Are you trying to be funny?

Does the "No Limits" slogan refer to the Minimum Safe Passage rule? I didn't know you were trying to repeal that one!

More of the same
 

It is really unfortunate the HB 162 proponents were not around in 1912. With the night speed limit and a special subsection to address floating icebergs, they may have saved the Titanic.

Happy holidays.

Nope, wasn't, your statement was that speed is not addressed by law, when it fact it is. If you are referring to excessive speed, well that definition is to be defined, I'll follow the US Coast Guard where they define safe speed, and conclude that anything above their definition of safe speed is excessive speed. And since they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision, I also conclude that a collision requires 2 objects (boats or anything). And since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less, its seem that your original post that "speed is not address by law" is incorrect. But this is just my interpretation.

I think it is clear to an impartial observer that when I said there were no laws addressing speed, I meant in the context of a "speed limit" as in HB162. Lets not pick nits.

The Minimum Safe Passage rule does not address "speed" on lake Winnipesaukee.

Judging by the number for times you've repeated the "(Estimated)28 mph night time accident involving your neighbor" and made it sould like gosple that a 25 mph limit would have prevented it , you must have an entire pocket full of nits by now.:rolleye2:
Not that I am minimizing the depth of this tragedy but we all know there were a number of poor decisions made prior to that fateful night:(

So I guess it's your position that everything is just fine on Winnipesaukee? Thousands attending hearings, writing to reps and newspapers, and voting in polls that speed is a problem needing repair are just wrong, but the 27 or so from NHRBA that are "forum eligible" know better?

That 150' rule is forty years old. As boating speeds have increased since then, that 150' "buffer" has shrunk from a safety zone to a microsecond (less that the human reaction time at these speeds). You know all this. You've been at the hearings and heard all these facts. You have engineers in your small membership. When are you going to just admit that you and your minority group of fun-seekers are simply wrong?

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph. Or an accident at night that an operator was not controling there vessel in a manner that not to endanger others. As long as a vessel is moving - speed is a factor.

45-25 came from lake George, without any cosideration for safe passage!


Lake George 21
Lake winni. 0

NWZ
Safe passage
Not to endanger
Reasonable speed when visability allows.

Look right when going and comming, and give way.
You seem to have racing blinders on.

Of course I don't think it was the main reason. I think the biggest part of the reason was to try to diminish the support for and distract attention from HB162. (of course that did not work). Next biggest part was to try to legitimize NHRBA and make it look like it was really intersested in boating safety. The fact that the place you chose to seek a no-wake zone just happened to be right in front of the house of your single most generous personal contributor was probably third, in my opinion. I was actually in favor of the petition, but have to admit it really bothered me to see the person in the newspapers with one of the largest and loudest boats on the lake (one of the richest "haves" on the lake), speaking about his right to roar around the rest of the lake and force the rest of us to put in earplugs and dive for cover, while you guys are working to get what is effectively a personal "quiet zone" for him in front of his house.
So I guess it does say a bit about my true feelings about the "haves vs the have nots".

Okay...Where would one look for those "facts"?
 

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:

Quote:

"New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."

On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.
:)

However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).
:(

'Couldn't be speed, could it?
:confused:

Could be booze and drugs combined after reading your Donzi forum link...Take out these factors and it probably would not have happened. Not to mention he had a reckless history, not all people in fast boats do.

Out of 6 deaths in NH that year, two were non-boating related drownings. The other 4 have no causes listed, there is no facts stated that they are speed related, or for that matter even took place in a moving boat! They could be drunken drownings at the sand bar for that matter. Facts please, not assumptions making NH sound more dangerous than it is. NH is considerably smaller in size and overall acreage of water so it makes sense that the concentration would be higher for accidents. IMO it still does not make NH a deadly place to boat.

Once again conjecture quoted as fact. Actual, complete quote: "One source has estimated New Hampshire leads the nation in accidents per acre of water and per 1,000 boats registered."

