Are you going to keep us in suspense?

I do not want to spoil el's fun, I will let him spill the beans however my gut tells me he will not as it has nothing to do with any of this.

It's not surprising that someone like Jack Weeks would be brought in to use cheap political tactics, lies and whatever, to get the agenda done. He's quite the insider indeed, so he's well-versed in these areas. At least one of his past assignments shows that he might not have the great judgement he pretends to.

Jack Weeks sounds like another political operative. I wonder how the people of New Hampshire feel about that?

Both appeared in last year's SL discussion: use of the "ignore" function can reduce exposure to facts, btw. :rolleye2: I recall that SIKSUKER was quoted on that high-speed triple—which happened at night, and had the GFBL inverted into the cottage. (It had first hit a dock to become airborne). In the discussion's follow-ups, some very gruesome details appeared.

The Parker Island tragedy was a GFBL Donzi, and involved the non-use of a lanyard by an experienced "Performance Boater". :rolleye1:

I have two floatplane pilots in my family: one has a incident to tell you about, regarding Lake Winnipesaukee water quality—and a certain GFBL visitor. :fire:

BTW:

In early Spring, I was driving my trademark "9-over" the 55-MPH speed-limit, when I perceived that I was being targeted by a large vehicle needing to pass on a two-lane bridge. Thinking he surely doesn't want to pass me—with a half-dozen young passengers—I picked up my camera anyway.

Sure enough, an oversized conveyance—with an experienced driver—carrying someone else's children—decided that some rules can be ignored.

(Although we were both traveling in the same direction—unlike boating—that's an attitude towards speed limits I can do without).

We're very happy to have him.

You don't speak for all.
I am a NH resident for the past 22 years. I moved here after a 13 year stint in Massachusetts but could not afford the taxes or politics of Michael Dukakis. I am sure my opinion is absolutely opposite of yours! The elections are coming.....

You definately do not speak for me or my friends / family. I moved to NH only 5 years ago after vacationing on Lake Winni for 26 years. A place a know and love I am ashamed to see a legislature passing such "feel good" redundant laws.

I left Mass for similar reasons and was hoping NH would remain true to: Live Free or Die.....

Elections are around the corner and lets hope the good people of NH realize which direction this state has been taken and reverses it very quickly.

There are other political operatives other then Jack Weeks.. Wait and see. :)

NR, Do you really think that the 7 people on this thread who think that there should be no limit on such a dangerous activity are going to swing an election? I hope the Republicans regain power too, but do you really think safety is a party-line issue? I don't think of the Democrats as the "Safety" party and as Republicans and the "No Rules" party, do you? I don't think that with over 60% of NH Republican voters favoring the Speed Limit, Republican candidates are going to be running on a "No Limits" campaign pledge.
While I admit that we might have had some arrogance in the Republican Party after having held court so long in the past, I hope and expect we'll see a Republican Party more in tune with the interests of its constituency next time around. The people I saw out on the lake last summer looked more like my idea of a "Republican" than the flamboyant trust babies in the $200K speedboats out there in previous years, no?
The more likely impact on Concord's decision will come from the big money behind the hi-speed boating industry. We'll need to be watching very carefully to see how those who got rich off ruining our lake try to influence the legislation.

EL,

Lets get to the bottom of this fast:

1. Dangerous?? How so? again no report of any high speed accidents where another law (safe passage, BUI) would not have already been broken.

2. Safety... You keep saying Safety but there is no stats to back up your claim. Don't you want to see the studies as the winnfabs requested the 2 year period for?

3. I work very hard for my $, my boat is no where near $200K, and I have no trust fund. Aren't you making this a bit personal? which leads me to:

4. Why do you have personally such a hatred for these boats and boaters? You have been on these boards for relatively a short period of time and all you have done is consistently stirred the pot and insulted your fellow forum members. Why is that? What happened in your life that you can not stand Performance boaters. I swear we are all not bad guys. You may actually have a good time with us.

5. Please come clean and just admit it isn't the speeD limit you like, it is getting rid of a type of boat and people.

Cards are on the table.

Buddy, you are so off the deep end that you will likely never surface. You do not speak for the ideals of the majority of NH natives (and even some transplants) Its funny that you would want a Republican party when your views are completely left.

How does one become a flamboyant trust fund baby- it sounds pretty good. Do bon-bons come with the position?

