I just want to point out that if anyone has taken the time to go back and read all the posts from the past few years regarding speed limits, you will see many many heated and in some cases down right nasty arguments concerning these. Most of which had other posters involved however there are some of the people on this specific thread who also participated. (not pointing fingers at anyone)

But if you see here many of the same people who would be seen as extremists are now talking openly about the issue and are trying to come to an equitable agreement.

I personally think it shows a dramatic step in right direction.

As long as you can weed out one or two trolls who have no intention of compromise I really feel progress is being made. GREAT WORK!

If it can be done here I feel it can be done at the state house as well.

Now that we have some of the major players on this thread we should really try to hash out something that could work. It can be done!

Keep the ideas rolling....

In theory the specifying certain areas is a good one but how do you let the public know? Perhaps marking the chart, but we all know some people wouldn't get the message. Floating signs in the water. :eek: . I think you could come up with a distance in feet to work because it would accomplish what you are suggesting BI. A lot of the areas of the lake would be covered by say a 1000 feet or more distance rule due to the nature of the lake being made up of many small bays and channels. Perhaps make it simple by translating it to yards like "one or even two football fields / 200 yards."

Again though you make a very valid point that supports what many have been saying all along when you say:

The key is education and information and figuring out how to get the message out there.

I know we have had many a major difference of opinion in the past on this issue and I thank you for your willingness to even discuss a compromise when you probably have no real reason to. Actually I do remember you were one of the first to be a supporter of a compromise and you could arguably laugh and throw it in the face of the compromise crowd and say "you had your chance and blew it." But you didn't. Thanks.

VERY well said!!!

Thanks X 2 here!

What about limiting the 45mph during the day to any Bay, Cove, Harbor? Then the measument problem (500 or 1000 feet) would be eliminated. No need to mark these places as they are already noted as such on the lake maps.

I would accept that compromise, but I think it is a problem to say go run as fast as you want in the broads. As someone has previously mentioned in one of the only things I agreed with...the broads are great for sailing and fishing so to say guys are going to run 70mph there probably wont work, unless there is a 500 or even a 1000' foot rule there.

I would even agree to a 1000' rule, even though I think it is way excessive..that is almost a 1/4 mile. I still would like someone to answer my question as what harm I am causing over 500' away going say 60 vs 45?

I have not been on here that long and wow this is a tough issue when you consider both sides of it.

There are always going to be boaters that do not use good common sense and my plea is that those few should not impact the majority of us who try and do the right thing and are considerate of our fellow captains and their passengers.

Bear Islander
 

Bear Islander,

Thank you for reaching across the isle. My opinion of you just went up 100%, (just kidding). It would be ideal if both sides could reach compromise that all the members of this forum could live with. Then we could approach the legislature with something that satisfied everybody. We just need to hear more from the supporter’s side.

On a lighter note…

We could then sell the rights to the speed limit threads. There is some seriously funny stuff in there.

Personally I think double the distance (300 feet) would be sufficient but I think that number would not appeal to the SL supporters. When we get into arbitrary numbers like 500, 1000, what we need to do is come up with distances that people have a chance at figuring out. For example 100 yards is pretty easy to identify with a lot of people as it is a length of a football field. The real problem with distances is that it is all subjective. As we all know most people have no clue what 150 feet looks like! :laugh: The "Speed Zone" idea has problems as was pointed out by some because it does not address those who feel uncomfortable with a boat doing 60 + at 150 feet away from their Sailboat, Kayak, whatever. I still think the increased distance idea has merit but clarification would be necessary in terms of an easily identifiable length.

The current law is a perfect compromise already
 

Is this really what you call a compromise? This whole thread should be renamed "opposers other thread". We have a small group of people here who "don't even own a go-fast boat" yet have dedicated their every waking hour of the past year complaining about a speed limit that is "doing absolutely nothing" and "doesn't even affect them" because the limit "is higher than their boats can go anyway", plus one member that claims to be a speed limit supporter but appears willing to say anything to gain the acceptance of the go-fasters. And this is supposed to be some sort of "all-inclusive compromise committee"?
It's kind of like having all the teams in the NFL that did not make the playoffs discussing a "compromise" that will put them in the playoffs even though they stink.
Things are working just fine right now. Let's not muck it up with a reversal disguised as a "compromise". The speed limit was already written as a compromise; one lake in the whole state, and as fast as 45 miles per hour, which over 95% of the lake's boats can't even reach. No horsepower, size, or weight limitations. How can people really sincere about safety and sharing not be happy with this law and recognize what a perfect compromise it already is?
Now, I'm sure that my post will be called "trolling" because I will not agree that the SL isn't working, but isn't it really the only post in this thread that is really recognizing what a "compromise" is?