Key words here, "One source" and "estimated". Seems to me a statement like this would be easy to verify, why hasn't this been done? Because it's probably not true. Why don't these posters tell the whole story? The truth simply does not support their arguments as shown again and again right here in these posts, if you read carefully.

If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found.

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

Yet innattention, recklessness, alcohol, lack of experience and even weather conditions all cause more deaths per year. Make a law banning bad weather during boating season and I am in! Do more to fix the top 3 and put more accountability on alcohol and establishments that serve it and speed will be a non-issue.

Quibbles and Excuses

Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.

You've got it backwards
 

Cman,

By "scare tactics", are you referring to the assertion that the local economy is going to collapse if we slow the very small group of excitement seeking go-fasters down? Or are you referring to the assertion that slow boats are more dangerous because they can't plane and the drivers therefore can't see where they are going when driving "only" 45? Or are you referring to the accusation that this is "discriminatory" against performance boats because they will somehow be the only ones who would have to obey the new limits? Or that this is just a veiled attempt to convert our lakes into "Golden Pond"? Or that the supporters are going to go after all other types of boats next? Or that our shores will be eroded and our environment destroyed by a speed limit? Or that the state will have to impose user fees to enforce a speed limit? Or that even the law abiders will be getting erroneous speeding tickets because of radar that doesn't work on boats? Or that speed limits will actually attract law-breakers to come here for the thrill of the chase? Or that the supporters will all be harrassed by having protest rallies staged in front of their houses? Need I go on?

By "lack of facts", are you referring to the facts that were deleted in all of the go-fast sites? Or to the facts from other lakes where speed limits have been proven so effective? Or to all the high-speed accidents on Winnipesaukee alone over the past few yeras that were mysteriously not classified as "speed-related"? Or to the fact that thousands of lake users (on both sides) testified about the plethora of safety problems on our lakes that our current laws are not preventing? Or, most importantly, to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the lakes' owners want a speed limit, as proven by the legitimate polls done by ARG and NHRBA?

By "hidden agendas", are you referring to the NHRBA pretention that it is a boating safety group? Or to its original "we just care about preserving all boaters' rights" agenda before they finally admitted that this is all just about "excitement"? Or to the supporters' "we just want to be safe on the lakes we own" agenda. when (according to you), what they really want is to rid the lake of boats having a certain shape?

Seems that you've got it all backwards.

I posted the following earlier in another thread about this same stuff. How prophetic.

Nice try FJ, I guess we shouldn't have put that NWZ in! Don't respond with your usual (Whaa whaaa, that's because it's in front of NHRBA member's house). That had nothing to do with it, even Rusty called me and congratulated us on getting that passed. And what hidden agenda does NHRBA have??? Please explain it to all. We DO NOT support HB162 as ammended! No hidden secret there! We also want to start an aggressive marketing campaign to better inform people of the 150 ft safe passage law, whooo, bad people we are. Better access to lakes is also an agenda. You're not a member, so how would you know. Oh yeah, I forgot a Winnfabs officer said you can easily inflitrate NHRBA, so if that is true, tell everyone our secrets. If you can't, just go back to supporting HB162 because you want your golden pond and I would have more respect for you if you were honest like Rep. Pilliod about the agenda.

However Winnfab's hidden agenda that you WON'T find our their site is that they WANT all performance boats off the lake, PERIOD!!! That's hidden, you must have some kind of intelligent thought process to see the difference!

Must I remind you that even Rep. Pilliod is honest about this "hidden" agenda.

".. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them...." Rep Pilliod


And what poll do you keep referring to that NHRBA did, I happen to know about everything that NHRBA has done and we never commisioned a poll. Is this another one of your feeble attempts to confuse the readers? I had to laugh out loud at your post earlier this year!!

