You sound EXACTLY like Island Lover. I missed the fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer, please provide details.

Your pole (sic) is useless, for all we know you polled your family and friends again and one more decided to register to vote.

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

Uncle Fun - Horsepower limits are in effect on dozens of NH lakes already. The MP has no problem enforcing them. I'm sure you can sneak in a few extra hp here and there, but not very much.

HP limits are also common on municipal water supplies. In MA, Quabin has a 10 horsepower limit.

If you think horsepower limits are not coming one of these years, then you are living in a dream.

Islander, lover and or bear lover: What death this year in NH are you referring to? Give us details. Define performance boat. 25 or 27 the result several years ago would still be the same. I am not aware that authorities would really ticket someone for 2mph over. That could be an error for differences of equipment.

The Union leader Blog showed that most boaters do not agree with you. There should be a poll from educated boaters that have taken the course. The results would be considerably different. Would you like to have plumbers make decisions on your vascular system? That what your so called poll feels like.

POLL: As an educated boater in NH, Considering that more registrations are on the increase and accidents are on the decline, Education is now mandatory, and NH has a safe passage law. Do you agree that a blanket speed limit of 25 night and 45 day on all NH lakes and waterways would be beneficial to ALL users. YES or NO

You just keep changing tactics from one inaccuracy to another. I want you to tell me about the high speed fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer that you (ala APS, although he is much better at it) alluded to because I missed it and apparently so did all your SL friends.

Here is a real "fact" for you:

If you think 2 mph would make that much difference , you 're the one in a dream world. I think alcohol and/or inattention due to alcohol had more to do with it but heaven forbid we mention that. So lets ban alcohol just like back in the days of prohibition. I mean entirely , not just on the water or highway. I mean close the bars and liquor stores and rid your trash cans of brown bottles.

There you go again Islander!
The first mention of this ficticious fatal accident was referrenced by YOU, post #52
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...light=islander

Several folks asked you then to give details, you did not. Now you are again referrencing this high speed fatal accident.
I did a Lexis-Nexis search of publications, TV, broadcast and wire services for this fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2007. Know what I turned up?
Of course you do, NOTHING!

Then I localized it and did a search of 2007 in the Union-Leader and Foster's, want to know what I found? You already know Islander don't you?
NOTHING.

So when and where did this fatal accident involving speed on Lake Winnipesaukee happen? Looks like you're the only one who knows about it because we all know that you would never ever twist facts or make them up to aid your cause of getting High Speed Capable Boats off Lake Winnipesaukee, right?

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

By the way, lets see what happens if you get your horsepower limit. Most marinas sell large boats, both cruisers and GFBL's. Hamper their business by taking that away and they go out of business. Maybe many of the big boats do leave. What funds the towns then? Industry down, major businesses hurting, the taxpayers have to make it up. Hopefully that will have a negative effect on your tax bill and drive you and your Posse of Protectors and your agendas off the lake. :laugh:

No
 

1 Vote For No.

While we are at it, who really is to say that he was doing 27mph and not 25mph? The speed was based on the damage done to both boats and not by any real reading. Depending on the angle of the drives when the impact occured this would affect how far the offending boat traveled up and over the stern of the boat that was hit. There is no way to tell where the drives were at and exactly how far up the nose was. It's all a guess.

Other than your thoughts that the boat in question does not belong on the lake Dan was not truly speeding or operating even operating faster than conditions warranted. Alcohol and innattention caused the accident (and maybe lack of lights?). Your petty speed limit revenge bill will not bring your friend back. Let it go, this is not the way to avenge him.

Islander, it seems as though your the only one who is aware of a fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer. Several people have asked for the details including myself and you just ignore these requests and continue with your agenda and misinformation campaign.

PWC fatality
 

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

"Who is to say he was doing 27" that would be the Marine Patrol. And they said 28 not 27. 28 is more than 25 which makes it faster than the proposed limit.

If you can assume that 28 is really a lower number then I am free to assume a higher number. From now on can I post that Dan was doing 68 mph? People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine.

I suppose you want to assume the PWC in the fatal accident has standing still. However the accident certainly involved a high speed craft. Incredible how people have forgotten that accident. The legislature will not forget, nor will they forget the Maine accident.

I have no desire for revenge. In fact as far as Dan goes, there but for the grace of god go many of us. However I do not believe these boats are appropriate for Winnipesaukee.

