Rusty, my issue with that video is there is what I would consider reckless operation which had a MP boat been in the area I suspect they would have been stopped. However, I think it's the sound that really draws the attention too them and why people oppose them.

Last summer we were at the West Alton sandbar and one of the super shiny old-school wooden boats picked up anchor. When he started the motor I swear it must have regsitered as a mini-quake. As he pulled away, he headed somewhere towards Wolfeboro at what appeared crusing speed probably around 20-25 MPH. That boat was loud and my wife's comment was, "why does he have to drive it so fast"?

Keep in mind that most basic bowriders can reach 50 MPH so making every boat on the water into law breakers isn't fair either. The speed limit doesn't change a single thing on the lake.

If you think the dumb moves are isolated to high performance boats you don't boat on the same Winni I do. However, I do find most people respectful of other boats and it's not pandamonium as the SL supporters would like to mislead the non-boating public to believe.

Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub...moorage_e.pdfS

A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded.

The biggest threat to the lake are those who on shorefront property. How many things from their properties and docks end up in the lake. You talk about stuff making into the lake. Let's talk about run-off from clearings and the 100s and 100s of septic fields that are nowvery close to the lake.

So keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem.

Too busy to play scientist right now.

#1 your opinion sorry I and I'm sure many others don't share.
#2 his opinion I promise I won't take a fast boat to concord
#3 put yourself in the shoes of those who want to go faster than 45 under safe conditions and see how you would feel even though there are no high speed accident statistics on the lake and by that I mean greater than 3 mph we know that wouldn't have made a difference
#4 by the way I am a passenger on 93 south as I type and wait isn't there a speed limit...... with a point system that must be why everyone is going 55

It's unbelievable how people can say "no high speed accidents" when there have been 3 in recent years.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."

One was estimated at 3 mph over the night time sl like that would have made a difference what are the other 2 if you don't mind refreshing my memory...... you cant say 33 is high speed and that's why we need to get rid of all these 100 mph boats it makes no sense

It's unbelievable how people can equate "high speed accidents" with accidents "attributed to speed".

The speed in the accident you mention was calculated to be AT LEAST 33 mph. However the speed limit also says the the speed must be "reasonable and prudent" for the conditions. I was out on the lake that night and in my opinion anything over about 15 mph was speeding. So if you want to play the numbers game I will say that in my opinion the speed of the boat was at least 18 mph over the current speed limit.

With respect to the other two accidents, why is it my job to refresh your memory on those accidents. You should be familiar with all the accidents before you post statements claiming there have been "no high speed accidents".

Additionally there have been other high speed accidents not involving death that you are not considering. The three accidents I refer to are only recent FATAL accidents. The have also been other fatal accidents that are not recent including a multiple decapitation accident at extreme high speed.

Posting you opinion on an open forum is one thing. However when you post as a statement of fact, you should know what you are talking about.

When/where/details? This is one I am not aware of or it least it doesn't ring a bell.

BI, I want to spend a few hours out on a boat with you next summer and we'll review our findings together. Did you ever think that perhaps you're only willing to "see" the bad in every action taken on the lake?

It seems that as soon as people own lakefront property the angst from some sense of entitlement must keep you guys awake at night. I just don't see the pandamonium that you describe. You seem to infer that boating fatalities are a daily occurence. Look how many people visit the lake each year. The data just doesn't show speed as public enemy number one. If I thought the SL would make any difference I would support it. If you restrict Hp, then you WILL hit the wallets of marinas and I don't see that gaining much traction. Many boats have 250-350 Hp on the lake. Even the mid-line Four Winns like I own which is an everyman's bowrider it pushing 320 Hp for a 23 foot boat.

Enforce the 150 ft rule heavily and make sure at every launch and marina, have signs that remind people. You want people to think before they act. Speed tickets/fines on the road are meant as revenue enhancement and don't deter speeding. Haven't you had a psycology 101? So why on earth would you think they would work on a lake?

In all of this debate, I still don't see what you are trying to fix that a heavily enforced 150 ft rule doesn't already address? Please, I'd like a serious answer.

really I should do my research....... who was decapitated on lake winni and when did related to speed become high speed ......you believe your opinion to be fact and all else as garbage so why don't we stick to winni issues and stop drawing photos and stories from all over the world into this .......... I just want you to give me an example of your claimed many high speed accidents from this lake

You are reading WAY to much into my posts. When I have a point to make, I make it.

I do not believe accidents are the main reason we need speed limits. In fact they are rather far down on my list of reasons.

However... There is now pending legislation which makes this a political debate. If you post statements of fact that are untrue in a political debate you should expect to be called on it. That is all I am doing. Years ago I researched these accidents and I know the facts. I believe the anti-SL side should know the facts BEFORE they post blanket statements about these accidents. Or before they post that these accidents never happened.