Not to become too political, but if the Dems and Repubs spent half as much time paying attention to the 80% of us in the middle and ignored the wackjobs that represent the 10% on either side, we would be much better off.

Good Morning Elchase,

I am not sure if only 7 are against a total elimination of the SL. I think there were discussions on compromise. I for one do not like the law nor do I think the law has the impact some are pronouncing. As far as politics go I do not believe the law is a democratic or republican party issue. I believe both have valid economic positions. There are trickle up vs trickle down theories and many other valid points to debate. There are crooks that spoil the process on both sides that turn the debate into hatred and mob activity. So keep up the debate and dump the hatred. I believe it is a conservative vs. liberal approach or perspective we are debating.

Here is a humorous (there is truth in humor) list of the difference between a conservative and liberal:

"The difference between a Conservative and a Liberal..............

If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat.
If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his."

I love speed boats. My uncle nearly won the Irwin Cup one year. He complained about the dirty boating tactics that cost him his victory right up until he passed away. My niece's husband has a beautiful Fountain that can allegedly do almost 70 on a calm day (though I'd never condone such a speed in a boat by a non-professional pilot). My neighbor's dad used to take us out in his beautiful old 28' polished mahogany Chris Craft "speed boat" and thrill us at almost 40MPH...what a rush that speed was in those days. That same neighbor (now dead from lung cancer) got a Checkmate with a whopping 80HP Merc when we were teens (he was a bit of a spoiled brat), and we used to ski in the races out of the Weirs. But 43MPH was just too "slow" to win against some of those suped up boats coming up from MA. Some of those boats could do over 50, but those races were much-publicized and the MP was well-positioned around the course to maintain safety.
Things were much different then. The lake was not so crowded, scheduled events where boats would be going so fast were always well-noticed, and there were so few of those "fast" boats that it was really not anything like the mayhem of recent years. And none of those boats weighed six tons.
Many of today's performance boats are simply gorgeous and, honestly, I'd hate to see them leave. But then, you guys are all promising that you are not going anywhere, so we don't need to worry about that, right? And nobody is asking you to leave. We just want you to operate at a speed that is appropriate for today's Lake Winnipesaukee. What's the problem with that? All the people of NH want you to do is boat on our crowded lake at a speed that is reasonable and appropriate for today's conditions. 45 MPH is a perfect limit. It's a good compromise between the 30-35MPH top-end speed of probably over 90% of the lake's boats and the 60-70MPH top end speed of the few. It still allows for every type of boating activity that is appropriate for our lake, and it has become the standard for boating speed limits around the country and proven itself effective over and over.
But again, I just don't understand all the fuss. You guys all boast of your refusal to recognize and obey the law. You claim that the MP is making no effort to enforce it. You say the law is not chasing you away or changing your behavior, yet we are all happy as pie. So why argue against a status quo that is making us all so happy? We finally found something that works for almost everyone, let's just go with it.
And if some sore-losers are so mad that they are going to pull their beautiful boats out and take them elsewhere just to protest, then that is a shame, I'll truly miss the boats, but that's life. Those were probably the few idiots who created the problem in the first place and we are all better off without them. Too bad those drivers couldn't go and leave the boats.


NR,
Thanks, judging by that list, I am a true conservative. But here is another line that seems to fit your definition of a conservative (not mine), and to which I do not adhere;
If a conservative doesn't feel safe outside, he doesn't try to make it safer, he just stays home.

In January of 2008 a gentleman by the name of John Chase wrote an article in the Union Leader titled “Boat speed limits will make summers on big lake better”.
I wonder if elchase is somehow related to John Chase?

Will the real "Chase" standup please.

7 people, really? The polls taken here would disagree with you.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8420

I was reminded of your endless talk about safety and "fear" when I read this article:

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/441...hopping-areas/

What does this have to do with our speed limit? Well very little of course, except that the group pushing for the law has little in the way of statistics backing up their argument, appears to be manufacturing some statistics (17 times a much pollution?), and is talking about fear since they don't have the safety statistics to push it forward.

Whomever it is, does not matter. It was a well-written letter, and I can find agreements with some of my own opinions in there. But..... there has to be a butt, everyone has one :laugh:

1) "Last summer was the most enjoyable, comfortable, quietest and most recreational on Lake Winnipesaukee in many years. The visibility of marked patrol boats floating in open water, with officers in uniform pointing radar guns around, caused boaters to reconsider their speed."