If you cite a source, it's always good to read same!
 

I am surprised at your constant confusion over this issue. Did you not take the time to read the appeal that you cited for us numerous posts ago? Let me refresh your memory:




...The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257.


...WE AGREE WITH THE STATE...

Once again, and confirmed by the appeals court, Littlefield was convicted of the felony death of another by failing to maintain a proper lookut do in large part by the jury lawfully (and constitutionally) considering the ample evidence supplied by the State that he was intoxicated!


Methinks one should perhaps take the time to deeply consider one's own opinion! :)

Thanks Mac, this family has suffered a huge loss. I'm sure a speed limit and getting GFBL boats off the lake would have prevented this tragedy, not!!!!!! :rolleye1:

There is a reason why there is a law against children driving PWCs. How do you (Islander) know this was a "high speed" craft? How do you know it was going at a high speed? One more example of twisting the facts or in this case inserting your own incorrect facts to serve your agenda.

Why not, we're used to your misportrayals, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Seems like a perfectly logical progression to me.

Soapbox please
 

As the saying goes,"better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt".

Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?

All the rationalization in the world will never make 28 less than 25.


The poll I quoted is from the American Research Group.


ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

However I never claimed a speed limit would prevent fatal accidents. Speed limits on our roads do not prevent fatal accidents. The idea is to set standards and hope they lower the chances a little.

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

You are so off-base on PWC it is amazing. Nice sweeping statement. Nothing like a little scare tactic to start the day.
Not all PWCs are capable of exceeding the proposed speed limit. There are several models which can barely do 40 mph. Sure they can get up to speed quickly, but that isn't part of the arguement.
A speed limit will NOT keep PWCs off of any body of water. Well maybe except Squam. Mine will barely do 50 mph, and I won't be going anywhere else. I just may run circles around Bear Is. at top speed. Go ahead and report me...I am going the speed limit.

Yes, of course there are PWCs that go over 45 mph. But they won't be going away anytime soon.

No confusion on my side...Islander clearly stated that the fatality this summer involved a high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. Last time I checked there was nothing tying the unfortunate accident with the PWC and the 15yo boy to speed. Many PWC hardly break a true (not speedo) 50mph under perfect conditions.

Risks and the right to persue happiness
 

Of course it will lower the chances - but how much? Do we have a 50% of all fatalities problem or more like 1%?

But why stop there? Why not go all the way?

Are you saying:

1. eliminating all boats from the lake will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
2. prohibiting kayaks from going out at night, even with lights, will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
3. requiring all passengers to be able to drive a boat will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (remember the sister who couldn't drive a boat when the driver went in the water to retrieve a map?)
4. prohibiting kids under 6 from swimming will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (how many kids have died?)
5. requiring all Mt. Washington boat passengers to stay at least 3 feet from the rail will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (did they ever find that guy?)

Who wants to go on the record supporting those statements?

You see the point? There are many things that could lower the chances of a fatal accident. But we are not seeing 45+ speed as a signficant contributing factor (ie, more than n% of fatalities). Alcohol on the other hand is - and is addressed by law. Below a certain point, the risks and results are acceptable - above a certain point, they are not.

Some people (not all) like speed. The country was founded on a bill of rights that includes the persuit of happiness. Those who try to restrict that persuit through law need to be challenged by those who respect law.

When I hit 60, I plan to purchase a jetski that will do 60 mph and persue me some happiness. :D Until then, I will fight to keep the right to be within the law as I safely persue.

Can we quibble about the meaning of quibble?
 

Once again you are incorrect, and I will ask you to please take a few moments and read the Supreme Court case that you cited.

From the same NH Supreme Court decision:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening...

Sorry Islander....not "weak evidence" but "significant evidence; the difference being, well, significant!

But hey, thanks for continually sending me these softballs, Lord knows I can use the batting practice! :D

If in fact there was an overwhelming majority of accidents to date that were caused by speeds seriously greater than the proposed limits I might agree with you but since CG reports do not agree with you neither will I.

Sure, I will not argue that at slower speeds you have more reaction. A 2-4mph over a 25mph sped limit is not ridiculous and it is still hard to prove exactly what speed within a few mph he was traveling. I have not heard of a claim to speed in the accident in Maine but do not doubt that they were flying although on a dark night with a boat in your path that was not lit they are not entirely at fault. A speed limit may likely have had no effect, if a person is going to speed they are going to speed. A speed limit will not stop them. I speed frequently in my car or suv, chances are you and the bulk of the people on the forum do as well.