No arguements, just discussion.


1. What are you basing your 95% of boats cant pass 45mph on this lake. I could be incorrect and please correct me if you have Registration stats or the like, but I would think it is closer to 50% of the boats can exceed 45mph. My old 20 foot cuddy would do 50mph with a little V6. Also it seems that Performance Boats on Winni make up more than 5% of the boats?


2. I have asked numerous times on this thread what harm am I causing going 60mph over 500' away versus 45mph?


Thanks

Personally I would like the compromise to look something like this:

50 daytime
30 nightime

unlimited in the broads...

Now we have to determine how to enforce it, and if that is plausible.

While this is my idea of an ideal compromise, as mentioned, educating the public to where and when is very difficult.

Although it isn't my favorite I think the distance rules are easier to enforce, less expensive, and has a greater chance of success of passing.

As mentioned Capt. B's have trouble determining 150', however SL or no SL, nothing is going to change that.... But for the few that have trouble determining that distance over water, the majority if not all don't have the ability to travel over the 45 mph anyway. As mentioned the vast majority of capt b's are not out in $100K GFB's.... (not saying there isn't a couple but just going on %'s here)

So I propose that we double the distance for over 45mph.. make it 300 ft..

The reasons I propose that is:

1. it has been done already for PWC (distance they need to be from shore)
2. 300 ft is easier to determine for an everyday boater because:
A. It's double of the current 150 ft which they are expected to know
B. A easy analogy can be drawn to 1 football field
3. Marine Patrol will not have to spend extra funds in which to enforce this.
4. It will eliminate the ability to go over 45 mph is smaller coves / bays. (rather then having to specify on the chart) - If you look at the chart being 300 ft in every direction of boat or land pretty much takes care of (alton, wolfboro, anywhere north of moultonboro bay, most of paugus, all the islands, graveyard, barbers pole etc)

I think that listing:

45mph on the lake or unlimited if over 300 ft from any vessel or land mass.
30 mph night

It just makes it very simple for enforcement and easy to understand.

Thoughts?

EL, while your opinion is your opinion, all of your posts are not geared towards discussing a compromise rather then shooting down any idea other then what is on the books. We all know you do not want anything changed so there is really nothing more for you to point out.

It would be appreciated that if you do not want discuss or negotiate as we have now done for the past 36 hours in a very cival and just manner, please take your posts to the supporters thread becasue clearly you are in support of what is on the books and nothing else. I would ask the webmaster to help with keeping the discussion going for the purpose of what the thread was intended. negotiation / compromising.

Yeah...That's the Ticket!
 

There's absolutely nothing that can replace a narrow discussion among those who engage in self-congratulations and self-admiration.

:yawn:

'
'
'
'
'


It may not have been Confucius that said that—I forget :look:

elchase????
 

"...Things are working just fine right now. Let's not muck it up with a reversal disguised as a "compromise". The speed limit was already written as a compromise; one lake in the whole state, and as fast as 45 miles per hour, which over 95% of the lake's boats can't even reach...." elchase

What is your problem? I have a family cruiser that can destroy the night limit and can break the day limit. It really sucks that the limits eliminate a pleasure that some have invested in and gain pleasure from. Things are not fine as you mentioned. The law is not for safety as the SL group plays. Evidence of safe operations above the current temporary limit is easy to prove. I believe the SL is for control of the resource by a small group of "if I don't like it nobody else should be able to do it" people.

The suggestions by everyone in this thread have been towards a compromise in a reflective and jovial tone with only one noticable exception!

I have to say I am very impressed with BI in these sessions of discussions and thank all who contribute so much time in articulating their thoughts!

Elchase,

I am not sure if you were referring to me but it certainly seems that way. No I don’t own a go-fast boat but I do oppose the speed limit.

Why?

