My explanation is self explanatory. Are they speed limit supporters that are disingenuous, deceitful, use fake names or addresses and/or have the intention of using information NHRBA gathers to attempt to discredit NHRBA? Be careful how you reply, I have lots of interesting factual information to back up my reply!

Aren't we all? (asked facetiously)

Is "Winnilaker" your real name?

We did too, until it was all deleted. And since you've brought it up, did you ever follow through on this at OSO?

Juvenile response.

As for OSO, I'll post to stop deleting posts, second that, I don't need to, Woodsy already did. As for replacing old posts, go find the information yourself, any boating accident anywhere in the US, should be public knowledge.

Great points Woodsy
 

Not a regular contributer to this topic but I have chimed in from time to time. Woodsy made some great points in his post about statistics in reply to Fat Jack. I especially like his usage of the way things are done off the lake in reguards to problem situation on roads. Even another person said they got the speed limit on thier street lowered because it was proven with statistics that, that street alone had a problem with speed. Did the state then go and reduce speed limits on all streets? No. Same thing could be said for a given intersection, pick a place. The town gets complaints that a certian intersection is becomming dangerous and too congested. The town responds by laying those hoses across the street to gather data to see if in fact traffic is high for the current conditions at that particular intersection. Finding it warrents a change because STATISTICS/ DATA for THAT intersection says so, they install a traffic light. Do they go and install traffic lights at ALL intersection in the state now? Nope. Same for a stretch of road. Stats show speed limit for THAT stretch of road is too high because of accidents on THAT stretch of road. State lowers speed limit on THAT stretch of road only. Not all roads in the state and they do it only when the stats/data prove a need to at that location.

Ricky,
Instead of getting involved up here in NH, why not spend your energy trying to have the speed limits removed from your own lakes down in your state? I promise not to butt in.
FJ

Now thats a quote, you said it all.
Everybody stay in there own state?
Next there own town?
Then stay in your house?

You First Fat Jack.

Let's Take Alcohol off the HB162 Table...
 

NOT!

Case...after case...after case...of excessive-speed fatalities have been dismissed here, using The Alcohol Excuse.
Aren't we drinking-while-boating responsibly? —Baja Bob http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/tiphat.gif
Is everybody doing it?
Does it go with the territory?

This summer, a drunken boating safety instructor drove his boat into his lake's shoreline, injurying one passenger and killing another passenger. It was a 60+MPH nighttime crash.

Pray tell: How do you keep liquor from performance-boaters' heads?

Not so fast...
 

Boating accidents have a brief life on the Internet. While boating forums will maintain accident accounts for an indefinite period, they can be lost or deleted if viewed as harmful to their "sport". (Or moved to a section off-limits to most inquiring eyes).

If an on-line newspaper reports it, they will archive it after only a month or two. They place it under a heading you must search for -- yourself. (And then you must select the correct one using their headline). You will then be charged for each newstory -- usually, $3 per article per day. In the Littlefield case, the reporting went on for months -- then years.

New Hampshire's Marine Patrol had only that one Internet entry, (about the highest national accident rate per acre AND per 1000 registered boats). With so many registered boats, and such a short boating season, it makes sense.

If you want Lake Winnipesaukee accident reports, or "facts", I'm at a total and complete loss as to where to point you. Missouri and Illinois have excellent accident reporting sites.

Federally, the most recent National Transportation "Recreational Boating Fatalities" figures are from the year 2000. (Too easily dismissed here).

Regarding deleted posts, the most-missed ones were those relating to vote-rigging in Forum polls and in newspaper speed-limit polls; however, there's countless scandalous posts still remaining. The cleanup started this summer, because "The Word" had already gone out. The site even asked that their avatars be "cleaned-up".

If they're needed again, I have reams of deleted stuff from Donzi, Scream&Fly, and OSO sites, going back about 18 months. It's not for nothing they were called the Marine Mafia. :eek:

If these hardcopies are not needed again, maybe we can make a Time Capsule for them. :)

Getting a law removed is harder than getting one passed , no matter how rediculous or unnecessary it is. Because this would be ,to a politician , like admitting that you were wrong:eek: . Heaven forbid a politician ever admit to anything:laugh: :laugh: .