That is possibly true, it certainly is on the road. But this letter was written in January, 2008. Most diehard SL supporters, including our own Mr. Chase, have commented that this year (2009), and last, 2008, were so much better than the mayhem and chaos before. So it looks like 2007 was a great summer on the lake as well? Hmmmm, sometimes it's hard to remember the stories you told before isn;t it?


1) "On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?"


My personal pet peeve is this. I can't blame the SL supporters entirely, they seem to have little recourse other than to use this incident. I have absolutely no support for Littlefield here. He was apparently leaving the same docks that Mr. Hartman had left before him. He was so very obviously drunk to virtually everyone, but nobody stopped him from getting in his boat and leaving, and nobody stopped serving him drinks either.

The Justice did ask about the speed limits. But in each and every written statement, Littlefield's boat was said to be going 25 to 28 mph that night. Maybe it was 30, or even 35. Those that continually cite the Hartman tragedy always try to give everyone the perception it was a higher number. I have no magical powers to know, I wasn't there. But I do know this. The fact that Littlefield's family sold HP boats, Littlefield was in a Baja at the time, is reason enough for them to continually misrepresent what happened.

He was drunk. There may have been other possible reasons for this tragedy to occur, most of which are never, ever mentioned. Bottom line, Littlefield was sent to jail.

About 95% of my disagreement with the SL supporters is that they cannot, ever, engage in a legitimate discussion of safety, dealing with facts. El (or whomever), has written a splendid post recently. The vindictive writing style is gone, and now he loves the go fast boats, just not some of the drivers. I could agree with that statement about a multitude of craft on any lake, even some sailors.

But the fact remains, he and others already showed their true colors. They have already written about how they feel about these boats, drivers, supporters. El called SL opponents Felons for God's sake. Disingenuous does not even begin to describe a few of these people.

The true test for people like this was offered up some time ago in safety discussions. Since the SL agenda was their only focus, it would be impossible for them to discuss anything else. Even the weather was off limits. You be the judge.

Originally Posted by codeman671
Here are the accidents APS is bringing up again. He had to go back 34 years to find the first one, and 12 years for the second "speed" related accident which was apparently a mechanic performing a test on a boat.

I'm sorry
 

But after the last post by APS, which references an accident from the 70's, if this is what they bring to the table..... I can't give them any degree of credibility. BI posted on the age-old accident last year, that if the lake had horsepower or size limits way back then, perhaps the accident would gave occurred still, but the boat that landed on the cottage would have been smaller or going slower? :rolleye2::confused::emb:

I'd have more respect for people that simply campaigned for a law that limited boats to 50 HP and 19 feet in length. Just stay away from the water altogether, it's inherently dangerous.

The Parker Island accident actually was a bran new twin engine Donzi 33ZX that was being "commissioned' for the new owner by three mechanics from Goodhue Hawkins in Wolfeboro.

I happened to come on the scene about 20 minutes after it happened. It was around 4:00 PM on a beautiful bright sunny day in mid/late September with little or no wind. I think it was a Thursday or Friday. There was a big Dauphine Medivac helicopter hovering over the scene.

The boat was later hauled off the rocks back into the water and driven back to the dealer. There was no apparent mechanical cause for the accident. I doubt they were doing 70mph because if they had, they would probably have been catapulted clear across the island if that were the case.

If the cause was ever found, it has never been made public. NB

Honestly this is as well stated as you have ever made your point here on this forum. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you but for once you avoided snippy pointed comments and just posted your gut feelings on the law. I think the post is great it's just the opinions and points I disagree with. :)

Funny you should mention this. I knew all the skiers and drivers well. Just can't recall someone with the last name of Chase.

I was the driver of one of those bad ass boats. And we weren't from MA. either. We were just local boys having fun. And we continue to have our fun! :D

I do not have anyone on ignore, especially you. Why would I want to ignore the comedy? Everyone needs a bit of humor in their life.

Having to go back into the 1970's for an example is comical to me, although the results were not. The facts at the end of the day indicate that there are minimal, almost a non-existant number of high speed accidents to support a safety issue on Winnipesaukee. Most of the accidents that have occured were not even high speed related, and most were alcohol related. Where is the real problem here???

How many total accidents have taken place in the last 30 years that are high speed related? How many are alcohol related? Compare it to the number of boats on the lake each year and the percentage is pathetically small...

If speed were an issue that warranted a new law, wouldn't there be data showing an INCREASED amount of high speed accidents in the years leading up to the initial draft of the bill?

