Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68503)

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.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68521)

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.

Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 68532)

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

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68219)

Humor to you I'm sure. Some readers may think its true.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68521)

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.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68367)

The drunk operator would not have hit that house if he was boating elsewhere. A speed limit may cause him to boat elsewhere. A horsepower limit certainly would.

This is a major point you guys keep missing.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 68546)

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR (Post 68550)

Nice try.HE OWNED A HOUSE ON THE LAKE.Please tell me what part of him being drunk and having a speed limit would have changed that situation.I can't even believe what I'm reading here.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68552)

*shouting*
Horsepower Limit!

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68552)

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68535)

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?"

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68555)

SIKSUKR posted about that accident in post #615 (before I posted about it). He wanted to know how a speed limit could have changed the outcome of that accident. So you see, I did not bring it up. SIKSUKR knew he was talking about a REAL accident. He was one of the people that provided information on the operator to the forum back in August 2003.

I responded in post #616 that if a horsepower limit were in place it would have prevented the accident.

In post #617 you went all haywire.

I tried to explain to you in subsequent posts that we were talking about a REAL accident that happen on Winni, but you were to buzzy hitting the :laugh: key.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68551)

Unfortunately there is no way practical way to control the irresponsible boater except things like speed limits or horsepower limits.

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68557)

Ok then do me a favor because you still haven't done this. GIVE US A NUMBER!!! What horsepower? 500? 400? 250? 10? Just name a number.

Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 68559)

BI....

Thats not true... there is a VERY practical way to control the irresponsible boater. The same way they control the irresponsible car driver... Increased Police presence! Ask any LEO... lots of thier patrols involve "showing the flag" so to speak! Its truly amazing how people tend to obey the rules when there is a LEO around.

Speed limits, HP limits, Size limits mean nothing if the agency tasked with enforcing the rules is underfunded and/or understaffed! In order to get increased MP patrols, we need BETTER FUNDING FOR THE NHMP! NHMP is funded soley by boaters for boaters... I for one would support a modest increase in my registration fee if it went to directly funding the NHMP.

Woodsy

Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 68560)

If you are asking what his proposed HP limit is, it has been posted many times. Over 300hp on boat model year 2008 and newer are to be banned.

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68563)

So is he trying to sell us on the idea that a 250hp boat is incapable of causing bodily injury or death?

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68568)

AHA! My boats 300hp though.... its a runabout that only does 49. Am I banned? :laugh:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68570)

Your OK, it's the boats OVER 300 HP that are evil.

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68368)

It's official ha ha ha ha ha ha:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

We've gone from sane point counterpoint to pure insane speculation. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm putting so many laugh faces to indicate the reality that I just laughed so hard I spit water all over my screen... ha ha ha ha ha

By far the best post on this entire forum I have ever seen. I'm printing this one and hanging it on the wall. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68588)

When you stop laughing can you explain how the accident could have happened if the lake had a horsepower limit?

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68600)

I'm pretty sure I did that already but I'll give it to you again. A 200hp motor can power a bass boat at breakneck speeds.... Some of them top over 70mph. What is the difference if it was a cigarette boat or a bass boat? If there was a horsepower limit it wouldn't matter. Lives could still be lost. Tell me you don't agree that a 70mph bass boat could kill three people, either on the boat or on land?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68605)

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 68611)

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68616)

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68618)

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

Originally Posted by chmeeee (Post 68374)

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68376)

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68623)

What science are you basing this on.:confused::confused::confused::confused: You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 68546)

Island Lover

Please belive me that this matter is highly personal and very emotional. At least to me (and apparently to several others), BI seems to be saying that we (and everybody else) can not be trusted to safely operate anything larger or faster than a low speed bowrider, so the type of boat that we favor must be driven off the lake.

I, for one, find his message to be extremely insulting.

Silver Duck

Originally Posted by chmeeee (Post 68626)

Here you say that its only for new boats:

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68628)

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 68628)

....Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 62803)

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet...

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68643)

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

Originally Posted by Islander (Post 68648)

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 68649)

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.