Down here in my state , we defeated speed limit laws last year. Some influential "money" person moved to waterfront property and when spring came decided they didn't like the noise:( . They pulled some strings and got a bill introduced to have speed limits on the entire ICW from Manasquan to Cape May AND all other inland tidal waters in the state:fire:
The opposition presented documented facts and figures calmly and logically while the Pro people acted just as a bunch on here are doing , with partial truths and scare tactics.
The powers that be , ruled in favor of NO Speed Limit and gave the guy who started the whole contoversy his very own NWZ in front of his house. Perhaps that's what some of you need.

You're right, Cal.

They also removed noise limits.

HUH:confused: :confused: :confused:
Who removed what noise limits????

I will ask again politely for the Pro HB-162 side to post FACTS and STATISTICS!

I have posted facts from the USCG and the NTSB. Others have posted that the accident rate on Lake Winnipesaukee has dropped to 35 accidents.

APS,
You claim to have reams of accident data. Feel free to post it! Make sure to tell the whole story, not just what you feel is relevant data. I don't think anyone has a problem with posting FACTUAL accident data. People tend to delete information when somebody like yourself uses that information in a less than forthright manner to further an agenda. If your going to post accident data, tell the whole story. The majority of accidents you post involve BWI as the primary cause, not excessive speed. You routinely opt not to post that. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who is under the influence is going to give a damn about a speed limit. You also opt not to post any accident data involving boats other than Hi-performance or PWC.

You have also posted the link to one document, issued by the NH Marine Patrol in 1998... over 7 years ago! PRIOR TO THE SAFE BOATER CERTIFICATION LAW. Yet since the enactment of the SAFE BOATER CERTIFICATION requirement, the accident rate on Lake Winnipesaukee has continued to steadily drop, down to 35 accidents in 2005.

The thread over on OSO listed a total of 50 accidents over 4 years, nationwide, and one or two of those listed were duplicates. That averages out to 12.5 accidents per year nationwide! Very few of the accidents listed had excessive speed as the primary cause of the accident. Most were BWI.

I have no problem with accidents being posted. Boats and PWCs have accidents, so do cars, trucks, motorcycles, atvs, snowmobiles, aircraft, industrial machinery, and any other sort of equipment. Anything operated by a human is going to have some sort of accident rate. The point I am trying to make is that the accident rate for boats is low to begin with, and its even lower when you single out accidents caused primarily by excessive speed.

Please stick to the facts and statistics...

Woodsy

PS: Fat Jack: Telling someone not to get involved up here is not playing nice. I highly doubt you have a NH Voter registration card! The forum is open to all.

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HB-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one! I have posted data from the United States Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board.

In your post above you bring up thinly veiled references to the Littlefield/Hartman accident. Specifically the first two points you are truying to make. However here is one of your own quotes from another thread.

So if you can drive 5-10MPH over the limit with no penalty, how would this have changed the terrible outcome of that night? It is well documented, that if a person is willing to operate a vehicle while under the influence, they really have no regard for any other laws.

As far as your other points go, prevailing conditions at the time of the accident are paramount. Look at the categories the U.S. Coast Guard uses to delineate accident causes. Driving a boat while intoxicated is considered a primary accident cause. 15MPH in a dense fog can be considered excessive speed. Operator Inattention is a primary cause of accidents (thats what Danny Littlefield was convicted of), Operator Inexperience is a primary cause (most likely the primary cause of accidents in which the boats flipped), Hazardous Waters (probably the cause of alot of the kayaking/canoeing deaths), the list goes on.

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

I was at the R, R & D committe meeting when they asked the bills sponsor, Rep. Pilliod that exact question. And this is a FACT, he reply was "NO, I do not!"

You forgot to mention that you rationalize data to support your cause. Each "rationalization" above is part of the truth, discounted and left out of your data because you deem it unimportant. You try to show the only cause of problems is speed over 45 mph day / 25 mph night. Your whole case is based upon the same type of rationalizations that you say discredits the anti-speed limit crowd. That's why it is so easy to discredit you, you don't tell the whole truth.

The data you present is a bunch of half truths. Very easy to expose with a little research. Present the whole story and let people decide, stop distorting and sensationalizing to prove your point.