Why don't you start a new crusade, maybe smart chips installed in cars or boats that will read the speed limit of a certain area and govern the vehicle automatically? Seems like it could be a new quest for you.

Just received this in an email because I am on the mailing list for alerts. I know we already know here that it has been defeated, but here is the more definitive direction of those that want a speed law in place are now going, it is a warning to us all:Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our rights.

Skip - As people will do when on the losing side of an argument, you are attempting to jump on any possible misstatement of mine. You have made two large posts based on one sentence. All I said was that the prosecution only proved 2 glasses of wine. But it just doesn't matter.

Lets assume he was blasted if you like.

The facts are: 28 is more than 25, he was acquitted of BWI, the speed limit bill will pass.


I do not know how fast the PWC was going. But unless it was not moving it had a speed. And a PWC is a high speed craft.

I'm glad some of you understand that speed limits will lower the chances of a fatal accident.

Lakegeezer's ideas would I think save lives. If he thinks it prudent he can push for legislation on those ideas. I would predict none of them will pass. However I, like 78% of NH registered voters believe speed limits are a good idea, and I have no doubt they will pass.

Amen!
 

"If at first you don't succeed. Quit! No sense in being a damn fool about it!" W.C. Fields

Of course he was acquitted of BWI, how do you test someone a few days after the incident? He made himself scarce and did not come into contact with the Police for a day or two. No surprise there.

ban ALL boats
 

Since Winnipesaukee is legally a drinking water supply, I think we should ban ALL BOATS. Motorized and nonmotorized. No pollutants and it will quit all this bickering about speed limits, no wake zones, no rafting zones, horsepower limits, length of boats limits etc.
Think of the money we save by eliminating all boats and the Marine patrol. No problems with some islanders as they think they can walk on water....................:rolleye1:

You are way too easy. Not all PWCs are "high speed craft" (capable of going over 45 mph). In fact riding a PWC over 25 or 30 for any long period of time (longer than a couple of minutes) can be quite uncomfortable. That is why almost all the PWCs I see when on the lake are easily passed at 30 MPH in my boat. (Of course, you sitting on your island, with your preconceived misconceptions would probably swear I was going 90 if you saw me pass a PWC.)


If anything, a speed limit will INCREASE the chances of a fatal accident on the lake by diverting MP from patrolling for 150' violations and other unsafe practices. Instead they will be sitting in one spot, probably in front of your house, sitting in speed traps.

Speed traps, BTW, that were tested this summer and showed there is NO speeding problem on Lake Winnipesaukee.


This 28 versus 25 BS is an estimate by an expert, it is not fact, we've argued this before and you are still wrong.

The next crusade!
 

Something for Islander et al to work on after she has rid Winnipesaukee of those DANGEROUS boats.

This quote is from an Op-Ed piece in a California newspaper:
Link to the article:
http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2...t-harbor13.txt

So, there’s your next challenge Islander!!! Get those bicycles off the road and close down those pools! :eek: I wonder it a hot tub is considered a pool or bathtub? :laugh:

Islander

Your logic states that kayaks and all paddle boats should be banned, because there involved in more deaths than performance boats.

This speed limit bill will not decrease the likely hood of a death related accident.

YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY.

It's not surprising that the MP can't find a speed problem in the test areas.

If you visit the offshore boating site you will find members, some that post in this forum, planning to either avoid the test sites or stay under the proposed limits when they are in the test sites.

If the truth doesn't work...... screw up the data.


If the MP wated to collect some valid data they could try unmarked boats in undisclosed areas. Publicizing the test area is... ..... .... ...... sorry I was laughing to hard to type.



ITD - Can you tell me the make and model of those PWC's that have a top speed under 45 mph?

Tigershark, I see many of these on the lake, the Seadoo two seaters with the smaller engine made a few years ago. I'm sure there are others.


Once again you project your actions onto others.

Tigershark is an Arctic Cat not Seadoo. Top speed about 70 if you are alone. I used to ride one.

Ok here we go.....
 

Yamaha XL 700 Will barely make 40
Seadoo GTI again a stretch to do 40

Also, Islander how about the data MP DID collect from undisclosed speed zones!!! Oh ya, you wouldn't want to mention that, because it doesn't support your crusade!!!