LOL, trying to get everyone to show up 3 hours late, did ya really think that was going to work!!! I guess that's why only 1 person showed up in favor and the rest were against it at the right time, 11am!!! Your posts are full of contradictory, misguiding, incorrect and sometimes comical information, so please keep them coming, it's a new year and we could all use some hysterics! Look forward to your next post!

WL,
I notice that you never address the issues-at-hand in your responses, instead taking the response off an a tangent when it is not going the way you'd like. You must have studied debating in school and learned about the use of red herrings to distract when your argument is going astray. Nice.
Of course, anyone else who read that old post knew I was jesting. But I guess if that was all you had... And I guess I forgot who I was dealing with. Did it fool any of you? If so, sorry (said in jest).

Now to the points about NHRBA;
I don't think anyone in NH truly believes that NHRBA is a "boating safety" group, despite your no-wake petition. Recall that John Kerry voted for the war...is he a hawk? We all know why Kerry voted for the war, and we all know why you petitioned for that NWZ.
Did you not report to the Winnilakers membership back in 2003, in a thread directed at your fight against that year's HB406, "its official,...NHRBA has been created. This association will be dedicated to fighting for the rights of boaters on NH's waters...looking for individuals to come to show support against a Bill, trying to impose a night-time speed limit...if the bill passes, day time speed is not far away"? Generally, "safety" groups efforts have something to do with safety....at least their initial efforts. No mention of no-wake zones here or education or improving enforcement of the 150-ft rule...just "fighting for the rights of boaters" (to go as fast as they want).
In that same thread about that night-time speed limit law, you posted a message entitled "This is why we have this site". Are we to believe that the Winnilaker's GFBL group suddenly becomes a "safety" group when they log off Winnilakers and log on to NHRBA?
In another thread, you wrote "NH Lakes Association is supporting this bill, so that means we have to fight even harder". NHLA has been a great thing for the state of NH. Few citizens of this state would disagree. Before NHRBA/Winnilakers, I knew of nobody who did not appreciate all that NHLA has done for all of us. Why were they your first declared enemy if you were a "safety" group?
In another post on that forum entitled "Loon lovers at it again! SB:106 Trying to ban watercraft" one of your members wrote of how Senator Johnson was trying to "backdoor" a policy to define 3-seat PWC's as PWC's (what they are). "We can't allow this to happen" he said. "let the loon loving, canoe paddling, conservatives know that its everyones right to our lakes". He asks for NHRBA's help. Why would he expect help from a "safety" group to fight loon lovers?
As recently as last April, on OSO, you wrote "I have set up a new organization NHRBA...I have legal representation in concord working for us on issues like the speed limit". Why no mention of your real purpose...boating safety?
Also in April, you posted on Winnilakers "The NHRBA has all summer to put in place an organization to counter the false claims of this anti-boating group" (referring to Winnfabs). If your organization was put in place for this purpose then, why not just admit that now? Or else, when did it convert to a "boating safety" organization?

Again, I can't speak for Winnfabs. I do not know how you disserned that their real objective is to ban all boats from our lakes. I have never seen anything except NHRBA talk of that (scare tactics?). But I am told that Winnfabs was formed for the sole purpose of fighting for HB162. In fact, they say so right on their website; "The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of House Bill 162 which provides for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH." They do not pretend to be anything else. I just wish NHRBA would have the integrety to admit what they really are, what you yourself alluded to in the Citizen last week; a GFBL group fighting against any limits on their "excitement". There is nothing wrong with standing up for your beliefs. In fact, that is admirable. If you feel that high-speed boating is exciting, and don't want it to end, just say so. I'd respect that, I'd respect you, and I'd respect NHRBA. Notice that none of us are challenging the integrity of OSO or Winnilakers? They are GFBL groups, they admit they are GFBL groups, and we all respect their right to disagree with us. I respect the rights of smokers groups to fight smoking restrictions, so long as they do not pose as "health" groups and say they are doing so because they feel smoking is healthy.
FJ

PS: Are you swearing here that neither NHRBA or any of its partners, associates, or anyone else fighting like you against HB162 (Winnilakers.com, Speedwake, OSO, Baja Marine, your attorneys, the Marine Trades Association, etc) had a survey of their own done? If that is absolutely true, you should have no trouble with a simple unqualified "yes".