If there were even 5 'incidents' in 2004 and 10 'incidents' in 2005, then I would probably have a different opinion.

Opinions, perceptions, spin and outright lies led to a solution without a problem. This just needs to sunset, with no relevant data to support a continuation, as originally written into the bill. Anything else is just a waste of taxpayer $$.

Not long ago, someone wondered what was wrong in Vermont, since it had a 2008 increase in accidents, whereas NH declined to practically none. Just the year before, people were wondering why VT was so safe, and NH was not. The statistics clearly showed that both states have very few serious accidents or collisions on the water. When the numbers are low, even a small increase will cause a spike in the percentages. This year, Winni in particular has a problem, one that will sow up when the next report comes out.

This year on Winni was particularly telling. The MP said they had 20% fewer calls this summer, virtually everyone said that except for a couple of weekends in August, boat traffic was way down. It was almost unanimous that the weather sucked, and the economy wasn't much better, if any.

Both El and Jack said the lake traffic, and boating weather, were fine. It was also written that the lake just didn't "seem" as busy, because the boats were smaller and traveling slower.

Now I've known a few snake oil salesmen in my day, and a couple of really seeeeeedy political types. You know, the ones that try to convince you that a global depression is just a speed bump, and while they may have really hated you before, they really like you, it's just one or two people they don't like. Perhaps you just misunderstood.


If it looks like a duck, etc.........

I'm not flamboyant, I don't have a trust, I'm not rich and my boat didn't cost $200K!! My wife and I have worked hard for what we have!! Get down off your high horse! :mad:

As for impacting Concord's decision, you and others like you have already snowed the Legislature with your lies and distortion. It's time they heard some facts!! And the last time I checked, the boating industry was having a tough time in this economy; they're not exactly rolling in the dough. I doubt they have money to spend on "influencing" the Legislature. :eek:

One of the big proponents
 

Of the SL been wine and dining the legislature in his fancy resort. He even took them all out on a boat ride when there were two poker runs taking place. So who are the 'fat cats' now?

I think you will find both accidents mentioned, the Littlefield one and the one on Parker Island were alcohol related. It is kind of like common knowledge. Even the family of the gentleman who hit Parker Island says that he was not often sober. They are a very, very nice family by the way. We discussed the family member when we sat with them at a wedding and so I know about his issue firsthand. That particular member just had a lot of problems.
So neither of these accidents can be blamed on speed.

RE: John Chase's letter in the Union Leader, 1/16/2008
 

What gets me about John Chase’s letter is, in the first paragraph, he states (remember, he’s referring to 2007; my emphasis added here in bold print).In the next paragraph, he asks if the SL supporters are “paranoid” (his word!) or and finally summarizes with, He went on to say, HUH?!?!? WHAT?!? Did I miss something?!?!?

How could a speed limit that didn’t exist in 2007 “work”?? How could a non-existent law be “self-enforcing”??

I don’t know about the rest of you, but in 2007, 2008 AND, for the most part, 2009, MY particular cruising/boating habits didn’t really change, with the exception that, in 2009, I could no longer take a WOT (that’s Wide Open Throttle for anyone reading this that doesn’t know) run across the Broads or any part of the lake, for that matter, WHEN THE CONDITIONS WERE FAVORABLE (something I did on occasion PRIOR to 2009)! I normally cruise, then and now, around 45mph. Prior to the SL law, I would occasionally take a speed run in the more open areas of the lake when the traffic was low and the water wasn’t too rough; my boat is only 25ft so high speed on choppy water is NOT a good thing!

I guess I just don’t understand the logic of the SL supporters! First, they say boating on Winni in 2007 and 2008 (yes, some even said 2008!) was paradise (I am not making that up). AND, in Mr. Chase’s letter, he admits that NO tickets for speeding were written and NO MP officers spent any time in court on a SL-related citation!! Here’s the kicker; in 2008, there was NO data collection going on and NO “radar-armed officers (placed) strategically around the lake”!!!

So HOW can it be that the lake was SO peaceful and quiet when there was NO SL law on the books being enforced?? Gee, you don’t suppose it’s because the constant, high-speed boaters on the lake don’t really exist, do you? Or maybe that the chaos the SL supporters keep referring to in the past was caused primarily by people ignoring the 150’ rule and no wake zones, which, by the way, they STILL do to this day?? NOOOOOOOOO, it couldn’t be THAT!!

