Do you really think after 30 years that that has any kind of relevance to our discussion?

Back in the 70's? I think an accident 30+ years ago is pushing it in this conversation. I am not calling you a liar, but I think this being brought into the burden of proof in todays arguments is a bit much.

High speed? How fast? How fast were "cigarette boats" back in the 70's? Alcohol involved?

Why not make it illegal for a person operating a boat to have any drinks whatsoever? It seems like alcohol has played a factor in just about every boating accident mentioned. Does a sober person crash their boat into a dock and land on a cottage? Does a sober person run over another boat in Meredith at night while traveling at low speeds? Does a sober person run over another boat on Long Lake on a night with good visibility?

The common denominator is alcohol and the answer to all above is NO!!!

Yes!

We still have Cigarette boats, docks, cottages, alcohol. What has changed since then that would prevent it from happening this summer? Nothing!

Hazelnut has pointed out in recent posts that drunks don't obey the laws. You want to pass a no alcohol on boats law, fine by me.

If there had been a horsepower limit on the lake in the 70's this accident could not have happened, or at least it would have been a smaller, slower boat hitting the cottage.




What happened to Hazelnut?

What can you do to reduce recreational boating accidents and deaths?
 

You are correct.

The Speed Limit Bill will not change a thing, safety-wise...

Interesting Safety Alert by the NTSB...

Does not fit your agenda; but interesting, never-the-less...

He is laughing so hard he started to hyper-ventilate.:D

He was right, drunks do not obey the law. If they are drunk and behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, and a speed limit will not protect anyone.

How about a homework assignment? A list of all powerboat accidents in the last 30 years (to make a certain few happy), no phantom stuff, actual verifiable accidents that resulted in a death or serious injury IN NH. I think it would be interesting to see the list, and the causes/contributing factors. Nothing in FL, Michigan, or anywhere else. No close calls, actual accidents. This debate and law is about NH boating and NH waterways. Maybe a followup of non-powered boating accidents, which most likely will be GREATER in number.

APS? BI? Islander? Anyone?

Careful.... They will think you are starting to drink the coolaid.

This accident doesn't count.... alcohol. And I'm willing to bet they violated the 150' rule. Too long ago... Not boat-to-boat... Accidents on other lakes don't count... That lake is smaller... Coast Guard never said 45/25..., Winnipesaukee has a different shape... yada yada yada.

Like they say, not just a river in Egypt.

Then they post that there is absolutely no evidence to support a speed limit.

Try it, the results may surprise you (and I'm not talking about the coolaid)...

I'll make it easy. I'll start.

Littlefield- low speed accident caused by a drunk driver not paying attention.

Jet ski accident from 2007- underage kid on a jetski who legally should not have even been operating it. No mention if speed was a factor. The machine involved was probably capable of no more than 50mph.

Eagle- underage drunk teen hits the rocks and ends up on the island.

Anyone care to add?

BI how can you possibly have any idea how many horsepower that boat had 30 years ago? You can't even they me what year it occurred but you know it had more than 300 hp. You don't even know what kind of boat it was.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you basing a lot of facts on stories passed down from friends.

I also thought people wanted to make the lake safer, like it was twenty to thirty years ago. Sounds pretty dangerous with people getting decapitated all the time. Since no one has been decapitated lately (30 years) maybe we have made the lake safer now.

It absolutely amazes me that BI can keep this going. Wanting a law for every potential things that could possibly go wrong is absolutely ridiculous. I seriously think he needs to move to a mountain top somewhere far away from society because he doesn't appear to want to be a part of it unless it is only on his terms. We don't need people like that in our society. I read these posts and shake my head the whole time. Kinda makes the forums that much less enjoyable. Very childish.

I told you it was a Cigarette. How low could the horsepower have been.

This accident was part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 hearing. It happened in the spring of 1975. It was a Cigarette. I don't know the speed but obviously it was moving pretty good. The owner was the uncle of a forum member. It was talked about years ago. Try a search.

Again this accident could have happened last summer or next summer. Nothing has changed. The operator may not have had a safe boating certificate back then, but would that have changed anything? He probably knew that BWI and hitting a cottage while inverted were bad ideas.

APS has been posting about this accident for two days. This is what codeman said about the accident yesterday.

I am not familar with this one...Sounds like your typical crap to me. Please scan-in some documentation of this revelation.

Do people simply "obey" the law?
 

Since the conversation here has turned much to the topic of impaired operation I thought that this article is extremely relevant.

Some honestly believe that the simple implementation of a rule or regulation will be followed with blind obedience by the great majority of those affected by such change.

What this study shows, as many of us in law enforcement have dealt with on a daily basis for decades, is the simple fact that drunk driving kills and maims thousands each year and all the laws in society have not been enough of an effective deterrent to stem the flow of blood.

Anyway, the story about this particular study is very sobering, to say the least.

As Skip points out, it's hard to stop a drunk. However a horsepower limit will "limit" the damage he can do.

The Cigarette accident in Gilford was talked about on the forum, including a post from the operators nephew. Do a search for 8/21/2003 to 8/28/2003. Look for "Baja gets air" and "Boat enters cottage - upside down.."