What a fun-loving guy that Mastronardi must be, eh?
 

How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?) :confused:

The first guy is a direct Littlefield-CLONE, but twice faster, and twice more deadly as far as can be determined from Littlefield's own, self-serving, (and widely quoted), "28-MPH" testimony. With civil charges and a BWI charge overhead, why not testify to a "slow" 28-MPH?


deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened? Would speed limits have saved these victims? I am sure WASTED drivers really care about speed limits. Sounds to me like HB162 should be named Hartmans Bill 162. Absolute tragedy, I certainly do not discount the loss of any of these lives and would love to see stiffer penalties used but none of them would have been saved or for that matter the accident be prevented by a speed limit.

FJ,
I don't really see your point here. This is NHRBA's charter, it's on our website.

"We are chartered to promote and protect the interests of boaters and boating enthusiasts in the State of New Hampshire. This is achieved through legislative monitoring, administrative rules efforts, and public outreach programs."

As a side note, we have attempted to make the lake safer in any way we can. Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org", but secretly were gonna fight bills. Nothing hidden there, most people who have joined, have joined specifically to help fight against bills such as HB162. Again, your post is not very useful for all.
WL

PS. As you often state (I don't know about winnfabs), I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey. So as long as you continue to attempt to give NHRBA a bad name, I will continually defend it against you, since you are the ONLY one on this entire forum that seems to have a problem with NHRBA, at least that has publically stated it. So quote all the posts you want about wanting to fight against HB162, nothing new here! I actually forgot about some of them and its great to see that you are reading up on everything. Look forward to your next post so that I can respond accordingly.

And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting. My points have been clear, no statistics justify it, difficult to enforce and it's limiting a right we have today. Since you are SO good at digging up posts of mine, I don't have time, please post some from me that I state that safety is the reason we don't want HB162. Darn, you got me, I may have said if everyone slows down, the waters may be more rough, I'll give ya that one.

winnilaker

I have a problem with NHRBA.

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low.

After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

All I ask is for quotes that are not edited or cropped to make them more appealing than they actually are to your cause..........

Can't really figure this sentence out but I think parts of it are inaccurate based on a quick look at the cases I could find. Typical.


Again, after a quick look, in more than half of these accidents if not all alcohol was a factor. Why bring this up you ask? Full disclosure, you see not everyone agrees that a speed limit will help, even a little. You are presenting your "facts" to support your case. My problem with your facts is that some if not all of the accused seemed to have been intoxicated, leading me to believe that if they ignored the BWI laws, they would have ignored a speed limit.

On 4/6/05, in the thread you started to announce NHRBA, you said “Does Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire boaters need a non-profit organization...that promotes boating safety?”

Also on 4/6; “Anybody interested in helping shape an organization that ...is focused on promoting boating safety email me”

And on 4/7; “the group looks forward to your help to ...promote boating safety”

On 4/8; “I'm not about GFBL and certainly (sic) hope the NHRBA is not as well or I will get out.”

On 4/13; “I don't want NHRBA to be a GFBL focused membership.”

Again on 4/13; “look forward to working with you to talk about ideas such as boat limits, out of stater fees for using boats in NH, promoting safety, etc. even speed limits.”

On 12/6; “Well nhrba goals will be to continue to make boating safer.”

Sounds to me like a group hiding under the pretense of boating safety. Want more?

Is this an "unqualified "yes""? Are you stating for the record that you are unaware of any polls conducted on behalf of those opposing HB162?