Regarding this statement by Mr. Chase, “The visibility of marked patrol boats floating in open water, with officers in uniform pointing radar guns around, caused boaters to reconsider their speed.”, I would offer that nobody HAD to reconsider their speed because for one thing, there was no SL law in effect in 2007 (therefore, no one had to fear getting a ticket!) and the other thing is, there simply aren’t that many boats, high performance or otherwise, going that fast all the time.

The last point I’d like to bring up is this; why are the SL supporters so amazed that these so-called hundreds of GF boats on the lake slowed down simply because there is a SL law? Let me ask you, considering the millions of cars on this country’s roadways (196 million by one statistic I just found), do you see a couple million cars travelling at 90-100mph on the highway?? No?? Why is that? Because for the most part, they know better. No matter how fast they’d LIKE to be driving, MOST people will usually obey a speed limit if it’s reasonable PLUS, they don't want to pay a ticket and increased insurance premiums. Same thing on Winni; just because we slowed down, doesn't mean we agree with the law!! Remember, we aren't all "trust babies" in "$200K speedboats"!!! :mad:

Most people think 70mph on the interstate is reasonably fast; several boaters on Winni (myself included) think 45mph on the lake, when the conditions are good (usually meaning safe), is too slow. At the same time, there are numerous times on the lake when, given the conditions, 45mph is way too fast. And that’s the key, determining a safe speed, given the conditions! People need to educate themselves to make the correct decision; they need to use common sense. Unfortunately, a lot of them don't.

My apologies for the long post; I had ALOT on my mind!!

Agreed!
 

A beautiful boat is one thing; a loud boat is something entirely different. They're offensive and irritating. I was having lunch outside in Wolfeboro last weekend and some bu**head in a Cigarette drown out conversation in the area for a good 5 minutes while idling away from shore. Seriously?!? ****

For those who didn't catch the sentence in the article, sounds like MP is tagging people close to shore. I suspect they don't really care what you do on the Broads.

I equate Loud Boats with Loud Harleys. Same thing. It's all about... "LOOK AT ME". :( NB

I have no relatives in Wolfeboro. Just a coincidence. My last name is pretty common in these parts. But he does write a nice letter, and I agree with him on almost every point. Thanks for the link. You make my job much easier.
Agreed. Facts are facts, no matter who speaks them.

Again, there have been no "polls" taken here. Just because you guys call something a "poll" and the website's software titles it a "poll" does not make it so. Who knows who was counted here and how many times? Who knows the width and depth of the audience it reached? There are rules for poll validity, and it is virtually impossible to strictly enforce those rules on a website where people choose to or are asked to participate. ARG is a legitimate polling agency that follows polling rules to the letter, and their results have a scientifically proven statistical accuracy. We know their results are correct within the tolerance they state. So their findings that 83% of Granite Staters want the 45/25 Speed Limit might be off by 3% either way...it might only be 80% or it might by 86%, but we know that the vast vast vast majority is in favor. As to the "7", there are really only about 7 of you making all the noise on these threads (which should more accurately be called the "Anti Speed Limit" threads). Several of you hang online all day every day and post every five minutes, so it seems there are many more, but the reality is that all the recruiting you do has only brought your numbers up to 7 or so. There are far fewer supporters weighing in here...you made sure of that by harassing and bullying. But we know there are far more of us than you in the "silent majority". ARG proved that.

Exactly...I'm chastised every time I get off topic...please respect the forum rules if you are going to enforce them on me.

Thanks

Thanks

I called them "scofflaws" and asked how many were felons. I know at least one is a felon because he pm'd to tell me so. And he did that before I asked about the rest, leading to my question, not responding to it. Surprised he didn't tell me how many guns he owns. We all know several of you are scofflaws because they brag about violating our laws. There is no sin in calling a spade a spade.

And I don't remember anyone named Broadhopper, but I wouldn't term that "funny". What's your point?

Why do you all seem to need to make these two things mutually exclusive. The boats were obviously going too fast. Just because a driver of a boat that is going too fast happens to be drunk does not make his speed suddenly appropriate. Littlefield said he was going to 28MPH. That is how that "minimum" number was established. But that does not mean he was really only going 28MPH. How many times has a cop asked you if you knew how fast you were going and you said 50 when you were really going 70? Does that make it so that your speed was really only 50 because you said so? Was Littlefield going to admit if he was going 50? And if he was really that drunk (which a jury did not find) that he was not aware of a 21-ft boat in his path, do you really think he was aware of his exact speed? Come on. His 15000 boat took airborne 7 feet high and flew almost fifty feet in the air when it hit Hartman's. Don't even try to convince this was not a "hi speed accident". That just sounds silly.