There is also a post there where I recommend a horsepower limit. It seems I didn't come up with this as part of a WinnFABS plot.

OK so a person in a certain style boat "could" go fast, and "could" crash the boat into a cottage. So that is the rationale (at least part of it) for a speed limit.

OK so in my car, I "could" go fast, and "could" crash my car into a house. But since there is a speed limit, there is no chance of that?

My point is this: Lots of things "could" happen, with or without a speed limit. Accidents happen at ALL speeds, and they involve ALL types of boats. You simply cannot prevent them all. Since there have been zero reported accidents in the last few years where speed over 45/25 have been cited as the MAIN cause of the accident, then the speed limit law will not make the lake safer.

Your question points out that a horsepower limit is a better solution. Thanks!

And thanks again, speed has to be the MAIN cause of the accident, I forgot that one. The best way is a horsepower, or length, or weight limit. A speed limit is less effective but will work.

The "rationale" along these lines for a speed limit it simple. Most owners of 1,700 HP boats will not choose a lake with a 45 mph speed limit to boat on. It is reported that the number of high horsepower boats on Lake George dropped dramatically after they enacted a speed limit.

I'm hoping the Capt. Boneheads will be the first to go, they NEED speed.

There is no simple way to stop drunks. There ARE simple ways to move him to another lake. Several high performance boaters have claimed they will leave if HB847 passes. I thank them for their honesty.

Is there anyone out there that thinks the number of high horsepower boats on the lake will not be effected by HB847?

BI,

Why should I bother posting you are your own worst enemy. The more you post the deeper it gets in here. Hysterical.... By the way my favorite quote so far...

"I don't know the speed but obviously it was moving pretty good."


Hysterical. Lets pass a law based on this accident coupled with your statement. :laugh:

In addition to the bolded points, I will just say that the Capt Boneheads come in all shapes and sizes, from a sea kayak to a bow rider to a GFBL.

My question still stands. I have yet to see any proof which I simply asked for. I searched by your criteria and nothing came up. Why don't you just post a link and get it over with?

Was it a Cigarette or a Baja? You say Cigarette yet you have us searching for Baja. Did Baja even make a true performance boat in the 70's??? According to my searches Baja made their first boat in 1976 and the longest boat they made was a 19' with 170hp. Cigarette did make a limited production of boats prior to 1975. Almost all were 28' and shorter, and even the 35-36' model was probably no more than a 60mph boat with the power they were equipped with standard.

Move the violators to another place. Sounds like who?
 

Why does speed have to be the MAIN cause of the accident?

Capt Bonehead has a need for speed? What kind of smoke was in the air that you pulled that factoid from? The vast majority of Capt Boneheads are not going as fast as 45 m.p.h. or faster.

Bear Islander I have heard your solution argument before. Don't deal directly with the problem just ship them elsewhere. What do you do with drunk boaters just move them to a different place so they are someone elses problem. How did that solution work for the Catholic Church problem people. It hurt rather than helped people in the long run. Face the problem head on.

You believe that speed limits will make the lake some level of better for We the People. For us. It is easy to do. What about the public on the lakes where you are sending the law breaking drunk boaters? Do you not care about all US citizens equally?

The speed limit will effect law abiding people. The ones that will pull over for the cops. It will not do much for the renegades.

Taking the easy way out doen not always work. I was so for the speed limits until I really read over the messages on the forum and became convinced that more boat speed limit legislation is not the best solution for the public.

I said it before and I'll say it again.... Don't hold your breath :sleeping:

The answers to your bolded comments are right in the text.

You are quite right about Boneheads coming in all sizes. The question is what kind of boat do you want to land on your home, a Cigarette or a sea kayak? If a sea kayak hits a dock at full speed it might scuff its bows. If a Cigarette hits a dock at full speed..... people die.

If someone hits a dock at full speed in a 19' bowrider with less than 300hp people can die as well. If someone hit a dock at 40mph on a jet ski people can die as well.

Do you agree?

Will you please try and make your posts less personal?

This forum was set aside with less restrictions. That doesn't mean you need to abuse that privilege.

BZZZZT! Wrong answer - as I showed you before, a 20' boat with a 250 hp outboard that can do 80+ mph blows away your theory on the hp limit being a way to "slow down" the lake and limit any speed related accidents by limiting the hp!

And how about we look at ALL the accidents in the last 30 years that invloved drinking and boating - and how many of those were in performance boats where speed was a direct factor, and how many in non-performance boats - you know, anything but those big-bad "Cigarette" boats.

Again - people kill people - guns don't kill people!!! It's not the boat - it is the OPERATOR! A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

Your not going to prevent car accidents by outlawing sports cars - just like you're not going to prevent accidents like you mentioned (back in 1975 :rolleye2:) by getting "Cigarette" boats off the lake! Call a spade a spade - will ya, it's not the speed that bothers you - it's the boats! Don't hate the playa - hate the game!! :cool:

Absolutely. And as the weight and speed of the boat increases so does the degree of damage and the death toll.

Do you agree?

Degree of damage to the boat and dock yes, death toll depends on other factors.

So the damage to the boat increases with speed but the damage to the people inside remains the same. I don't think so!