I am very concerned about this. So you joined over a year ago, that would make it before Jan 2005. Correct? I have just reveiwed the membership of all members since April of 2005 and all appear to be members today, except for 1. Are you stating you are that 1 person? I also searched our NHRBA forums for the word "rat", with no results, can you clarify the exact terminology used? The individual that was asked to leave, wanted to bring down NHRBA, not build it, even though the majority of its members wanted to vote against HB162. So, I'm calling your bluff on this one, if you can do some research like FJ, you'll know I helped start NHRBA over 2 years ago and know every little piece of information about it. So be careful that you don't tarnish your reputation on this forum for making false accusations that you can't defend. That is of course you are that 1 person! Then I can agree with you, sorry we didn't see eye FM.

As for FJ's question,
Is this an "unqualified "yes""?
I can say YES fro NHRBA, but I will check with the officers to double check to see if the other groups have.

Also thanks for the quotes, good ones (I stand by all of them), again I think a waste of your effort. I think your point was that NHRBA is a org that says its a safety org, but secretly wants to fight HB162. I'm telling you its a legislative monitoring org that will use its membership to promote boating safety ANY WAY it can. How much more obviously can I be, of course I want to promote boating safety, who doesn't, I have a 1 year son and 3 year old daughter, you think I want to take them boating on a crazy lake with maniacs doing 100mph everywhere, you're right, that's why I boat on Winnipesaukee, because that's not the reality. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people do it.

This is not the first story like this I've heard. Why do they say the membership is open to all, then apparently kick out members who join but express a non-GFBL point of view? Of course these are just questions, but; Might they be trying to build up their membership numbers to make the opposition seem larger than it actually is? Might they be trying to confuse? Might they just be trying to raise money by deception? Might you be one of those they count when they say they represent N peopel who oppose speed limits? Was your membership fee used to fund opposition to a bill that you supported?

I said almost a year ago, not over a year ago. I found this so it may have been a little later than I thought.

"Your Web Registration/Membership application Request has been successfully
processed. You will have access to the discussion forum for 3 weeks, if we
have received your member fee by then, your account will be active until
May 1, 2006, if not this registration will be terminated.

If you have any questions please contact us: webmaster@nhrba.com
Thank you,
New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association registration"

As I remember it, I received the form and filled it out, then my posting privileges were removed and I was asked to leave so I never sent the money in.

My memory of the word was rat. There were several posts at that time talking about opposition strategy. There was no discussion of "boating safety", it was 100% anti speed limit.

I know you're not responsible for everything that was posted. But we both know what was going on then, so lets be honest.

All of this divisiveness is really getting old. HB-162 has really divided Lake Winnipesaukee. I really don’t think that I will change the minds of some people such as APS, Fat Jack, Bear Islander, Bear Lover, Island Lover et al. They seem to have a personal issue with high performance boats, to wit, they just plain don’t like them or their owners. I intend to plead my case based on facts and statistics, not emotional rhetoric, muckraking, conspiracy theories and partial truths. Let’s just stick to the facts…

There is a link above to the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report on Boating Safety Statistics. I have also included a link to a Boater Safety Alert issued by the NTSB. http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/sa%5F007.pdf

I strongly suggest that you read both documents in their entirety. It is pretty amazing the educational information contained in those reports.

In 2004 there were approximately 12,781,476 registered boats in the United States. There were 4904 accidents resulting in 676 fatalities and 3363 injuries. Of the 4904 accidents reported, 401 had excessive speed listed as the primary cause of the accident, (approximately 8%) resulting in 39 fatalities (approximately 6%). The USCG definition of “Excessive Speed” becomes ambiguous at this point. The USCG does not put a number as to what speed is considered excessive. We do not know at what speed (estimated or otherwise) that these accidents occurred.

Here is what we do know as FACT!

1. BWI is the #1 cause of boating related fatalities, 109 fatalities (16.1% of fatalities) as a result of 296 accidents (7.2% of accidents). BWI ranked #6 based on number of accidents.