We're not talking about a "new" law anymore. We are talking about the status quo. The SL is the law and the question now is "Why let a law that is working so well sunset?". That is a huge difference over challenging the enactment of a new law.

You have it backwards. Where is the relevant data that justifies sunseting a law? The people who fought for the law are loving it.. why would the legislature let a working law sunset in an election year? Why would they abandon their constituents...who vote... and side with a small fraction ...who don't vote? Imagine someone is killed the summer after they sunset this law after two years of incident-free boating...imagine the outrage. What legislator is going to take that chance?


But you guys say that the MP is not bothering with it. Where is the money being wasted? Make up your minds.

If the shoe doesn't fit, why are you putting it on?

Who's on the high horse? I'm a devout Catholic and cannot recall the last time I lied. I just apparently see things differently than you. But I don't call you a liar. You should be more careful with your name calling.

What the #$%*& is this supposed to mean? Is it even English? Who are you talking about? I'd say maybe you were typing too fast, but there might have been alcohol involved, and we know one can't type too fast when drinking, under the rules of mutual exclusivity explained above.

Come again? If rob a store when I'm drunk they can't charge me with robbery? Where did you go to law school? The only reason that excessive speed was not cited as a cause is because up until this year there was no defined excessive speed in the laws (and/or their speed was not proven). These were nighttime accidents. Littlefield "admitted to" 28. That would be speeding today, and his violation of the nighttime speed limit preceding this accident would surely have been another charge. To say that the others were not going over 25 is silly. We just can't prove they were going over 25. We also couldn't prove Littlefield was drunk. Does that mean he wasn't?

Exactly...finally, an admission that the law was effective from one of you. Thankyou for the honesty.

Exactly, so we unfortunately sometimes need laws to coral those without common sense. Laws that the behavior of the rest of us did not necessitate, but that we still need to obey too. I never drove drunk. I use common sense. But does that mean that we don't need DUI laws? Should we blame society for making laws that target those without common sense? No. Happens all the time. We should blame those idiots that didn't use common sense for inflicting limits on the rest of us. I've been telling you guys all along that you are shooting in the wrong direction.

Can I use that word in some of my posts too? It would really help sometimes.

I'd love to see your source for that load of BS. Where did you find that his boat flew 7 feet in the air for almost fifty feet??? It was MP that estimated 28mph based on countless hours of investigation. Post your source and it better be able to be verified, otherwise you need to crawl back in your troll hole. Its the posting of lies like this that strikes fear into and influences the public for no reason because it is just that, lies.

You are 5000lbs over on the weight of the boat and it just gets worse from there. Your post is a continuous load of crap that you made up. Period. It has been argued time and time again that if he was doing the suggested 25mph the results would have been the same. Had he flown his boat 50 feet through the air and landed on that boat he would have flattened it and kept on going and everyone on the 21' boat would be dead.

The jury could not prove him to be drunk because he left the scene and surfaced a day or two later. Receipts and witnesses indicated what he consumed, but without actual BAC he could not be held to it.

I have kept rather quiet through this years debates but this post pissed me off. I have no problem with 25mph at night and have stated that numerous times. The speed limit would not have prevented this accident, nor the Diamond Island incident. Putting police patrols on the public docks on weekends looking for intoxicated boaters leaving restaurants would have saved at least one life out of these two that have passed.

In case you'd like to get your facts straight, here is the link to the Supreme Court ruling on the case.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...5/littl071.htm

Still chuckling over that one!

[QUOTE=elchase;108500]
Agreed. Facts are facts, no matter who speaks them.

Littlefield said he was going to 28MPH. That is how that "minimum" number was established. But that does not mean he was really only going 28MPH. And if he was really that drunk (which a jury did not find) that he was not aware of a 21-ft boat in his path, do you really think he was aware of his exact speed? Come on. His 15000 boat took airborne 7 feet high and flew almost fifty feet in the air when it hit Hartman's. Don't even try to convince this was not a "hi speed accident". That just sounds silly.



Actually, the Sunset provision is in the law.


I agree, sometimes idiots necessitate a law or some form of enforcement that otherwise would not be necessary. I don't think the lake is at that point. The enforcement never really was started, and many felt it wasn't a problem anyway.


