When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

I'm not missing anything. The logic is quite simple to follow. The SL proponents argument is that a speed limit is the catch-all for what they infer are inherent problems with existing laws. So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.:laugh::laugh:
We didn't hear that in the testimony supporting the SL law did we?:confused:

Regarding my objectivity, I don't see many others willing to hear both sides and looking for data. I've stated many times I would support a SL if someone could show me objective data that the SL does anything of value. So, I would disagree with you.... Lack of evidence plus my own personal experiences on the lake is how I've based my decision.

Wrong another time. Speed limit supporters NEVER wanted or agreed to the so called "speed study". In fact they were totally opposed to it.

That was a sham of a last minute move to delay enactment of a the speed limit. Barrett pulled that rabbit out of his hat at almost the last moment to delay the bill. It was never taken seriously by the Marine Patrol that did it as evidenced by the fact the didn't log very pertinent data.

Where do you people get your information? It's almost all wrong.

So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.:)

So where do you draw the line? My boat is pushing 5000+ pounds with a 320 HP V-8 and does a whisper over 45 MPH on a good day. So what is too big? Too fast?

BI has mentioned HP limits. Apparently what was good for him prior to owning lake front property is not good enough for others to enjoy.

Look at the progression. 150 ft rule, rafting restrictions, mandatory education, now a SL. So what's next? Time to push back!!

Thanks lawn psycho! I do understand your frustration.

I personally barefoot ski at around 53 mph. Since the speed limit passed, I still do. My neighbors and others says if the MP ever pick me up for speeding there will be one hell of a demonstration at the court house. I didn't see that coming, but if it happens I have no control. Everyone loves to see me ski.

There was a social meeting last summer about restarting the Winnipesaukee Water Ski races. Mainly because the teenagers around the lake are bored and getting into all kinds of mischief. During the racing years many teenagers were busy practicing for the races. Very little mischief going on. After talking with Dunleavy, it won't be practical with the speed limits. Everyone would have to fill out forms in advanced to practice. Causing a huge paper shuffle at MP headquarters.

Bet the SL supporters didn't see that coming. They just don't give a damn!

There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

So your answer is what I suspected in that no amount of data would satisfy you.

As far as speed limits based on childrens camps, I think the number of boats on a busy day is a far, far a greater factor than speed. And that's just the facts of life. There are tons of places for camps to have small boats unfestered by motor boats. Do you think a speed limit would change your mind when traveling in the Weirs area on a busy weekend with a kayak?

It's no different then when I avoid traffic areas while on the road. So the bikers ruin the Laconia/Meredith area for me during bike weeks so should that mean they cancel the event for those who don't participate?

Comparing roads to the water is apples and oranges. We set road speed limits on OBJECTIVE data such as traffic volume, accident occurance, population densities, lane widths, number of egress points, sight lines, elevation changes, pavement type, amount of development, and a whole plethera of other criteria. Ever notice in certain areas where the speed limit miraculously changes from 65-55 seemingly for no reason? Now you have your answer..... And if you insist on comparing the water to the road, then do like the NHDOT (and all other States) and complete engineering studies before placing an arbitrary speed limit on the lake. And be careful what you wish for as the data is not likely to be in your favor.

lawn psycho,

When BI cannot "spin" his way out of a dabate--especially when confronted with facts, he will invariably pull out the "I'm afraid for the campers routine."

The merrimack river, newfound, highland, webster, etc.

If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.

http://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/30/a...ed-limits-set/

If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

Actually he does disagree with you. He prefaces the article by saying he removes his opinion and relies on the data. That's what an engineer is supposed to do.

http://livermore.patch.com/articles/...coming-to-town

Try this, and many more. I know for sure that almost every roadway on the country used this method for many decades. But I'm just addressing roadway SL. On the water is quite a bit different, and arbitrary limits plucked out of a hat are not really meaningful.

I have found that arguing with a statistician is a lot like wrestling with a pig, after a few hours you begin to realize the pig likes it.;)

Hey guys,

Instead of picking apart every minor comment I have posted, and then scouring the Internet for hours to try and find an expert opinion that differs from mine, why don't we talk about SB-27.

*COUGH, COUGH* Where in my posts do you see my scouring the internet? WinnFabs site is germaine.

The editorial above uses this argument against SB-27[...The proposed change to the law would replace hard and fast numbers with the words "reasonable and prudent...]