2. Hazardous Waters is the #2 cause of boating related fatalities, 57 fatalities (8.4% of fatalities) as a result of 312 accidents (6.3% of accidents). Hazardous Waters ranked #5 based on number of accidents.

3. Operator Inattention is the #3 cause of boating related fatalities, 55 fatalities (8.1% of fatalities) as a result of 562 accidents (11.4% of accidents). Operator Inattention ranked #2 based on number of accidents.

4. Careless/Reckless Operation is the #4 cause of boating related fatalities, 43 fatalities (6.3% of fatalities) as a result of 570 accidents (11.6% of accidents). Operator Inattention ranked #1 based on number of accidents.

5. Operator Inexperience is the #5 cause of boating related fatalities, 42 fatalities (6.2% of fatalities) as a result of 406 accidents (8.2% of accidents). Operator Inexperience ranked #3 based on number of accidents.

6. Excessive Speed is the #6 cause of boating related fatalities, 39 fatalities (5.7% of fatalities) as a result of 401 accidents (8.1% of accidents). Excessive Speed ranked #4 based on number of accidents.

7. Passenger/Skier Behavior is the #7 cause of boating related fatalities, 26 fatalities (3.8% of fatalities) as a result of 291 accidents (5.9% of accidents). Passenger/Skier Behavior ranked #7 based on number of accidents.

8. Machinery System Failure is the #8 cause of boating related fatalities, 21 fatalities (3.1% of fatalities) as a result of 285 accidents (5.8% of accidents). Machinery System Failure ranked #8 based on number of accidents.

9. Rules Of The Road Infraction is the #9 cause of boating related fatalities, 13 fatalities (1.9% of fatalities) as a result of 188 accidents (3.8% of accidents). Rules Of The Road Infraction ranked #10 based on number of accidents.

10. No Proper Lookout is the #10 cause of boating related fatalities, 11 fatalities (1.6% of fatalities) as a result of 271 accidents (5.5% of accidents). No Proper Lookout ranked #9 based on number of accidents.


I certainly think that boating safety doesn't necessarily require speed limits. HB-162 only addresses a percentage of the #6 cause of boating fatalities. It does nothing to address any of the other Top 10 causes of boating fatalities.

We know for a fact that boating accidents are down this year (2005) on Lake Winnipesaukee even though the number of boats on the lake has increased. Boater Education laws work!

I am a member of NHRBA. I didn't join just because of HB-162. While I personally don't agree with a daytime limit at all, I might be swayed to accept a reasonable and prudent statute. I was in favor of the NWZ between Governor Is and Eagle Is. as I think it was/is one of the most congested spots on the lake.


Woodsy

#1, #3, #4 and #5 already have NH boating laws that are helping to reduce these fatalities. #2 is a natural condition, it's very hard to pass a law against "Hazardous Waters".

I urge the legislature to pass HB162 so we can start work on the #6 cause of fatalities.

Good post, If I read that correctly IF YOU DON'T send your membership fee in, you are terminated. Honestly, where does it say "Sorry, we don't like your views therefore you are terminated." Self explanatory, thanks for the post.

Simply lies, nice try, please post facts.

Honestly, check with the Weirs Times, we paid them a bunch of money this summer, placing Boating Safety tips every week. Darn, you got me again, we do like boating safety in addition to legislative monitoring.

If you want to continue to tarnish this thread with this badgering, fine, else we can start a new one to continue this debate over lies vs. truths. Again, unless you are the 1 person I did ask to leave, besides that, not a single person was asked to leave.

And FJ, I confirmed with the NH Bass Federation and Marine Trade Association and no one knows of a survey besides the one. So apparently you know some double secret probation information that the opposition doesn't even know about.

This email had nothing to do with my termination. I received this when I joined online. I am showing it to you as proof I joined.