When you take the rights and liberties away from one group it diminishes us all.

No the speed limit does not effect me personally. I have never been in a go-fast never mind driven one. I was not the target of this law…this time. But what is next?

Cruisers, bass boats, ski-boats, PWC????

How about this one…

The lake belongs to us all. What happens if the next issue addressed in Concord is access to the lake? The majority of people in this state don’t own waterfront property. This isn’t fair to people who don’t own property. If everybody has equal rights to the lake why should they be limited to just the public beaches? Why can’t everyone enjoy the entire lake and all of the lake’s shoreline? What if the next legislation makes all shorefront public property?

I guess some people believe it is perfectly fine for rights and liberties to be taken away for individuals as long as it’s not your group. The problem is, if you let that happen, someday they will come for you too.

The funny thing about this Elchase, In spite of your arrogance and insults… I would still support you if you are in the next targeted group.

Kracken.... again as I have mentioned to other posters, I would be happy to fix this part of your post..

She will be back on the lake next May..

I love going to Shibleys on the Lake for Lunch... Come on out for a blast...:D

Yes elchase that is a compromise. Just as kracken pointed out (as well as others) the current SL has compromised my freedom to use the lake as a public waterway in the fashion I see fit- as long as I do not jeopardize anyone else's rights/freedom and most importantly safety.
The current SL law compromise (as you like to call it) is not and does not have to be the only "right" one.
I do not oppose a speed limit (as shown by willingness to offer potential solutions that will satisfy both sides agenda's).
Do I currently own a GFBL - No - but I have in the past - one that could easily exceed the current limit. I have also had access to and driven a boat that could easily do twice the current limit.
I had that freedom in the past - now it is gone.
I have never had or been close to any collisions nor have I ever received any tickets for any reason in 30 years of boating on Winni.

It's all about the boat driver having the skill to drive the boat and the common sense to drive it in a reasonable and safe manner given the current conditions - within the limits of the law.

So do I really think we should have a speed limit - NO I don't - but I am willing to compromise so that others may enjoy the lake in the manner they see fit - without lessening my (or anyone else’s) freedoms.

After all this was the Live Free or Die state - I fear that has been taken away along with the common sense of Capt B. Which unfortunately necessitates this lengthy and arduous debate.

I'm not sure that you entirely understand what a compromise is. If we start off, there are two ends of the extreme right here right now. There are some that want no speed limit law whatsoever. There are some that support the law exactly as it stands. Given that I have seen nobody that is actually interested in making the law even stricter, I will take those as the two extremes.

A compromise then would be something in between the law as it stands and nothing at all. What you support is the law as it stands, which is by definition not a compromise.

I don't know if by putting "don't own a go-fast boat" in quotes you are implying that you think people are lying, but I certainly am not. I own a 21' bowrider that can handle an absolute max of 52-54 mph, and the only way that ever happens is with a light passenger load and glass smooth water, otherwise known as almost never. Most of the time my comfortable max speed is 45 mph or less depending on chop.

OCD.... if you keep this up you may end up with a line at your dock!!!!!.....

All in all though.... I applaud your efforts and especially your willingness to take people out and let them experience, the fun you enjoy.....

I do not think either side can effectively negotiate a compromise at this time. The supporters are trying to rush through the Legislature and make the bill permanent. The reasoning is that they do not feel there is sufficient data to defeat the sunset provision. I agree. I also agree that there is not enough data for anyone to determine anything, other than the lake being quieter this year.

For those that claimed it's quieter due to the law? I can only state this. Those on your side that are trying to change the status of the bill have stated themselves there is not enough data to support their claims. They disagree with El's broad statement about traffic being up, primarily because both the MP and their own group have stated that traffic on the lake, as well as registrations, slip rentals, and boat sales are all down.

In an attempt to prove something that is simply not true, people have made the claims that the lake is safer due to the law as it is.

In the spirit of common sense, I can only conclude two things here.

The sunset provision must be extended for further evaluation. You can tinker with the daytime speed limit if possible. But I would further assert that the MP has to take as proactive a role to study the situation further, and try to report their findings periodically. In any event, the safety wording of the current law should remain in tact.

There is only one group afraid of the sunset provision. They are the diehards. If they wish to prove their point at some time, it will have to be done with interviews, real life observations, and factual data. I would be perfectly willing to review the data, ALL of it, from 2008, 2009, AND 2010.