The true complete "facts and statistics" do not support your cause.

And while I'm at it:

The speed limit will :

NOT Stop bad behavior
NOT Reduce the number of boats on Winni
NOT stop shore erosion
NOT make canoeing / kayaking safer.
NOT lower an already low death rate on winni
NOT make the people who want NO BOATS on Winni happy.

This is a perfect example of your spin Dave. Go look at the first post in this thread. US Coast Guard statistics

I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

Island Lover,

What is your point? How am I spinning anything? The Coast Guard did a great job with that report. I merely re-organized the report based on the number of fatalities! BWI was the #1 cause of accidents resulting in death!

I also think the NTSB Safety Alert speaks volumes!

Where is your data & statistics to support your position on HB-162?

You should read page 34 of the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report. It has yet more interesting facts...

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat.

Our Illustrious neighbor to the south, Massachusetts, has 150,683 registered boats. In 2004 they had 55 accidents, resulting in 9 deaths and 35 injuries. They do not require a Safe Boater Certificate for adults...

Seems to me the numbers speak for themselves....

Post your data & statistics!

Woodsy

Reality and impact
 

I doubt you'll find anyone on either side of the argument that will dispute the above. What I and others have said is that this reality has no negative impact on safety. That Littlefield's speed that night is thought to be only 3 mph above the proposed limit means that to most of us, HB-162 would have made no difference in the outcome. The reasons for this have been hashed out but I can reiterate them if desired. If you really think that 25 is "safe" and 28 is "unsafe" then I'd like to know why. Moreover if I thought that the previous was true I'd be pushing for a much lower speed limit. If 25 or 45 mph had been arrived at by some analysis we could debate the inputs to that analysis or the analysis itself, but they weren't. They (HB-162 limits) were choosen for some reason and left unsupported. If I wanted to be unreasonable I could have proposed limits of 10 and 25 instead and then said any accident above those speeds was, by my definition, due to "excess" speed. But I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into my interpretation. I'd have to somehow prove that my limits were correct and any higher limits were unsafe.

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

Quibbling
 

Fine then ... I will propose that the maximum speed allowed on the lake be no wake speed (NWS). Seems pretty plain to me that any speed above NWS has the potential to cause injury or death and so any speed above NWS is therefore unsafe. Safer is slower ! I bet I can find more than 1 case where someone was killed (and many more injured) at a speed above NWS and I'll cite these as proof positive that only NWS is proper and any higher speed is bad. Anything else is quibbling !! How does this sound ?

Wow, real numbers and they don't support a speed limit, what a surprise!!!!

Thanks Woodsy.....

Woodsy,
I have been quietly enjoying this debate and it seems that the GFBL crowd just digs itself into a deeper and deeper hole with each post. Hope you will not be offended if I weigh in.

How do you get a chicken without and egg? How can we get statistics that a speed limit reduces accidents if we have no speed limit to use for generating statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in your own message...by looking at how speed limits have worked elsewhere.

Of course, before there were speed limits on our roads, there was no way to get statistics to prove they would reduce accidents, right? I'm sure many excitement loving car drivers fought our highway speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

And, of course, before there were speed limits on our trails, there were no such statistics, right? I'm sure many excitement loving snowmobilers fought our trail speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a biker was not helmetted. Bad comparison. None of the HB162 crowd has been fighting for this bill, as far as I can find, because they are worried about the GFBL boaters safety. If they were, then this comparison would have some merit. Alternately, I guess this might be the place where you all can use that "live free" argument that makes no sense against HB162.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a driver in another car was was not belted in. Another poor comparison for Hb162, but another place the "live free" argument might be useful.

I guess I just don't agree with the whole "statistics" defense. If the residents of NH want speed limits on their lakes, why do they have to prove the need to anyone? I don't see that they have any burden to prove anything, except that they are a majority, which they have obviously proven. Its not like they are trying to do something unconstitutional like ban a "protected group" from the lakes. There is no constitutional right to drive boats fast. Is it your position that GFBL's are a "protected group"?

Island Lover...