You make some good points. But your post contains materially misleading information, which is not only a trend with you, it has become fact. If you'd like to pull out the misleading statements, and outright lies, yes, lies, discussion could possibly continue. By all accounts, from virtually everyone at the scene, in the courts, witnesses, this was NOT a high speed crash. I understand how you like to use search arrays to see if your materially misleading information can spread. Unfortunately, you've become more like a virus, and facts are usually the cure.

It's only because I think Littlefield's probably a jerk that I don't get into other details of that night. But you sound more than silly El, and I doubt very much if you've gained any degree of respect. If you have, it's almost certainly from the wrong type of people. I'd also appreciate it if you didn'y invoke religion while lying, it's quite offensive.

But you use the language below, what would the Diocese think?

This type of bullying rant might frighten the little mrs, but it really has no value here. You guys seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be lying, and that if you yell loud enough, call them names, and use aggressive language and curse they will submit. Sorry.

Do your own homework like I did. Read the reports like I did. Look at the photo of the re-enactment and put a scale on it. Littlefield's water line is at least 7 feet above Hartman's waterline in that snapshot, and might have been higher when his flight peaked. Now are you the liar? Or do you merely disagree with me? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Wrong. The MP had no skidmarks or witness testimony of his speed preceding the collision. Regardless of their "countless hours of investigation", they had no scientific bases for establishing his speed. Hence their reliance on his testimony that he was "only" going 28 MPH. Or was it just a remarkable coincidence that they determined his speed to be exactly the same speed he said he was going? Now are you the liar? Or do you merely disagree with me? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.

Wrong. His boat was a 36 foot Baja Outlaw with twin 454's and twin outdrives, was fuel heavy, had a full passenger compartment, and was going at least 28MPH. The four props alone weighed over 200 pounds. Do your homework before you call someone else a liar. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you.


It has been argued?!? It has been argued?!? And that makes it a fact? And I'm the liar? You're trying to say that if he had been going only 25MPH Mr. Hartman would still be alive, and I'm the one spewing BS? What are your sources for this "fact"? How was this conclusion derived? Now are you the liar? Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.


Stop twisting Mr Honesty. When did I say he was going through the air before the collision? His flight began at impact, as I said. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

Correct. He was acquitted as I said. He was found "not guilty". In America that means he was innocent (innocent until proven guilty). There was also insufficient evidence to prove his speed was excessive, so in that case, you take the position that his speed was not excessive. Why the double standard? We all know he was drunk and he was driving way too fast. Had he obeyed our DUI laws this accident might not have happened. Had he been traveling at a safer speed this accident might not have happened. Had he aided the Hartmans instead of fleeing Mr Hartman might have survived. Be honest enough to admit all the facts before you start calling others liars, you glass-house hypocrite. Stop the tough talk. It does not become you. And it just makes you look worse when your accusations fly back at you.

This is just "a load of BS...lies...posting of lies...it is just that, lies...a continuous load of crap that you made up". Unless you "post your source and it better be able to be verified, otherwise you need to crawl back in your troll hole".

Agreed. But two rights don't make a wrong.

I've listened to the hearing several times. I see no place where anything I have said is contradicted. Did you listen to it? If you can find anything in it that proves me a liar, please post it. Otherwise, shut up.
Did you hear the part where the justices talk about the speed limit? "Seems pretty fast at night, no?...You mean they don't have a speed limit on the lake?"

Sweet Memories
 

Folks remember me as the 'Basty Nastard' back then. What's your point?

As far as wining and dining the state reps, that is common knowledge among the hospitality folks. It is nonethical. When will the frigging Democrats pass the Ethics bill? Oh I forgot, an election is coming up! :eek:

Yes, that statement is INCREDIBLY funny!! How do you make this stuff up?? Here's a link to the spec sheet for a 2002 Baja 36 Outlaw; please note the dry weight listed is 8,300 lbs. Add 1,451 lbs for 235 gals of fuel plus a little more for misc. gear and 3 occupants and the weight is still well under 11,000 lbs. I'd post links for other model years but 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2003 all list the same dry weight and fuel capacity, so there's really no point. In case you want to argue about the 1999 model, the link was broken so I couldn't get the numbers.

That would be the "others like you" that lied and distorted facts to get their way. I refer you to your fantasy boat story above.