About a week after I joined it was made clear to me that I was not welcome and I was no longer able to access the forum.

winnilaker - Are you claiming that speed limit supporters were not made unwelcome at NHRBA last spring?

So you think it's only them that favor HB162? You can add me to that list although I honestly have nothing against hi performance boats or their drivers. We have a friend with a Ferrari. I love him and his car. Driving it was a great thrill. I just don't want him doing 90 in my neighborhood (or anywhere else except a racetrack). I also have a brother-in-law with a Skater racing boat and he's taken me on some amazing rides in Long Island Sound. I loved it but it certainly doesn't belong in a lake like this except on a closely controlled race course.

My PERSONAL feeling comes from decades of time spent on and around the lake. I PERSONALLY don't care about all your facts and counter-facts. A child on my street doesn't need to be hit before I do something about speeding drivers (and I did). Somehow we got the limit lowered, extra signs and increased enforcement without a single fact (accident) to support it. Would those speeding drivers say "where are the facts that children are in danger from speeding drivers"? Would a question like that have helped their cause? In that case facts weren't needed, just common sense.

It is obvious to me that the "need for speed" is just not compatable with thousands of small family runabouts, sailboats, canoes and kayaks. I would have supported a compromise but something has to be done and I don't see any other proposals on the table.

This is just one opinion from one non-agenda, non-performance boat hater, little person who sees a problem. You may not like to hear it Woodsy but I think there are lots of us out there. We're not here arguing with you but the calls have been made and the letters have been written.

I've been reading all this with amusement but this is my last post on this subject. You can make up anything you want about why I feel the way I do but you'd be wrong.

J

Then stop dividing
 

Woodsy, you are surely right about that point, but then look what you say and do next;

You cause the very divisiveness that you abhor by repeatedly mistating the motives of the supporters and calling us liars. I believe your reasoning for opposing HB162. I can't see into your mind, so trust that you speak the truth about your motives. I agree that we just disagree about speed limits and the effect they will have. I don't call you a liar or put words in your mouth about your motives as you repeatedly do to us. We all keep asking for the same respect from you as we give you in this regard, but can't seem to get it. Everyone I have discussed HB162 sees it as a safety issue (not to say that an anti-cigarette boat reason or any other reason would not be as valid as a safety reason if coming from one of the lake's owners...one man - one vote). Some supporters are performance boat owners but are happy to go 45 in them because they believe it would be safer. Do you feel they hate themselves? I have never met a person who said "I support HB162 because I have a personal issue with high performance boats, and I just plain don’t like them or their owners."

You left on your own, You did not like the way your post were rebutted.

This is getting old, but I will continue to respond as long as I'm addressed. NHRBA welcomes ALL boaters, even speed limit supporters, sail boaters, you name it, you'd be surprised by the variety of members we have now. I will state on the record right here and right now, NHRBA will NOT welcome people who are disingenuous, deceitful, use fake names or addresses and/or have the intention of using information NHRBA gathers to attempt to discredit NHRBA. Sound familiar to some of you? I think I saw the term "pathetic" used by Fat Jack, I liken that to the people who tried to join and use fake names and addresses in the hope to gain inside information. Were you one of those people? I have 17 people who have registered but never sent in their membership forms out of 140 registrations, I guess it wouldn't be too hard for me to start calling those folks to find out which one you were. But why go through all that effort, who really cares. The biggest complaints we got so far was, Why aren't we doing more to fight House Bill 162, but that's about it.

Is that a yes or a no?

Sounds like a no.

Fat Jack,

I have never called you or anyone else on this board a liar! I am not going to get into a p*ssing contest with anyone as to what their beliefs are. I respect everyones opinion, and quite frankly devote alot of time defending and explaining an opposing opinion regardless of how unpopular it is. However, I do think the motives of some of those posters I mentioned is very clear. They don't like performance boats or thier owners. Plain and simple.

Rep. Jim Pilliod the sponsor of HB-162 has stated "It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them." He doesn't know what boat I own or how big it is, other than its manufactured by Donzi as I told him in the e-mail I sent him. I think Rep. Pilliods intent is VERY CLEAR... he doesn't like hi-performance boats and wants them off Lake Winnipesaukee.

In order for speed be a "Safety Issue", as the Winnfabs claim it is, one would need statistics and facts to bolster that claim. You would have accident reports and statistics showing an increase in boating accidents, especially those relating to excessive speed. The problem is, there aren't any statistics or facts that bolster your claim. In fact there were less accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee last year than in the year prior. I ask again, if you have those facts or statistics, please post them.

. This whole mess has been simmering for some time, but it came to a head with the Hartman/Littlefield accident. Its kind of like blaming the car instead of the driver or perhaps the gun and not the guy who pulled the trigger. Perhaps the anger towards Littlefields and the Hi-Performance boating community regarding the Hartman accident should be better directed? It wasn't any other boater who served alcohol to Danny Littlefield that night. It was none other than the flag bearer of the Pro HB-162 community Rusty Mclear & Alex Ray's Common Man Restaurant chain. Maybe you should question them as to what thier alcohol policy is? Danny Littlefield was obviously overserved. I am sure that will come out in civil lawsuit of some sort.

One ardent HB-162 supporter, routinely posts pix and approximately 1/2 the story. He tends to leave out other contributing factors to the accident such as alcohol consumption. Kind of reminds of the guy at the Moultonborough Hearing who told the story of the guy in the hi-performance boat who was going so fast he ran into an island. After telling the whole story, the the board asked one simple question... was alcohol involved. Sheepishly the guy answered yes. He obviously omitted that little fact from his story.

To quote yet another ardent HB-162 supporter "There is definitely a prejudices involved. I am prejudiced against boats that are to big, to fast, and to noisy for a crowded lake. But mostly I dislike the "get out of my way" attitude that can be displayed by any boater but is a serious problem when he is operating a GFBL."

Boats have accidents. So does every other machine ever operated by a human being. If your going to use accidents, post the whole story, not just the muckraking tidbits.

We have speed limits on our roads, because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents and fatalities. The speed limit posted is directly related to the line of sight distance a driver can see. I don't have an issue with that as most roads, especially here in New England have a very narrow line of sight measured usually 1/4 mile or less. Interstate Highways are obviously different. Visibility on the Lake Winnipesaukee is 360 degrees, measured in MILES! There are very few places on the lake where one has any sort of restricted visibilty (weather not withstanding).

We in NH have speed limits on our snowmobile trails because they have been statistically proven to reduce accidents. I suppose going down a trail on a 500lb snowmobile with lots of immovable objects (trees) less than 6' away at speeds greater than 45 could be considered hazardous. I have gone off the trail at speeds less than 45 and I can tell you its not fun. We do not have a snowmobile speed limit on our lakes however, because there is not any data to support one. (I think there are two lakes in the state with a speed limit, one in Concord, & one in Pittsburgh)

We in NH do not have a helmet law for motorcyclists, even though it has been statistically proven to reduce motorcycle fatalities.

We in NH do not have a seatbelt law for automobiles, even though they have been proven to reduce injuries and fatalities in automobile accidents.

Jan, I applaud that you were able to have the speed limit on your street lowered. Considering cars and children its not a bad thing, and it probably inconveinces a few people, and only for the short period of time they may be on that particular stretch of road. There are facts and statistics to bolster your speed limit reduction. I am sure the number of children in the neighborhood was also a contributing factor. HB-162 however, does not inconvience a few people traveling down a side road. It affects EVERYONE who boats in NH, regardless of where or how they boat.

In fact I am not opposed to limiting my personal freedom when it is deemed necessary by facts & statistics. I have a serious problem with a limitation on my freedom when there are no tangible facts or statistics.

I ask again... post some facts & statistics!

Woodsy