I did make a mistake. I forgot Bear Lover started this thread with one page of the U.S. Coast Guard Report. However, it was the Anti HB-162 crowd that originally posted the link to the report, and the Safety Alert issued by the NTSB. Sorry about that.

You are wrong in your assessment of my opinion in regards to the USCG report. I am in complete agreement with the U.S. Coast Guard. The reality is, numbers don't lie, they are neither fair nor unfair, they just are.

I agree with USCG report, in that Excessive Speed is the #4 cause of accidents in the U.S. Excessive Speed is the #6 cause of boating fatalities. I pointed that out in my post above. Then the Coast Guard on page 44 of the report did an analysis of the accidents as they relate to the speed of the boat.

Not Moving – 810 accidents – 66 fatalities
Under 10 MPH – 1242 accidents – 163 fatalities
10 to 20 MPH – 1020 accidents – 40 fatalities
21 to 40 MPH – 933 accidents – 49 fatalities
Over 40 MPH – 137 accidents – 14 fatalities
Unknown – 2583 accidents – 344 fatalities

You state “28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI. This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!” You go on to state “I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them” That is something only a closed minded person would say. Minds are like parachutes, they only work when open.

Yet another interesting statistic from Page 44 of the U.S. Coast Guard Report….

Of the 6725 boats involved in the 4904 reported accidents, 1013 of them were rental boats, 15%!

Of the 676 recorded fatalities, 92 of them were in rented boats, 13.5%!

Woodsy

It started earlier than that. I was almost fooled into joining NHRBA last spring because they painted a pretty inviting picture of themselves, but then I got a flavor of the group from their forum, which was then open to join, and opted out. I recall a message there from their webmaster that the Marine Patrol Director Barrett was going to be joining the club and that posts were all going to be "cleaned up" to make the club appear professional. Then many of the posts disappeared.

Wow! I figured rentals would be over represented but that's just plain shocking.

Woodsy,
Are these the speeds of the "hitting" boat or the "hit" boat that the victims were in? How could 810 accidents have been caused by "hitting" boats that were "not moving"?

The reason they could not convict due to BWI , they didn't have the facts and figures the night of the accident!
USCG excess speed is defined as TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS and you know that but won't admit it.

The politcians , after hashing over the TRUE facts and figures , will have no choice but to reject HR162. The opponents have done their homework well. It's all but a done deal;) .Next year you can bring up another bill:)


After all , 45 is hardly a fast speed

Ski Man...

You do not need the boat to be moving to have a fatality. There were 810 accidents resulting in 66 fatalities involving a boat that wasn't moving. There were 1479 collisions involving with other vessels, involving a total of 3003 boats, that resulted in 8 drownings and 60 other deaths. See page 36 of the USCG Report.

To respond to your post, it is actually pretty simple. Every accident is a statistic. In every vehicular accident, pretty much since the dawn of motorized vehicles, accident statistics have been compiled. Factors such as the weather at the time of the accident, the speed at which the accident occurred, was the operator under the influence of alcohol or drugs, operator inattention, operator inexperience etc. These factors are all compiled and put into the statistical reports.

Wrong again… We have a 45 MPH speed limit on our snowmobile trails BECAUSE it was STATISTICALLY PROVEN to be warranted. All of the snowmobile accidents were analyzed and the result was a speed limit of 45 on trails, and no speed limit at all on lakes. (with the exception of two). I read a pretty good article in the NHSA Sno-Traveler written by a Fish & Game police officer on this particular subject.

Actually I wasn’t comparing the lack of a helmet law or seatbelt law to HB-162. They were mentioned as laws in other states that have been STATISTICALLY PROVEN to reduce death or injury, yet they are not laws here in NH.

Ski Man, it is your constitutional right not to agree with me. I don’t have a problem with it at all.

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom without just cause.

Woodsy

PS: What type of skiier are you?

Barefoot skiing
 

Obviuosly, he doesn't ski barefoot. I love to ski barefoot and this law will not allow me to enjoy my favorite pastime. I'm hoping the kids can enjoy this but I guess not.