These are real accidents with real people. It is an insult to their memory to claim these accidents never happened.

Once again I will point out it is not my job to educate the anti-SL side about the facts. However I will point out that all the accidents I refer to have been posted about in this very forum.

BI, I am not one who just throws chafe out there and can back up my facts. I do not know of any high speed accident/fatality involving decapitation. If it's so common knowledge than please enlighten me.

Solution
 

Here's my solution to this speed limit:

1) Get rid of the fixed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, NH's largest lake. Apply the USCG "reasonable and prudent" rule.

2) Make the fixed speed limit (45/25) applicable to all other lakes in NH.

This way there is something for everyone. People who want peace and quiet (don't give me the "safety" BS) can go to the hundreds of other lakes in the state and enjoy themselves to the utmost.

Meanwhile, Marine Patrol can enforce the dozens of laws already on the books to go after BWI, the safe passage law, equipment violations, etc., etc,.......................................

I think we should do a poker run with APS and BI's places as waypoints. Maybe even have a swim call/rafting party out there as well!! :laugh::devil::banana:

It happened in Gilford many years ago. A boat traveling at high speed hit a dock at night, went airborne and hit a house inverted. The three occupants of the boat were decapitated.

It was posted about extensively in August of 2003 in the old forum so you need to search the archives. The threads are named "Boat enters cottage - upside down.." and "Baja gets air". This accident was also part of the testimony in the Moultonboro HB162 public hearing.

It has been discussed in recent years on this forum but I have been informed by SL supporters that it happened to long ago to count. I guess that means it never happened and the people are not dead.

I think there should be.... get this.... a COMPROMISE!

IMHO, all of the FATAL accidents have occured at NIGHT and ALCOHOL was involved! In EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT there was a violation of the COLREGS! EVERY SINGLE ONE! It can be argued that all accidents are violations of the COLREGS. But in the last 2 accidents, both accidents occured at NIGHT, several of the COLREGS were violated, quite possibly some BWI laws as well. Niether of the last 2 accidents occured over the current night time speed limit of 30 MPH.... however they were both grossly in violation of Rule 6, namely too fast for the conditions at the time of the accident and failure to keep a proper lookout. Add in booze and you have recipe for disaster. No speed limit would have prevented these accidents from occuring!

I personally think a COMPROMISE is in order! I get that there are extremeists on either side, but I think there can be middle ground!

I propose the adoption of the COLREGS, an unlimited DAYTIME limit (when visibility can be measured in MILES) and keep the current night time limit of 30 MPH.

My logic is this, we have had NO hi-speed collisions during the daytime. The reason being visibilty is measured in miles, and we have the 150' rule! That rule does more to prevent accidents than many people realize!

Most of the major accidents occur at night, and usually alcohol is involved. Given the inherent lack of depth perception at night, lower visibilty, and increased possibility of intoxicated skippers... I think the current night time limit of 30 MPH is appropriate!

Woodsy

How do we search the archives for old posts? I'm coming up empty in the search efforts with just a link back to this thread.

I can offer no help in the search, but I recall the accident. Happened in the mid 1970s. A boat was traveling at a very high speed and hit the shore. The boat flipped in mid-air and crashed into a camp that was quite a distance from the shore. IIRC, all aboard were at least double the legal alcohol limit and all died. I'm pretty sure there was a major crackdown on BUI, as a result.

Were the boat operators also lakefront owners or related to someone who was? That also seems to be a recurring theme to the fatalities. Maybe the SL supporters need to look amongst themselves as to who to blame.......

Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.

But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.

And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.

The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum.

The mid 70's and alcohol related is that the one........ clutching at straws why should it be relevant?

Please read what I write more carefully. I never made any claim as to it's relevants. How relevant the accident is or is not is a matter of opinion. I only posted fact.

Jarhead posted that there were "no high speed accident statistics on the lake" That was his claim and he put no time limits on this claim. I refuted his post by mentioning several accidents including this one. The accident in question was high speed, fatal, and happened on Winnipesaukee. That is all I ever claimed.

What was the speed again and where is it documented.... that's right nowhere we have no idea if the boat was going over 45 all we have is some forum chatter and speculation

Testimony before a legislative committee, by a professional accident investigator, is not "forum chatter".

For a third time I will point out that it is not by duty to educate the anti-SL side about accident data. You want me to do all the leg work and post it here so you can pick it apart and come up with reasons why it is not relevant.

My point is that you need to educate yourself about the facts BEFORE you start making blanket statements about the history of boat accidents on Winnipesaukee.

BI, given that alcohol was a key factor do you honestly think a speed limit would have done anything to change the drivers thought process that night?