Cite your source please.

Of course they publicized the test locations, they were planning on ticketing in those areas. If you are going to make a new law and enforce it, it is rather key that you tell people about it first.

"Yes sir, we're going to have to give you a ticket for speeding. Oh, you didn't know there was a limit now? Of course not, we didn't tell you because we thought you might slow down otherwise."

High Speed ?
 

I have to ask what you consider to be a high speed. Also was the PWC the teenager riding one of these or a lesser watercraft ? Since you don't know how fast he was going I really have to question what drives you to apply the term "speed related fatality" to this incident ? Moreover last I had read the craft didn't look damaged and so the possibility of collision with another vessel seems remote at this time. In what way would this incident support the need for a speed limit which, if I recall what I've been told, is to protect "us" from the "speeders". Are "we" now pushing for another law to protect "us" from "ourselves" ?

As for Littlefield's speed I again remind people that if he was doing 28 mph and the Hartmans doing just 4 mph, the closing speed would have been under the proposed nightime limit. That anyone believes that, had the SL been in place that night, the results would have been any different ... well I guess I'll have to remind myself more often of what Einstein had to say about the vastness of human intelligence. :rolleye1:

Only Islander?
 

May I suggest to those of us who believe that there are currently laws on the books in NH that address the issues Islander et al are pushing focus our comments, via this forum, to Legislators in Concord?

Instead of responding to the outragous falsehoods and lies that Islander(s) et al are making, just point out to lawmakers that they are false and show them, through facts, statisics etc., why they are false.

Challenge legislators and the Governor to follow the data! No speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in years! NH requires a safe boating certificate! Data collected by the Marine Patrol! Things are working, the lake is safe, leave it alone!

In my opinion, Islander Et Al, has a problem, perhaps it is that he/she needs to be the center of attention?

Let's call on LEGISLATORS to really look at this bill and the data that the NH Marine Patrol has collected and KILL IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!

You rode a what???
 

Another great falsification, wanna rethink that one?. Tigershark/Arctic Cat never made a machine that would break even a true 60mph. The fastest pwc to date on the market (in true mph not false speedo mph, or "dreamo" as many pwc enthusiasts call it) is approximately 70mph. There are two machines that are capable of this, the new 250hp Kawasaki 3 seater and the 2 seater 215hp Sea Doo RXP. I am a PWC lover and have owned and ridden dozens of machines. My fastest one was a highly modified GP1200R, with $6k+ in mods it was only good for 73.7mph on radar. If you think that your probably stock Tigershark was a 70mph machine you are sadly mistaken, or just inflating speeds to suit your own agenda.

I can give you the name of an ex Tigershark dealer (they have not been produced in years) and you can verify for yourself. As for the speed stats of the Kawasaki and the Sea Doo I would be more than happy to dig up a test report if you need it. My FX-HO Yamaha is a 60mph machine all day long, under perfect conditions and no fuel you can see 62-63mph. The speedo may read 70+ but it is not accurate, nor is the speedo on any pwc. Riva Yamaha in FL is a Yamaha and Sea Doo dealer and one of the top pwc performance companies on the planet. Their performance upgrade section lists the actual top speed of most of the top machines onm the market and what their mods do to add to it.

By the way, our two yamaha 700 3 seaters will not break 45mph, probably 42 max.

Please read my sentence closely. I did not say the Tigershark was a Seadoo. I was giving you two examples. I think I am beginning to understand why you can't be reasoned with.

If he/she thinks a Tigershark ever did 70 mph, then he/she has no concept of being able to judge speed.

Here is one thread on the subject. You better get there quick, based on past experience those posts are going to start disappearing soon.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...d.php?t=157911

I like the quote below from that thread. It explains the entire thing was a sham.

"The only Ray of Sunshine I have heard is that a friend of mine (senator in NH) says it will never pass. The test was just a way to move it out of sight..."

I doubt Barrett ever had any intension of handing out any tickets. The entire thing was a delay tactic, or as the offshore people themselves think, a way to move it out of site. Then he has the incredible nerve to actually say he was trying to do what WinnFABS wanted. Give me a break!

We may all disagree with the need for a speed limit. But if you think the MP have not been playing their own game, then you have your head in the sand.