Just the opposite in the referenced archive thread. In a CHASE situation the MP were BEHIND the Donzi boats. The initial complaint was about crowding, boats bumping boats at the dock (AT HEADWAY or SLOW SPEEDS) after that, they left the area in violation of the 150' SAFE PASSAGE rules. Again, not the same as boats speeding toward marked rescue vessels and jeopardizing MP safety.

There were different versions of the situation and I just related my OPINION and what I heard. Importantly, the Marine Patrol used cell phones so that casual eavesdroppers (like me) could NOT hear everything that was really happening. The MP fleet has also changed a bit in the last 7 years.

Another poster in that thread suggests:

So, the scenario from my 2001 post was not GFBLs heading toward MP boats or placing them in jeopardy. I'm sure that the MP officers know how to keep themselves safe. Whatever the situation really was, in a chase or a rescue, a LAW (including a speed limit) would not alter the degree of safety of the MP in either case.


No offense taken. You have absolutely every right to be wrong :laugh:

Maybe that's why the MP did that, because they knew the SL law was going to be useless from a "safety" aspect.

BI, what tiem and money, you have always said the SL enforcement "wouldn't cost anything".:rolleye2:

Originally posted by elchase
From this post it is OBVIOUS that YOU HAVE NEVER been part of a SAR (Search and rescue) operation! In every case there are dangers to the rescue boat and crew yet you try to dismiss it as if you are walking across the school yard and picking up a piece of paper.

Originally posted by elchase in response to a comment hoping legislators are reading this:
What "evidence" would that be? Certainly nothing you have presented from NH or Lake Winnipesaukee because the evidence pertaining to NH and Lake Winnipesaukee proves that speed was never a problem and is not a safety issue, however fear mongering certainly is a problem!

As I've pointed out before, because my posts do not support the notion that boats should be able to go as fast on our lake as the particular pilot wants, it tends to create heated reaction from the "fast eight", lead to arguing, and I am therefore limited to 5 posts per day. I am quickly draining today's allotment and wanted to save at least one post for tonight, to respond to today's intervening nonsense. So this will need to be my last until then. You opposers who are allowed to post as many inflammatory and ridiculous posts as you desire will have to carry on without me and wait for my replies until then. Sorry. Clue: Not all deaths are the result of murders. Not all murderers respect our laws against murder. Our laws against murder do not stop people from committing all crimes. Should we rescind our murder laws too? We have said over and over that nobody believes the speed limit will stop all illegal behavior and prevent all accidents on the lake. But it is a sensible and necessary part of a comprehensive set of laws that together will, AND ALREADY HAVE, make boating safer and more enjoyable for most on the lake. You conveniently rounded 1.45 to 1.50 in your favor and I'm the one spinning? But they do support my cause. Even more so. Sorry you still can understand the math. 45MPH allows you approximately 0.8 seconds of extra time to react and avoid the little boy's head. 70MPH is too fast and the kid is dead before you can react. Great attempt on reverse-spin.
You guys are the ones saying over and over and over again that you can't see kayaks until you are right up on them. You guys are the one's saying they should have flags or be restricted to coves or other lakes. I have no problem seeing and avoiding kayaks, canoes, and kids at my speeds. If you cannot spot a kayak at 1000ft, you should probably SLOW DOWN.Agreed, kids sometimes do stupid things. So rather than just SLOW DOWN, we should run them over to punish them? I have no problem seeing and avoiding even stupid kids, even on the Broads or on any other part of the lake, at the speeds I boat on the lake. I do not depend on the intelligence of kids to avoid killing them. I go fast enough to enjoy the lake, but slow enough to do so safely, no matter what the kayaks and kids are doing.
You can keep saying this, but that will not make it true. The only big change to the Trans Comm has been Jim Ryan, the chairman. The others recall what happened and what they wanted and did not want. Jim Ryan spoke openly to the press about the offense he took to the MP's obvious attempt to "derail the legislative process with this obvious eleventh hour tactic" (his words). The MP rep that was sent to the Transportation hearing was soundly scolded by the committee for trying to undermine their authority. Keep saying they were the ones who asked the MP to do that tainted and silly "survey", but the truth is the truth is the truth. Margin of error? Margin of error?!! This "survey" had a margin of error of 1000%. It was a bunch of marked police boats sitting in plain site with radar guns that boaters could see from a mile away. It was boats slowing down long before they could be measured. It was announced aforehand in every local newspaper. High speeders were warning each other where and when the "traps" were on the cowboy forums and asking each other to slow down to skew the results. It was conducted by an agency that had already made public their opposition to the legislation. Margin of error? Do you know what Pork Barrel is? Attempts to legitimize the "survey" are on topic, but anything that points out one of its many flaws is "Off Topic"? And I'm the one being moderated?There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. (oh ya, drinking authorizes them to go fast ;)) Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends. Skipper, you can try to disown your own post and re-spin it now, but it says what it says and is pretty clear. People can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. There was a poker race going on. It was a RACE by any definition. It was mayhem on the lake on a crowded summer weekend afternoon. The patrol boats were in chase. They gave up because they were just adding to the danger and their boats can only do 50MPH. To avoid letting you hear them agree to just back off and let the boys have their fun, they switched over to telephone (as you say). It was a very dangerous situation on the lake. We had nothing even remotely like this happen last summer, even during all the sunny days we had in late July and through August. I thank the speed limit and all the related efforts of Winnfabs for that. You can say what you want now, 8 years later.:laugh: Airwaves. Please put me on ignore. Your "Illegal Fishing" debacle was your Waterloo. It exposed you. Everyone thinks of that as soon as they see your screen name. I'm guessing from many of your past posts that you are 14, maybe 15 years old and that your mother is at work and does not know you have figured out how to bypass the parental internet controls she set. I did not take any fish illegally that day and never have. Now please leave me alone and go hang around with kids your own age.

Good post airwaves and I agree with your PM.

Posted by Elchase
Another case of can't dispute the facts of the post so try to discredit the messanger. El I admitted my mistake in that posting, if you don't accept it then that is your problem.

Let me know when you have some statistics relevant to New Hampshire and Lake Winnipesaukee.

and some people wonder why they draw distain to their comments and posts. Totally uncalled for, insulting and a personal attack... Glad I didn't see the entire thing, I can only imagine..