:laugh:More the merrier......... Just may hurt on the gas $ side.. :laugh::D

Thanks OCDACTIVE,

And until your boat is fixed you are welcome to take a ride in mine.

It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it to Shibley’s.

:D

I am not your everyday fool... I don't want to drive it, I just want my old car back.............. :D:D:D

Very funny.. Thank you.. I do have two other boats... a party boat (yup thats right I drive a tri-toon as well!!!!!, and a small center consol fishing boat... So before people jump on me for thinking I only enjoy the lake going fast.........think again..

But thank you I do appreciate the offer.. I will be up the weekend of the 29th for my son's 2nd bday, but other then that I am now back to working weekends to save for the rebuild and paint job.. So no more lake for me :(

If I end up down your way I will definately drop you a line.

For the record...

I could certainly live with a 65MPH daytime limit... that being said, another one of my reasons (not espoused in my recent novella) for eliminating the daytime 45 MPH limit is that with a 65MPH limit, there are maybe 30-40 boats on the lake that can top that and the number rapidly decreases as spped goes up... maybe 6 boats can top 80, maybe 3 of those 6 can top 90, maybe 1 or 2 could top 100... Is it really worth having a law and more importantly spending the time, money and resources to enforce the law for these 20 or 30 boats?? Especially given the limited resources of the NHMP and the COMPLETE LACK OF DATA that suggests speed is an issue during the daylight hours. I say look at the economics and the data!

Woodsy

Good point. One thing to be added here. We can all brainstorm as to what "we all" could agree on as to what constitutes a compromise, i.e. 55 day, 30 night, 500' safe passage, and yackity yack yack all day but in reality we need to keep the following in mind. The state legislature and executive branch are far less conservative than was the case when HB 162 was rejected, and will become increasingly so in the future. Many of the supporters of HB 162 were voted out of office (most likely unrelated to HB 162). Many people (not on this forum) are very happy with the SL and are going to point out that in fact the whole lake's region did not disintegrate (as some on the forum predicted) because of the SL. Some feel that the SL didn't go far enough.
The real debate will be in Concord (against the backdrop of a very high profile boating trial that will have national exposure). Everyone on this thread can insist that this or that is the best "compromise" but it's not a whole lot more meaningful than if we all agreed that monkeys can fly. Just because the forum members (hardly a representative slice of the NH public) agree on something doesn't necessarily make it so. It just seems to be a whole lot of mental gymnastics. Some on this forum have suggested that SL supporters can't go back to the 60's, Golden Pond, etc. and yes of course we can't go back to these times. There are more boats, more faster boats, more kayaks, canoes etc. People change, times change, and laws change to reflect this. This is an expected consequence of how societies evolve and has been a part of man's history since the beginning...the "we don't need no more laws" crowd is being overly simplistic to believe this will change. Old laws will be discarded, and new ones adopted as we move into the future. (Sure glad we can shop on Sundays now!)

I must assume that you are talking about me.

You have only been on the forum a month and it appears you have not gone back and read the old SL threads. Otherwise you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

I agree, but imagine if there was a Compromise or Possible Compromises and the people on this forum/the constituents called/emailed their elected officials and asked them to consider them..

This following part is not directed at you, just a general comment:

It is evident to me that the most of the SL Supporters are not interested in a Compromise at all, because they already have what they want, so why do they need to Compromise.

It is the people who oppose the SL that need to be loud and proud and discuss this matter and try to change the law.

I should add...I appreciate the pro SL Supporters that are willing to compromise. The ones that are not I understand your reasoning even if I dont agree with it...

Looks like EL is taking on some serious water! I hope his sailboat makes it back to the dock!:laugh::laugh:

I agree with Sunset (to a point) & Onlywinni,

This thread was started to reach a common ground between opposers and supporters. If we can reach an accord here, then maybe a petition can be started with the support of this forum. To sit here and argue about the merits of changing the law then do nothing is truly an act of futility.

BI has graciously thrown his opinion and possible support for a compromise. I do hope others will join in as well. I think there may be a member or two willing to bring a petition or resolution to Concord if we can work together. Maybe it well help sway the legislature, maybe not, but it can't hurt. I do think this forum is a good representation of the people of NH as it pertains to this legislation. To many of the people of this state, this law is a waste of time. They don't live here and they don't visit here. This legislation directly affects us. So I believe our opinions do matter.