If it's a snow skier , I think the should be speed limits on them too. My wife was knocked unconsious be a SKI INSTRUCTOR of all people. She was standing perfectly still talking to a friend:eek:
It was also her last ski trip:rolleye2:

Welcome Ski man to the debate. I was the one who wrote that message. My clean up was to remove those with inappropriate messages (NOT A SINGLE ACCIDENT post was removed). I did not want NHRBA's forum to be a bashing forum, but a constructive mechanism to discuss issues on the lake. You fault me for that?

And yes I wanted the Dir to participate in issues, he doesn't want to read threads of posts irrelavant to boatings issues. So I had a challenge at first to help guide some of our members on proper forum usage.

NHRBA will make a positive impact on our lakes with or without you, sorry you didn't want to stick around.

He still would have died if the speed was 25mph.

Just a Suggestion
 

A strong (and unsurprising) pattern seems to be emerging in this thread showing that BUI is a major contributing factor to boating accidents of all kinds.

Whether or not we, as individuals, support a speed limit could we all come to an agreement that it would be a good thing to get drunks off the lake? (I don't think that I've observed any party to this debate supporting the right to get behind the helm while blitzed, no matter what kind of boat that helm is attached to!)

Perhaps, while they're considering boating safety, the legislature could encourage the MP to instigate a major crackdown on BUI - whether or not a speed limit is enacted!

One other thing; if a speed limit is enacted, perhaps the supporters might want to encourage the legislature to provide some means other than high speed pursuit to nab violators. (Providing funding for helicopter surveilance might be an alternative). If the idea of speeds in excess of 45 mph is frightening, HB162 supporters should find the idea of high speed pursuit even more so!

Silver Duck

Is this proper for the Director of Marine "Safety" to be joining up with a GFBL association and at the same time helping them to fight against a safety initiative being supported by a huge majority of the citizens who are paying his salary? It certainly puts a lot of things in perspective and explains a lot of the odd things he was saying last year. This is one for the newspapers.

Sometimes we give bad things good names to hide what they really are. I think that calling the act of flying across a crowded lake at break-neck speeds a "freedom" is rather insulting to the word freedom. I guess under your definition, f_rting in church and p_ssing in the town pool would be "freedoms" too. Although I guess they are freedoms, technically, if they are things you've always been allowed to do and that you've come to enjoy, but they seem more like "obnoxious offenses" or "hazards" to me. They aren't the kind of things that come to mind when one generally adds up his real freedoms, like "speech" and "worship". Adding "driving real fast in my boat" to that list just doesn't seem appropriate.
People use to smoke in hospitals and sell cocaine before those "freedoms" were taken away too.
What other "freedoms" do you put in this high-speed boating class?
Sometimes we just have to be willing to sacrifice our "freedoms" for the common good.

Now on the other hand, when we talk about "rights", those should never be taken away...Like the "right" of NH's citizens to the safe use of their lakes.

You may regret getting into this Ski Man. The small handful of people who try to steamroll this forum with their unlimited speed agenda always have to have the last word. They'll ridicule, insult and question your intelligence. They'll tell you what your motives are and ignore any sincere and thoughtful statements you make about your actual motives. No matter what you say Woodsy, winnilaker, Cal and Mee-n-Mac will tell you at length why you're wrong (usually within minutes) with the same tired arguments they have made a hundred times before (and no doubt a hundred times more).

They'll "play nice" here because they're forced to by the moderator but you only need to spend a few minutes on OSO and other forums to see their true colors. Note that one of their leaders, who also frequently posts here, has to continuously tell them that insulting and bashing your opponents does not help their cause. He has to do that because insulting and bashing HB162 supporters is SOP for many of them.

They'll never change their tactics and you'll never convince them. They will stop at nothing to protect their ability to drive their boats at unlimited speeds in a self-contained lake filled with mostly small family boats. Your time is much better spent writing to or calling your rep. In my humble opinion of course ;) .

Logic takes a step...
 

Wow. This is certainly a breath of fresh air. Clarity of thought, finally.

Most of the time my slogging feels like:
And you're right! They are digging themselves in deeper. I've actually been asked to provide "deleted" posts.

One of the most damaging has likely already been read by all NH Representatives, and was written by "Team Jefe". It can't be reproduced here, 'cause this is a family Forum. Wait! -- it hasn't been deleted. Maybe Woodsy will direct our attention to it?