I'M trying to shake it off, YOU'RE the one stuffing me in it!!

That explains a LOT!!

Once again, I refer you to your fantasy boat story above and the quote below.

NO, you're STILL wrong!! See the spec sheet link above for the 36 Outlaw! The dry weight listed INCLUDES ENGINES AND DRIVES! 8,300 lbs for the boat WITH ENGINES AND DRIVES plus 235 gals fuel capacity. Unleaded fuel weighs 6.175 lbs/gal SO, add 1,451 lbs for the fuel, plus a bit more for gear and 3-4 people! That DOES NOT add up to 15,000 lbs!! LOOK CLOSELY AT THE SPEC SHEET! Baja used Bravo I drives, NOT Bravo III's so ONLY 2 PROPS, NOT 4!!! Stop lying, it does not become you! Perhaps you should take your OWN ADVICE and DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you call someone a liar!

Mr. Chase
 

If my six year old son were driving the boat, he could have avoided a collision at 2 times that speed. The fact is the operator of the Baja did not avoid the collision. The fact is it was never proven that his high rate of speed made it impossible to avoid the collision. So it was not speed that caused the accident.

Most reasonable people understand that is was the consumption of alcohol that caused this accident. The proof is there (bar bills, eyewitness at the dock) however it is circumstantial evidence and a BWI conviction is almost impossible under these circumstances. To use this case as a centerpiece for a speed limit law seems to be a little disingenuous.

In this country you are not innocent to proven guilty. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, the verdict “not guilty “ does not equal innocent. (See OJ Simpson).

Mr. Chase, you get called out here all the time because it is you make derogatory comments towards anybody that disagrees with your view. If you represented your views with “I believe” or “in my opinion” you might get a different response.

Please point us to the data to support this. I can tell you that my 32 foot Monterey at 8500lbs dry with twin engines and 600hp at 50mph hitting a large wave would not put it anywhere near 7 feet in the air nor would it fly anywhere near 50 feet. This kind of data clearly would have come up in investigation and would have been presented at trial. The findings do not indicate that he was driving the boat in a reckless manner other than failing to maintain a proper lookout thus causing the accident.

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar. I posted no lies.

Lying does not become you.

Wrong. MP did reconstruct the accident and were able to determine an estimated speed based in the damage done to both boats to be approximately that. Again at 50mph hitting a boat that was either stopped or maintaining slow forward momentum the Baja would have crushed the entire boat and would have killed EVERYONE in it!

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar. I posted no lies.

Lying does not become you.

Wrong. Other posters have already provided solid proof that the loaded boat weighed nowhere near 15k lbs. The 4 props weighed 200lbs???? This boat would be equipped with Bravo drives with single props for a total of 2, not 4. Baja did not use dual prop setups in that boat, and even if they were dual props each side would not have weighed 100lbs. Unless you have a picture of that exact boat showing something very much out of the norm I have to call BS or lack of research on your side.

I DO disagree with you AND think you are a liar. I posted no lies.

Lying does not become you.

You misinterpreted my statement. I stated that even at 25mph instead of the alleged 28mph the outcome would have been the same. The past argument was whether or not the speed limit would have saved Mr. Hartman. If the speed limit was in place and the boat was going 25mph the outcome still would have been the same. No BS or lies spewed.

I will admit that my initial read on your post made me think you were stating that the boat was in air prior to hitting the Wellcraft. I apologize for that, it was not an intentional twist. That is what an adult does, they apologize when they are wrong. Try it sometime.

However...I have seen no data to show that the Baja hit the Wellcraft, basically jumped it and flew 50 feet. As previously asked, please post a link to your source.

Somewhat agreed. We all know he was drunk, he had been drinking at the restaurant and drinking all day on the boat. You want a double standard? Why did nobody ever go after the restaurant for serving someone who was most likely already intoxicated or served them to the point of intoxication, thus being a direct influence on the outcome that night. They either aided in or caused the death of Mr. Hartman. Funny how Rusty jumped on speed limit supporting bandwagon, he was probably crapping his pants the whole time.
Littlefield clearly was at fault for not stopping, fleeing the scene of of the accident, the whole damn thing was his ultimate fault and my post did nothing to take away from that. I have never defended him in ANY of my posts. I was honest and admitted only facts, yet I am a glass-house hypocrite? Get a life.

Too funny. So aren't the priests that molest small children.

Already done, now take your own advice. :D

Stop the tough talk, it does not become you.