The links don't work as well in the old forum.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...noframes;index

However I don't think that link takes you to where I came from. Give it a try.

(edit)

Sorry, it doesn't work. but if you fill in the dates on the seach page and select "All messages in the date range" it will take you there.

Try this

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

The Baja was another accident that lead to the Cigarette accident.

NO!

*****************

Maybe or maybe not. At a higher speed the boat may plow through the dock and end up on land, not killing anyone. There is no right or wrong answer, too many other factors come into play. A larger boat may not sustain critical damage and may remain largely intact, where as a small boat may be more likely to become a pile of rubble.

Found it, thanks.

A 22' bowrider at 45mph is just as dangerous with a drunk behind the wheel as any other boat on the water - including a kayak with a drunk operator!

If you really believe that I suggest you enroll in a basic physics course, because you do not know how to Do The Math.

A kayak with a drunk operator, a 22' bowrider with a drunk operator, a 1,700 horsepower Nor-Tech with a drunk operator. They are all just as dangerous?

I really hope some Senators are reading this.

Islander,

I am sorry if you think it is personal to state facts.

This person (I won't name names) uses an accident from 30 years ago without any details to back his claim that winni needs a Horsepower and Speed limit?? I mean come on are you kidding me. Actually the more I find out about this accident the more ridiculous it is that he used it as "fact" supporting his argument. How can ones credibility even be considered when they push garbage like that. It happened 30 YEARS AGO! If anything I can use it in my argument stating how SAFE the lake is. Here I'll do it... pretend you've never heard about the accident....... Guys, winni doesn't need speed limits or horsepower limits. Winni has a more than 30 year history of no fatalities due to boat on land collisions.

Sounds silly doesn't it? Any more silly than using it to prove we DO need limits. So this persons credibility shatters more and more as they kick and scream about this accident. Sorry Islander facts is facts.

I think that others have made personal comments, including BI. Why are you the ony one complaining??? Hazelnut and BI are not.

Here chew on this one everyone ;)

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/10/...-speed-limits/

There was one last summer that killed a teenager.

He did not bring up this accident, it was talked about in this thread for a day before he talked about it. I believe he is doing an excellent job of supporting his opinion against the majority in the forum. His posts are far less personal, and frankly silly, as yours. I am only asking that we raise the bar a little. I am not Islander.

The cigarete hit a dock, the teenager hit a piling, same difference to me.

Am I missing something? I recall an accident of a teenager on a PWC dying, but not ending up on land...??? Someone who had NO RIGHT being on that machine. Hardly any damage to the machine, I remember talk of a piling strike but definitely not ending up on land. Hardly any damage to the machine either...

Let's make it official.

I am complaining.

BI..

If the best you can do to bolster your position is bring up an accident that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee over 33 years ago... You are really, really reaching! In fact, that argument could be spun to show how safe the lake really is!

I ALMOST agree with you on one point... as weight and speed increase, the POTENTIAL for damage also increases. That is just simple physics. However, the POTENTIAL for an accident or death does not necessarily increase! In fact, if you looked at the annual NHMP or even the annual USCG Safety Reports, the opposite is true!! The slowest of watercraft, canoes & kayaks are far, far more deadly...

Lake Winnipesaukee is home to about maybe 5-6 boats that can top 100, and over the summer maybe 5-6 others may frequent the lake. While the visiting boats prob wouldn't boat here anymore, the owners of the local Hi-Po boats have vested interests in Lake Winnipesaukee and aren't going to leave the lake! They will trade them in for big cruisers... then what? Oh wait! You think that can be solved by a HP limit!

Do you honestly think the NH Legislature is going to enact any sort of HP Limit or Size Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? Do you have any idea what that will do to the economy of the lake? The marinas? The businesses? The people that rely on those businesses for thier livelyhood? Good luck trying to get that passed on the state largest lake! The economy is tough enough as it is...

You have stated that the speed limit is about safety, yet you have no data to support your position. The WINNCRABS crowd dismisses the MP study as flawed, when in fact as far as UNFUNDED studies go, they did a pretty damm good job. WINNCRABS just didn't like the results! Ultimately, your goal is to rid YOUR lake of people you consider undesireable... What you don't like is thier ostentatious lifestyle, compared to what you consider your relatively low key lifestyle. However others might find your $200,000 6 minute spaceflight a bit ostentatious.

I suggest you move to Squam Lake, where they long ago enacted all types of snobbish rules to keep THIER lake to themselves! A speed limit that has NEVER been enforced, no boats with porta potties or cuddy cabins etc, etc. (I guess they want you to relieve yourself in the lake?) In fact until just a few years ago, there was NO PUBLIC ACCESS on Squam. The Squam Lake Assoc would purchase the properties the State proposed for use as a boat launch. It wasn't until the state threatened to take a VERY EXPENSIVE piece of property by emminent domain, that a compromise was reached for a small public launch!


Woodsy

Then practice what you preach...

Move on.

Sorry if you feel that way... I'll try not to laugh anymore. But come on when you posted about that accident 30 years ago were you serious? And if you were didn't some small part of you twinge and say "this is a stretch?"