And if you need to bring up something from the 70s to maintain relevance to today's current problems then I will call you out on it. The article does not say how fast they were going but it would appear the chain of events that led to the crash is too much to drink.

So what data exists showing 45 MPH will make any difference for daytime boating?

The SL proponents desire to link some of these accidents is a prime example of how correlation does not imply causation. Suggested reading for the pro-SL crowd: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation

We could spend hours just discussing the lack of correlation. I frequently post things as a tongue-and-cheek way for people to see the fallacies of their logic but it often goes over people's heads.

I just want some hard facts and I get nothing but do my own research comments .... I have and can find no official data to support the claims of all these high speed accidents .... I have educated myself and there are no facts

Once again you are reading way to much into what I post. I am only posting the FACT that these accidents occurred.

I leave it to the reader to determine their own OPINION as to how relevant these accidents are to a speed limit.

If you want to look things up on wikipedia, try looking up the difference between fact and opinion.

Would it help if I copied pages from the stats books on the shelf right next to my desk?

Didn't the M/S Mount Washington have a drunk passenger go overboard and die several years ago? The boat was *gasp*, moving. The captain must be a cowboy. Yeeeehaaaaaa!

Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.

BI, how many of the accidents involving fatalities have involved alcohol? Attributed to speed? If the boats weere moving then I guess he's correct in that is was a factor.

Correlation does not mean causation ;) Psst, the insurance companies rely on this fact when setting car insurance rates.:eek:

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;150506]Below is a quote from David Barrett the head of the New Hampshire Marine Patrol and a long time opponent of speed limits. He is an "official" and he is quoting "data". Therefore there IS official data. I guess you did not educate yourself well enough.



Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed.[/QUOte


speed doesn't mean high speed that's what your missing......why do I bother you win I can't take anymore

I'm curious if even ONE person out there has changed their mind on the need or lack thereof based on the years of back-and-forth by posting not only here but the newspapers and other forums.

I'm grounded in hard science and don't see the SL having any effect on the lake other than a a dozen or so tickets being handed out each year.

I can see where the SL-proponents perceptions would lead them to believe a speed limit will be effective and possibly improve safety. However, after having admitted that the speed limits won't fix many of the problems people thought, they still fight for it. Do you really think someone doing 50 MPH in a bowrider is worthy of a ticket and points on their license? The SL supporters all or nothing attitude is what I think will cause them to lose the battle with SB-27......

An accident involving a boat travelling at 10 MPH in a no-wake zone could be attributed to speed.

A boat traveling at 100 mph could hit Weirs Beach and kill 100 people.

Yes... I know... The accident I describe is made up, not very likely and doesn't really pertain to SB27. Just like yours.

I don't know what's worse. The M/S Mount Washington crashing into something or a 100 MPH bowrider. Which one has happened and which is the one the SL proponents want to portray has happened?

A big jet could have a malfunction during takeoff, crash into the sandbar at Silver Sands during a NASCAR race week, and kill 101 people sitting on their boats. Shall we now ban all jet traffic from Laconia airport?

An interstellar dark body could pass through the Solar System's Oort Cloud causing a comet to fall through the Kuiper Belt on its way to impact the Sun. The disruption in the Sun's plasma could cause solar radiation to effect communications satellites. Thus a satellite could fall out of orbit and hit the pilot house of the M/S Mount Washinton as it passes the Witches causing it to loose control and hit two bow riders sending them out of control towards the Silver Sands sandbar resulting in SB27 failing to get out of committee.

I was hoping it was going to end with an asteroid hitting Bear Island and making it a crater and a new deep diving area on Lake Winnipesaukee and the resulting lake tsunami from the initial impact would take out all the surrounding lake front homes. About 50 years later the speed limit debate would start to warm up again.

Live Free or Die!
 

I want to testify about SB-27 next week, but I will be on a boat with engines 50 times larger than any boat on Winnipesaukee.

In place of testimony, let me say the following:

There are some folks that have insinuated that they represent the majority of opinion about what should be the law on Lake Winnipesaukee. IMO there was fraudulent correspondence to legislators that influenced their initial vote. I think the people of New Hampshire are more concerned with freedom, than trying to tweak themselves into a false nirvana of safety. There are some rich shorefront property owners, (Island and Mainland) that want to control how the lake is used. Little by little these rich people will try to control how they think the lake should be used. Does anyone want this lake controlled by rich shorefront owners? It's the people of New Hampshire who must decide. Live Free or Die! Never has this motto meant as much as it does now!

SB27 is about speed being reasonable and prudent. Both situations described here would apply.

Here's my 2-cents. After this bill gets voted down in the legislative process, the 'Safe Boaters of New Hampshire' should rename themselves the 'Speedy Boaters of New Hampshire' to be honest.