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening:laugh:

Here is something that I don’t understand: Why are the supporters of SB-27 asking people on this forum for data that supports a 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? :confused:

We didn’t sign the bill that has imposed the speed limit. I think most of us have told you why we think that a speed limit is necessary (and you won’t accept that) and evidently Governor Lynch thinks there should be one also.

So Mr. lawn psycho, why don’t you write the Governor and ask him to show you data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. When you get his response it would be nice if you shared that with all of us.

Tell him that "Rusty" gave you an assignment, he knows who I am. :)

One other thing lawn psycho: Because you “have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis”, what are the odds that Governor Lynch will supply you with the hard data that you are looking for?

Governor's ear
 

Did you provide any direct input to Governor Lynch prior to him signing the bill? Like a phone call or personal letter. Just curious.:)

Rusty, you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that supports ANY numerical limit. The governor won't have it because it DOESN'T EXIST:)

Let me clue you in on the legislative process, the Governor merely signed something that was passed to him. The Gov. did not initiate the bill.

And if you want me to believe that you personally had the ear of the Governor to be the hedge point to get him to sign the bill, I have a needle to pop the air within your big head:laugh:

Thank you professor psycho for the lesson about the "legislative process".

What you could do in your letter to the Governor is to tell him that you know that he doesn't have any hard data but that you were asked to inquire about it. I would like to see what his response will be. :emb:

I'm going to let you have the last word on this subject because you know what I said about statisticians. :D

I'm still waiting for you to actually provide me data! I need data in order to wrestle ;)

I have answered that question many times. Look back at the old speed limit threads and you can read all about it.

However if you look back at post 35 you will see a quote from the Marine Patrol Director.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."


That one piece of DATA is all you should need.

Wrestle with this probability question:

Each of the letters of the word Winnipesaukee are written on separate pieces of paper that are then folded, put in a hat, and mixed thoroughly.

One piece of paper is chosen (without looking) from the hat. What is the probability that it is an i?

I'm sure the booze wasn't the problem. 3 mph slower would have made a difference or perhaps if they where all traveling at reasonable or prudent speed the outcome would have been different

BI, do you really believe that a speed limit would have yielded ANY change in the outcome of the Blizzard crash? Seriously?

I'll go with your logic however and apply it too you. So since more than three shorefront owners around the lake probably have a dock or beach violation, then all private docks and beaches should be banned. Less docks would also mean less boats to make way for the campers too!

Come on, you can do better than that. Here's a simple one that is counterintuitive to people. What is the probability that two people share the same birthday (only needs to be the same month/day and can ignore year). Hint: Not as common as you would think.

So now you are equating "dock or beach" violations with speed related deaths. Really!

The first person can have any birthday. That gives him 365 possible birthdays out of 365 days, so the probability of the first person having the "right" birthday is 365/365, or 100%.
The chance that the second person has the same birthday is 1/365. So the probability that both people have this birthday, you multiply their separate probabilities. (365/365) * (1/365) = 1/365, or about 0.27%.

No, my logic is that if ONE person is violating then we must pass legislation so NONE can violate.

I should have made it the classic birthday problem and given you a group of people and asked the same question. Then you have to handle the different conditional probabilities.

When I was in college, my undergrad prof started out a random processes class with a similar problem trying to prove a point. The funny part is we had a pair of twins in the class. Completely spoiled his thunder :laugh:

The professor that I had (many years ago) was educated way beyond his intelligence. I couldn’t stand him…he acted sorta like you! However you do have some good traits and he had absolutely none!!!

There was a thread awhile ago about "Illegal" Float Plane operations on Pickeral Pond. It was started by Shedwanabe.

Being a Private Pilot, I volunteered some information based on my avaition knowledge. I was challenged by Skip to write a letter to the FAA to resolve the matter. WHAT..? Who am I to write a letter to resolve a LOCAL matter, as to whether a Float Plane can land on Pickeral Pond.?

This challenge by Rusty... seems eerily similar to my experience with Skip.

BTW: Shedwanabe. ...to his credit..did his own investigating and found that the Float Plane operations on Pickeral Pond were indeed legal.

SO: Is Rusty ...another screen name for Skip. ..?? :D NB

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/em...nking/ummm.gif I wonder what the probability is that I am Skip? :laugh:

Wonder who's behind curtain three?
 

Hmmm....I wonder too.

Well, at least you are no Bozo! :laugh: