I'm probably the only person on the forum who welcomes NWZ violators.....I live in a no wake zone and it's nice to have a few waves to clean my beach every now and then.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

This hidden agenda stuff is either crap or bad memory. It's the opposition that keeps talking about safety, so naturally the pro-limit side responds about safety. And I'm sure that for some on "my" side it is only about safety. But I have been telling people for years that "its not just about safety" or that "safety is not my first concern".

Read this post by Woodsy from 2005. In it Representative Pilliod, the author of the original bill, clearly states it is all about "Fear". He also makes it plain he thinks high performance boats don't belong on the lake, and that they should go to the ocean.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?p=23856

You can read down a few posts and see what others, including yours truly, has to say about it.

So you see Steve this hidden agenda stuff is pure baloney. So please either stop posting about it or tell me specifically what you think has been hidden.

Let's just see how this goes
 

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=506
Bear Islander - 4-15-2008

""Is 45 mph safer than 55 mph? Yes. "

Thank You! That is all the justification I need for HB847

All the rest of the rhetoric is justification, denial amd misdirection. Plus a sad attempt to rewrite the Coast Guard statistics. A 45 mph speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-15-2008
"I didn't pick 45. I would have chosen a higher number. But that is the legislation we have. I have chosen to support it.

If every speed is safer than the one higher, then a speed limit will make the lake safer."

Bear Islander 4-16-2008
"I wish the 150' rule were really the panacea you think it is. Unfortunately it is not a magic shield against boating accidents. It did not prevent last years fatal accident, or the one 5 years ago. It would not have made any difference if there was a 150' rule on Long Lake last summer.

Violations of the 150' rule are possibly the most common boating complaint on this forum. It has been pointed out many times that large numbers of boaters seem unaware of its existence.

Even if the 150' rule worked as well as we all wished it did, it would not change the fact that slower is safer."

Ok enough, I'm busy today.

You've used water quality, erosion, kids camps, referenced 90mph in a NWZ, noise, just about everything. The past two weeks or so, you get into the Congestion. You just plain think having the speed limit would cut down on congestion. In various threads, you say you never said this was about safety, waves, pollution, whatever. In another reference, you even state that you would have made the daytime limit higher than 45.

I know it's sometimes confusing to stay focused when responding to so many different issues. But if you had always stated that congestion and lowering the mount of boat traffic on the lake was paramount, then that would have been the focus of your arguments. Until lately, it never has been. And unfortunately, I have wasted far too much time going back through your posts trying to come up with a central theme. There are many Central Themes, which have of course changed over time. Now it's congestion.

I guess you're correct, there has been no Hidden Agenda. I remember the discussions over waves and how the law would help that. I was puzzled, then we moved onto another facet of the debate. Your real agenda didn't actually dawn on me until sometime last month. That's about the time you finally stated it. If you stated this much earlier, then forgive me, I must have missed it.

I don't see what those quotes prove. Like I said, the opposition wanted to focus on the safety issue so that is what I responded to.

45 IS safer than 55.

That IS all the justification that is necessary (however there is a lot more)

Coast Guard statistics DO support HB847

A 45 mph speed limit WILL make the lake safer

I DID NOT pick 45

45 IS lower than I believe necessary

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

Children's camps ARE limiting their boating

There IS fear in the lake community

The lake DOES have a thrill-seeking reputation

Tourism IS negatively effected by the above

Every word is true. Every word is consistent. Every argument points to a reason I support speed limits. I am not limited to one argument. I can have more than one agenda!

Bigger boats DO cause more pollution

Bigger wakes DO cause more erosion

Water quality IS dropping

QUOTE]

What's next...no boats on the lake over 18 feet??? YADDA YADDA YADDA.
Careful what you vote for....I don't want to be swimming to the island in ten years!

New buzz word
 

First,boats that didn't fit winnfabs and their supporters idea of what should be on the lake were labeled Go Fast Be Load.Then the lake has been labeled dangerous because of the "Cowboy" and "Wild West" attitudes.Now any boat that can go much faster than 45 is labeled a "Thrillseeker".The scare tactics continue even after the law was signed in.What's next?Will it be those evil"Mechanical Monsters" that used to be called power boats?

New law?
 

How about this logic:

0 MPH is safer than 1 MPH. We should ban movement on the lake. ;)

Rising to your expectations, maybe.

To mention the word "sound", and before still another Boating thread ends up in a certain sub-forum......

What I'm seeing is too many boaters arrive from out of state at this lake (and this site) and declare that they are exactly what this lake needs in the way of the ideal boater......As if to say, "I am an above-average boater and have the certificate to prove it".

We can't ALL be above-average!

What I hear instead, is stereos and exhausts that are anathema to a scenic lake crowded with islands, with loons, with views of mountains, and fully ringed with residences great and small.

What I see instead, is the collective self-absorption of boaters suddenly become a world unto themselves.

Suddenly nearsighted when approaching wildlife, kayaks and sailboats even at casual speeds......but at closing speeds even greater than the appearance, given the direction and velocity of the target-kayak or target-sailboat.

Posters on this forum, btw, stand out for at least two reasons. One, because they are not afraid to criticize the inconsiderate, negligent, reckless or dangerous operation of other operators in the face of those who would put their heads in the sand so as not to see.

Or two, they boat on Winnipesaukee's waters because their own states' lakes are "too restrictive" for their concept of boating or boat.

Prior, Winni's boaters HAD been among the most considerate in my experience.

Perhaps it was because they had more to lose with their little boat, or that insurance wasn't a consideration at one time for one's boat. I've never insured any of my boats, for example. I drive them as though any loss, including theft, would be a personally significant loss. Others like me would leave a skier to retrieve a dropped ski because they could. Others could be counted on to pick up the trash left by others or Mother Nature.

I ask, is the lake for our use AND abuse? Today, many drivers are too high above the lake's surface to reach down for those things that don't belong on the lake. Do they, themselves, belong on the lake?

Today, too many recent boaters (and even some new residents) consider a swimmer to be approved roadkill. Even though, like last year's sinking Cobalt in the middle of the lake, they would end up as swimmers themselves!

Those of us who are actual residents are at the mercy of noise, speed, alcohol, arrogance, ignorance, self-absorption, the distracted, the "above-average certified boater", the night......and sometimes.....all the above.

In my opinion a bad boater is a bad boater...what does it matter what "state" they are from? Is this YOUR hidden agenda 2bd? Where do you think all your fellow supporters over on BI are from? It ain't NH!! As far as the Cobalt sinking in the middle of the lake what does this have to do with anything? Are you now saying that innocent swimmers are being run down by big bad boats? This is bordering on the absurd, truly.

By now you probably have heard that hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake and has become so bad that we had a speed limit passed to eliminate that problem.It has now been brought to my attention that swimmers are being run down intentionally also.Interesting though is the thoughts of some of our local residents like the above quoted BD who tells us in this post that only people like himself are qualified to recreate on Lake Winni.If you are from another state(which I am not) or you disagree with his twisted view of the world,you should be banned from ever being on the lake.This is where these warped thinking people who have already started the ball rolling are going folks.WAKE UP and see what's going on people.I don't know about you but it this kind of thinking that should scare the heck out of all of us!

Seems to me you're being overly dramatic here. Polls showed NH people wanted this (yes I know you disagree with the results of the poll), the house voted for HB 847 by a wide margin, then the senate voted for it, now the governor has signed on as well. And just like people would legislate,say, against someone relieving himself in a town park, people have similarly said they don't want another beautiful resource (Winni) defiled. And the house, senate, and governor listened. I've heard all the arguments about "fear mongering" and such but people are able to see through the BS of politics and polititians and make up their own minds. People we talk to are very happy and excited about the new limits.

As the kayaker on this forum who has posted the most about why kayaking has become dangerous on the lake, I have never once posted that high-speed boats are running over kayaks.

What I have posted is that SOME high-speed boaters are traveling faster than their ability to spot smaller, slower boats in time and that I have personally had high-speed boats unintentionally violate my 150 foot zone because they were going too fast. And this has happened way too often while I’ve been kayaking on winni.

I’ve never suggested that a speed limit will eliminate all safety issues – anymore than highway speed limits solve all safety issues on the highway – both are merely tools that are used to make both activities safer for everyone.

Congestion, BWI, and ignorance/disregard for existing boating laws are also major problems on the lake – but all these problems become even more dangerous with higher speeds. With all else being equal, slower is safer.

I never claimed that you did.

These ARE the problems on the lake. Enforcement of the current rules will alleviate these major problems. A feel good law based on lies and hype will not.

And I didn't say that you claimed that I did. But I am interested in where you (or anyone else visiting this forum) heard that "hi speed boats are running over kayaks on the lake." Who ever suggested that was happening?

The current rules are being enforced - but there is no way to enforce the current rules over 100% of the lake 100% of the time.

How is this a "feel good law," anymore than a highway speed limit is one?

The law was based on people's testimony that a lake speed limit was needed. I gave my own testimony, which was based on my own actual experience and on documented statistics - and I did not exaggerate in any way and I do not lie.

Evenstar you attribute speed to the reason these boats violated the 150" rule? I don't see the connection as I can violate that rule whether I'm putting along at 10 mph or 100 mph. Why would speeding make me more apt to violate that rule??

Your logic is severly flawed. If you can't enfore existing laws, how will the new SL be enforced? I'm not sure if you saw any of my posts from the past week, but there was very little MP presence on the lake last weekend. It was heavily congested. Gas prices are keeping MP boats docked, but not keeping boats off the lake. The law is an empty prayer and after it's shown ineffective, you're going to have to come up with some magic to get it renewed.

Because there have been numerous, documented cases where it has been shown that speed, and speed alone were the direct result of accidents on highways. These facts just didn't exist in Concord.

Doesn't seem as though much magic needs to be imagined.
Let's say an accident occurs next summer.What if the speed of the boat is 45 MPH?...then people might well conclude that that was better than if the accident occurred at 65 MPH. What if there are no accidents?...one could also conclude that HB 847 was effective. What if there's an accident at 65 MPH?...conclusion:need to put further scrutiny on these few offenders who are breaking the law. Then there's the testimony of people who enjoy the lake more when GFBLs are no longer legally zipping by them at 65 MPH just 150' away from their rowboat while fishing. And don't forget improvement of Winni's embarrassing wild west reputation(which came well before WINNFABS).
People will indeed realize in 2 years that the world did not suddenly stop spinning in its axis just because of HB 847.

I've very clearly stated numerous times, in great detail, why these specific violations were speed related - so do a search on my previous posts. These specific violations were not intentional - they were unintentional - due to speed. I have never have never been a victim of an unintentional 150 foot violation on Squam - where there is a 40mph enforced speed limit. And I paddle Squam a great deal more than I paddle on winni.

How is my logic flawed in any way? I stated: "The current rules are being enforced . . . " No law is 100% effective, 100% of the time - that's an impossibility - yet not being able to enforce laws 100% does not mean that we don't need more laws.

Do you know for a fact that the MP is spending any less time on the lake this summer than last? If so, do you have any proof that this is due to gas prices? A MP boat was on the lake near me last week, and they have to trailer their boats to be on this lake. And I saw just as many MP on Squam last Saturday. Their presence on both lakes seems about the same as any summer to me.

Collisions might be rare, but close calls from high speed boats seem to happen quite a bit. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats, so I know for a fact that they happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. The absence of a fatal accident is not proof that high speed boats are not dangerous to paddlers.

And when there is a boating accident, there's no accurate way to estimate how fast the boat was traveling - the main tool for estimating auto accident speeds are tire skid marks - boats don't leave skid marks.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

Then what is your "conclusion" for years where there were no accidents and no speed limit?

SOMEBODY will always like it better when SOMEBODY else can no longer enjoy some activity in their backyard.

I'd enjoy the lake more (and I don't own a boat capable of exceeding 45MPH) if there weren't fishermen in boats in the middle of common powerboat paths, or kayakers paddling along with idiotic grins on their faces in front of town docks while boats come in and out, attempting to maintain proper distance from other boats.

In fact I'd enjoy the lake even more if EVERYBODY else stayed off the lake at the random times that *I* want to use it.

Of course, much like the supposedly perfect worlds that you and Evenstar pine for, I realize that these wants of mine are unrealistic and unfair.

What is the proof behind your logic? Are you using number of infractions vs. number of citations issued? Do you have some record of these enforcements? In proportion to overall boat activity, ratio to previous year(s) or some other useful measure?

Or, like your other data points is this just your own belief? (We already know that you are a human radar gun and rangefinder, able to accurately judge speeds and distances of moving objects.)

Evenstar attributes the majority of her posts to her own personal interpretations of things.

She could make great strides in lake safety by simply riding with the NHMP boats and acting as a human radar gun. No electronic detector would ever be able to warn the nasty power-drunk GFBL boaters traveling faster than their ability to see that the Evenstar 5000 was watching them. Of course, she would have to be sure to not be wearing her BLUE bikini and YELLOW lifevest and waving her ORANGE paddle tips ****

So you BELIEVE that the current boating laws are never being enforced?
Or do you BELIEVE that the laws are being enforced 100% of the time on 100% of the lake?
Pick one, because, if my logic is so flawed, these are your only choices.

How is quoting Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski just my own belief?
How is stating that there's only 2 square miles of the lake that is more than a mile from shore just my own belief?
How is stating that those silly kayak flags are not endorsed by any paddling site just my own belief? (I even provided the link to the largest paddling site).
How is my statement the boats don't leave skid marks just my own belief? (does anyone here actually believe that boats leave tire skid makes?)

I can estimate speeds just as well as anyone (and better than most people because I have above normal spacial awareness - which BTW happens to be a fact and not just my own belief. I've been tested by experts.) My kayak is ~ 16 feet long, so if a high speed powerboat is less then 4 of my boat lengths from me, it is certainly in violation of my 150 foot zone. And I've kayaked on Squam enough to know what 40 to 45 mph looks like on water.

OK, so where is your PROOF that anything that I have stated is not true? Or is that just your own BELIEF? Or are your posts just lame attempts to try to discredit anyone who supports the speedlimit law, by making fun of anyone who does not share your own BEFIEF that there is nothing dangerous in allowing power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes?

So then by your logic a single enforcement counts as "current laws are being enforced"?

But, the world is not measured in the binary states you seem to think everything distills down to. Since you seem to be unable to follow the spirit of the other posts about enforcement and safety and speed limit laws, it is basically this:

1) For every speed limit argument you (and most others) have posted, the situations described could be avoided or handled through laws currently on the books.

2) The NHMP appears to be operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget. They do not appear to have the resources to enforce or manage the existing laws.

3) As violations of current laws have shown, people will have a tendency to ignore laws they find burdensome when they feel the danger of getting caught is small or nonexistent.

4) Adding more laws and regulations with the false hope that the new laws will some how be the ones people finally follow is a pipe dream.

Evenstar, implying that I am trying to discredit relies on the concept of you having some "credit" to begin with. You've sort of painted yourself into a corner all your own. Even the pro-speed limit folks never really come to your rescue or defend your positions. In all honesty you seem like a nice enough and well-intentioned person, but the majority of your posts are just a little too lunatic fringe.

For as many people to fabricate as much fear as they did to push this law through, then yes current laws are not being enforced enough. We are also still stuck in a "me" generation where everyone has rights and keeps pushing those rights on everyone else, so laws just keep popping up for really no good reason. This law is an example of that and I can't wait for the cycle to end. There is no concrete proof there is a speeding problem, just fabricated fear and perception of a problem as a result. I sat in the hearing in Concord and listened to the same thing over and over again from the Pro crowd. Fear, I'm afraid, Fear I'm afraid. Big boats, I'm afraid. Sadly it worked.

You brag about your skills far to much to be credible, this is of course my opinion. Many people on this forum have above average skills in one thing or another, I have not heard anyone on either side of the issue throw them into conversations as often as possible like you have. Ease up a bit, one doesn't need to go to such extremes to make a point.

Quoting people out of context is meaningless. Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski does not patrol our lake. I could certainly drum up all kinds of quotes, if I really set my mind to it, that would support no speed limits. Unless those people have been here and on the lake to experience things, and can see speed is not a problem here, it's irrelevant.

So if so-called high speed powerboats are coming within 64 feet or less from you, do you think the real problem is the speed they are traveling at is hampering their vision (again, at 64 feet!) and preventing you from being seen sooner or the utter lack of common courtesy or disobedience of the laws in place is the problem???

My experience on Winnipesaukee or on boats in general, which I can say is clearly a lot more than yours, is that most boats on Winni ignore the 150' rule. Did it occur that these close calls had nothing to do with the speed being traveled, that it was their non-compliance to the 150' rule, lack of common sense or lack of courtesy that is the problem? You have mentioned in previous posts that on one particular occasion you could see the smile on the drivers face as he flew by you at a short distance, clearly seeing you. You stated this yourself. If he saw you and was smiling, was his speed the issue?

The speed limit is not going to fix your problem. You are looking through rose colored shades and/or drinking the coolaid if you think you will be safer. Winnipesaukee in general this year is a ghost town compared to previous years, and it is not the speed limit that is pending quieting things down.

I never said that – I happen to believe that most boating laws are not intentionally being broken by most boaters – which is, in itself, enforcement, since one of the definitions of enforcement is: “compel to behave in a certain way.” By your logic (since my logic is so flawed), a single unenforced violation of a law proves that a law is not being enforced. So, by that logic, no laws are being enforced in this country. So who’s logic is actually the most flawed?

I can follow the spirit of others posts just fine. The problem is that I disagee with them, due to my onw experience on the lake. Most posting members of this forum is so anti-speed limit focused that anyone who is supportive of a lake speed limit must have “flawed logic” or is “unable to follow the spirit of the other posts.”

1.) If the operator of a powerboat is traveling beyond his ability to see other vessels in time to remain clear of their 150 foot zone, that law is not protecting them. I contend that in these cases, the only real solution is to force boats to slow down.

2.) Where’s your proof that the NHMP is “operating on an inadequate (and shrinking) budget”? Or, to use your own words; “is this just your own belief?”

3.) Again, where’s your proof that this is so? Because I totally disagree with your conclusion, and one of my majors is Legal Studies. According to my professors, most people will try to follow most laws most of the time. And what is so “burdensome” about a 45mph lake speed limit?

4.) Times change. Laws that were sufficient in early times need to be updated due to changes in society, in the environment, in new technology, or because of new information. And it is much more difficult to amend an existing law than to enact a new law.

It is very easy to make allegations about others or to poke fun of others in order to discredit them. Yet you have not provided any proof at all to any of your own statements – all you’ve posted so far are just your own beliefs. Your post (#62) is nothing but a personal attack on me. Personal attacks are what several of the anti-speed limit members here resort to when they can’t out debate another member.

Perhaps most other members don’t feel like I need anyone to “come to my rescue.” Or perhaps they are not willing to become a target of the anti-speed limit members here. I get all sorts of email support from many non-vocal members here.

I was at the House Transportation hearing, where I testified. The “me” generation that I saw at the hearing was the anti-speed limit side. It has been stated over and over on this forum that a very small percentage of boats on winni can or do travel over 45 mph. Yet these “few” feel that they should have the “right” to travel at unlimited speeds, regardless of the negative impact this has on other boaters.

I have never bragged about my skills. I never even mentioned most of my skills or my background until my abilities and my qualifications were questioned (or often ridiculed) by other members here – often repeatedly. I never lie and I have never exaggerated my skills or abilities. I “ease up” when others ease up on me. If your abilities and skills were constantly being challenged, wouldn’t you try to stand up for yourself?

I did not quote the Chief Warrant Officer out of context – I provided the link to his article. Read the entire article. His points are just as valid for boaters on winni as they are for recreational boaters on any other large body of water in this country.

I’ve clearly stated repeated that most of my close calls on winni with high-speed powerboats were the result of unintentional violations of the 150 foot law. That was very obvious by the operators’ reaction when they did finally see me (actually “us,” as I was with another kayaker every single time). Now you are mixing up my posts, because I clearly stated that the guy smiling as he swamped us on Squam was traveling slower than 40 mph and that his act was deliberate. (Some guys have a very strange way of flirting, so perhaps that was his intent.)

It's a waste of my time to do so. We all know a speed limit will change nothing. You won't agree. I don't care. I'm done.

Apples vs Oranges
 

Evenstar,

Regarding the comments of Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, he does not patrol waters with a 150' rule in place.

To be fair, I believe this is an important fact that has to be considered. This is somewhat like apples being compared to oranges.

The 150' rule is an important Lake Winnipesaukee rule and to compare a statement made by a respected CG professional who partols waters without the 150' rule to our lake is clearly unfair.

Just my opinion.

Enjoy your summer break!

R2B

You will never see that bill filed. Why? No payback. It's not sexy. People who don't boat could care less. Speed limits are a "no brainer" but a bill that would help rich people sleep at night in their lake front mansions, the rep would be seen pandering to wealthy out-of-staters while ignoring the plight of the hard working New Hampshire folk. Never mind that it actually would be something to improve the lake unlike the speed limits law!
If you want switchable exhaust you're better off petitioning the NHMP for a rules change.
There is NO Coast Guard presence on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Go back and look at most any of the posts written by APS!

I am aware that took place on "Golden Squam", not on Winnipesaukee. I remember the post well. Its quite easy as all of your posts contain the same few points... "Unlimited speeds", "too close", "personal attacks", "skills", "spacial awareness", blah blah blah...

This post started about sounds at night, why are you dragging this into another kayaking rant??? You got what you asked for, I hope you feel safer now. I bet you won't and when you figure out that your concerns were not addressed by the speed limit, what next?

I admire you guys for taking the time and having the patience to write as much as you write. It takes a lot of time and thought to write that much. I would just get sick of (essentially) writing the same things over and over again. And as much as I think the speed limit is a foolish, unnecessary law, I wish almost every thread wouldn't turn into a speed limit argument. I would just ignore Evenstar and BI. I couldn't argue that much. My two cents ---not that anyone cares.

When I say "appears to be", most rational people would understand that I am making an observation and not necessarily submitting something as evidence.

Once again, you read things through your own blinders and filters.

Evenstar - if you know what I feel then .....
 

Evenstar: Points of information (yet again).
Which one of your skills lets you know how I feel? I won't challenge your credibility however that is one heck of an impressive skill. You also know how these "few" with fast boats feel. Wow.

Please note: I am NOT one of the "few" with a boat that travels at or over 45 mph (Let me qualify that to close any legal loopholes - My boat can go over 45mph downhill or when it's on the trailer towed behind a truck on the road) but it does not even get to 40 mph at Wide Open Throttle (WOT) on the Lake.

I am one of the MANY who believe that additional speed regulations are NOT needed on Lake Winnipesaukee. One of the MANY without a FAST BOAT that feels this way. In spite of what you claim, I do NOT "feel" that anyone has the right to travel at UNLIMITED SPEED on the Lake. OF course I don't believe that it is legal to travel at UNLIMITED SPEED on the Lake - there are regulations regarding safe speeds already - but that has been discussed and discussed so many times that I'm disgusted.

Anti 45/25 mph speed limit law does NOT mean advocating Unlimited Speed - Unlimited Speed is not currently legal anyway. Can you tell how I feel now? Nevermind, no answer is necessary. I have no desire to debate with you. I just want to set the record straight.

On topic, there are also laws about SOUND LEVELS which address sound - no need for speed limits to regulate SOUND. Better (modified) sound laws would be nice though.

kayakers love water --- boaters love lovers

The last thing I intended when I started this thread was to get redirected to another pointless discussion on speed limits. Every argument that could be made has been made. I have an oppinion on that but since it at least one other poster has voiced it I have not repeated it. If I may, the original intent was to discuss inconsiderate boaters who don't realize or care that sound carries at night. I'll even include inconsiderate (and stupid) boaters who have no regard for safe passage.

Hope everyone has a great day on the lake today. I'm stuck at home doing home repairs.

Rick

I have reached the same conclusion. Of course we'll all be back fighting in just about 2 years. ;)

We'll just stop this one right here....your opinions of boating at high speeds are just that - opinions and cannot be portrayed as facts in a logical arguement.

I heard it from the kid working a gas dock who spoke with an MP earlier that weekend.
In all honestly, it holds about the same water (no pun intended) as Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski and his report on cars and boats in Miami.


For the record, Jim's rule #6 sounds like a great idea. Very similar to one we already had on the books.

rick39,

You didn't see where this thread was headed when you first saw the word *agenda* mentioned by opponents in post #2, 3, then 40?

Post #2 for example....,

Another comment that needs attention is the *Autobahn* mention.....You need far more than a "certificate" to operate on the Autobahn.

Skipper,

Perhaps this season alone will prove the necessity for the new law. Even then, your side will have three years to exhibit their safe boating practices to NH residents. I wouldn't put *your* eggs into *their* basket, however.

If a few drunks get pulled over, that alone could save somebody's life, house, boat, plus change tourists' current view of Winni as lawless. You may not like the term Unlimited Speed, or that radar will now be used to spot offenders exceeding 25mph at night, but next season we ALL have a chance to find out.

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

Yesterday, I was passed by a dark blue Cobalt at about 150 feet, maybe less, in a relatively open area, but "crowded" with many anchored smaller boats.

They ARE fast boats!

And I've seen two Formula cruisers, one the same size as June 15th's crash, one smaller.

They ARE loud!

Skipper -
If you are going to post "Points of Information" you should check and see if they are correct. There was no kind of "regulations regarding safe speeds" before HB847. This lie is often repeated yet not true. There was no "reasonable and prudent" regulation. However there is one now. It is called HB847. If you are a "Skipper" you should know this.

The fact remains that you misquoted me. Please get your facts straight next time, before you accuse me of stating something that I didn't.

I'm not the one that brought kayaks into this thread - you can blame SIKSUKR for that.

No, I didn't "get what I asked for." I want what the original bill included - which is speed limit on all NH lakes and a law that would not only last for two years. Winni is not the only lake in NH where speed needs to be regulated.

Since you are not one of the "few" I was talking about - my post had nothing at all to do with your feelings.

And I never stated that all high-speed boaters feel this way. But that was the impression that I got at listening to the anti-speed limit testimonies at the House Committee Hearing. It was very much about the "right" to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes (and at this point in time the bill still covered all NH lakes) - it was not just about winni.

What are you taking about? Opinions are often weighed in logical arguments - many court cases are decided on factoring in opinions as well as fact. It is a fact that the operators of those boats violated my 150 foot zone by a considerable amount - remember, I do have a witness, whose space was also violated. And, if it was possible to ask those operators, I am nearly certain that they would say that they didn't see us until the last second. My opinion in this case is backed up by my observations.

So it is merely hearsay. Hearsay is not permitted as evidence in court.

If you read the article, you woud see that the Chief Warrant Officer was including national waters and roads, so this is not about conditions in just Miami. His first two sentences state: "Collisions between boats are one of the most dangerous and frequently occurring mishaps on our nations waters. In 1996, 5174 boat collisions occurred nationwide."

Rick, this is the Speed Limit Sub-Forum - so you really can't expect the speed limit not to enter into posts here.