As for the people who believe unlimited speed or 45/25 is FIRM. I am guessing a compromise will not be supported by them. They have the right to their opinion.

This is up for debate as well. :rolleye2:

Not Essential...Not a Right Either...
 

One of Our Founders, Ben Franklin, referred to "essential" liberties in his famous quote.

Your "right" to endanger others with speed is not an "essential" liberty.

When a cruiser's wake is caught on a webcam overturning kids in a canoe...and several drown...? :(

Do you deny that a headline—past or present—has NOT driven our lawmakers? :confused:

An unlikely scenario: Concord is using shoreline owners' "redistributed wealth" to support the operations of the entire state.

Laughing
 

Coke just came out my nose...no so good for the sinuses:laugh:

So you're thinking what I'm thinking? It seems odd that one would be so rabid and passionate after just "one month" on the board. Me thinks I smell a rat. I wish Don were able to flush this one out. :laugh:

"A STAR is born"

Yup... thats what I am thinking.. Plus the language and verbage is VERY similar to that of other names that have tried this in the past.

It raises an eyebrow that someone stays side lined for sooo long then suddenly when the bill comes back up suddenly a new member is as gun-ho as they are, and are so versitile in posting multiple threads.. Looks to be A LOT of experience...

as mentioned: if it looks like and smells like........................... IT IS!

I was thinking the same thing at one point, then was going on a benefit of doubt. Not so sure anymore. The rhetoric did seem distinctively similar. Thought we might have had a copy cat on our hands!

Who is at the table.
 

What is the point of discussing a compromise at this point?

The MP spent last season enforcing specific speed zones to test and evaluate the effect and enforceability of the proposed speed limit. They also went one step further and collected boat speed data throughout other areas of the lake that were not indicated to the public. After all this there was still insufficient data to support the law because it was then amended and passed with a 2 yr sunset clause so that more data could be collected.

A petition is being submitted in Concord to repeal the current sunset clause and make the law permanent. I would think amendments would be left out of the discussion in Concord and the debate would be focused simply on weather to repeal the sunset or not. There doesn't seem to be any new data that indicates a need to rush it to permanent status, and there was certainly plenty of time and debate that lead up to the current sunset clause. No one can claim they will be safer next year either way so what reason could there be to rush the process. Let the law ride as written and evaluate it after one more season. A compromise can be discussed then if the data warrants it, but I say if after three years there is still insufficient data to support the law, stop the debate and watch the sun set.

Chase1

Or perhaps we should call someone about getting these copyrighted or even patented :D

Not sure we could do that, there was already a movie made called Sybill!:laugh::laugh:(for those that don't know, this is a movie about a women with a split personality)

I have been looking at the history. Aren't you the same person that was laughing at the same group you are now pandering to, telling them they could use their cigarette boats as planters once the SL passed? Aren't you the one recently talking about how the fat lady had sung and they should just accept that they "had lost and should go home"? And I'm the crazy one? As an alleged supporter, you have appeared so pompous as to make supporters look like jerks and I have wondered whether you have really been an opposer all along just posing for that reason. Senator Spector comes to mind.

Like Joe the Plumber? Should I be scared and drop off the forum to avoid being "researched"? WHAT THE HECK IS THIS IMPLYING?

He wasn't???;
I think his statement, repeated three times, is very clear. He wants us to let him tool around our crowded lake as fast as he can in a 5000 pound boat because he can't operate it safely at speeds below "only" 25 mph. No word recalibration needed.

You got all that from "I cant operate my boat safely at less than 25mph"? Wow. And I'm the one with the credibility problem?

I agree.

Not if we have multi-ton craft running around on it going speeds at which the craft "cant be operated safely" according to their operators, there isn't. No lake is big enough for that.

This number was generated by your side...when they thought it would help them. They claimed to have done a survey. They wanted to show that the number of high-speed boats was trivial, so it suited them to "prove" that only 5% of the boats on the lake could reach the limit and to ask "why enact a law that will effect so few"?. Now you see the mistake of this logic and want to discredit your own findings?