Nah. Too many references to "adult beverages", adult activities on boats, and lots of "Hold muh beer, Cletus, ...'n watch thee'us!" moments.

An' speakin' of fuggedaboudit...

According to NJ Marine Police, noise testing had become too dangerous by 2003:

90 dB is awful bad, but this gets even worse:

"Save Barnegat Bay" only wanted a speed limit. They lost the speed limit battle, then went on to lose the noise WAR!

"The results needed?" Geez...

Hey, this was rejected by the NJ State-Motto-Contest:
http://fool.exler.ru/sm/velo.gif http://digilander.libero.it/tribers/smilies/beer.gif

Fat Jack,

There is a BIG differences between personal fredoms and rights. Personal freedoms are just that, freedoms. They are subject to change. Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and are irrevocable... unless your talking guns... but thats a whole other debate! Speech and Worship are Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Farting in church, however distasteful, is a freedom. Last I checked it wasn't illegal. Urinating in the town pool is illegal and subject to arrest under public urination statutes, or perhaps indecent exposure statutes. I think public urination in Laconia will net you a $300 fine. There are probably a few more statutes the police can use in that instance.

I have no problem sacrificing a personal freedom for the common good. However, you need to justify taking my personal freedom away. To date there has been all sorts of wrangling back and forth, yet the Pro HB-162 crowd and Winnfabs has yet to produce ANY hard numbers, from an official government document that justifies taking away my freedom! When you can produce those numbers and subsequent statistics, then I will be willing to change my mind and give up my freedom.

Boater...

Ouch... I am sorry you feel that way. I really and truly am.

When you try to institute a law or policy that severely restrict an individuals personal freedoms, the reaction from those most affected by the proposed regulation is negative at best, downright nasty at its worst. This is effect is compounded when the proposed restriction is not based on facts or statistics, but on emotion. We have all sorts of laws that limit our personal freedoms. All of those laws were passed based on prior factual evidence.

I have used facts and statistics published by the USCG and the NTSB in my argument against HB-162. I have not ridiculed or insulted anyone. I play nice on all of the websites I post on, and I respect everyones opinion. I do not post insults, or tell people to mind thier own state like others here have. I go out of my way to defend the positions of some of the Pro HB-162/Winnfabs crowd. My argument is not a "tired" argument, nor is it emotional. It is a passionate factual argument, supported by facts and statistics gleaned from official government documents. The numbers do not lie. I am sorry you don't like the way the numbers align. I have repeatedly asked your side to post thier facts, post thier statistics. I have asked again and again to post the whole story when posting about boat accidents. Bolster your argument that Lake Winnipesaukee and NH NEEDS a speed limit. To date they have posted 2 documents, the one page from the 2004 USCG report (originally posted by an NHRBA member) and the other a "Public Service" article published by the USCGA. The PSA from the USCGA had "Speed Kills" in the title, however, the article was about striking a sumerged object.

I personally have no problem with the R,R & D minority opinion on HB-162. I think NH should adopt the USCG standard which is the same as the International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea, also known as COLREGS.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I think that is a fair compromise for both sides. I would like to see some sort of funding package passed for the Marine Patrol as well. It would be a good thing for them to hire a few more officers. The mere presence of the MP boats in the congested parts of Lake Winnipesaukee has a distinct calming effect.

APS... Feel free to post the link to the adventures of Team Jefe. There are quite a few of them on the Donzi forum, most involve offshore salt water fishing and some sort of hot looking girl. He is from Texas, thats the way they are down there. He is an exceptionally good friend of mine regardless of whatever buffoonery he may partake. The really funny thing is he doesn't drink.. he can't. Severe stomach issue. But whatever, feel free to post it! I can ping him an e-mail so he can log on and tell you the stories himself if you would like. He actually trailered his 30' Fishing Boat from Houston Texas to Lake Winnipesaukee, just to boat here. It doesn't go faster than 52-55 MPH.

As far as noise regs go, I don't have a problem with revisiting them.


Woodsy

A bunch of sailboaters on Barnegat Bay wanted a "statewide" speed limit on ALL inland tidal waters , not just Barnegat Bay. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to fix what isn't broke.;)