And Skip don't forget, it also must be false!

But thanks for the reminder about how nice they are, however I just called the MP and they don't have any data available for release.

ITD - Where did you get this data? You claim to know for a fact that the data doesn't support speed limits. I am trying to keep an open mind about the data (it's not easy) so I want to go over it.

Or did you just make up the entire thing?

Come on Islander, I'm sure that's the last thing you want is for the MP to release the results of their tests. Since you have a selective memory I will put the post here again for you. The "data" clearly exists and is referenced by the guy you are working diligently to discredit.


Looked it up, yep, it applies. Slander might work a little better though.

In case you forgot what you posted, here's a gem:

Where's your data for that statement? Pretty strong accusation of a public employee. S-L-A-N-D-E-R, L-I-B-E-L


<!-- / message -->

If I remember correctly the test zone idea was generated as a result from the September 25, 2006 Meredith gathering. Not from the proposed HB-847.

The data collected was published through local media. From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph. Readings were taken from several locations and not just within the proposed test areas. Another conclusion is that boats observed were thought to be traveling faster than they actually were. The actual number of radar hits was not stated, though the observation has been most of the boating season.
This is what I have read so far.
It is clear to me that people who do not know what speed really is like (observation) assume that boats are constantly going over 45 where in fact they are most likely traveling much slower.

When I was ten years old I thought the family boat ( 16' Thompson/ 40hp Scottatwater) could go 60mph. It actually could only muster 22-25mph.

As I grew older I got accustom to what speed is, Too bad others are not, especially RENTERS.

Islander: Just so you know the fastest I have been on the water was 140mph. It was a 17' tunnel with 300 hp. So your next agenda to limit hp and size will come up to that logic.

What ?
 

Actually I tend to think that any speed limit will have a zero to positive effect on the numbers of PWCs on Winni. Let's say people forgoe the big fast boats for "lesser" craft, what do you expect they'll be ? Frankly I'd expect them to be PWCs as they're relatively cheap bang for the buck. Gas prices will drive their sales more than any SL. Anybody know what the RCS of a typical PWC is ?

Again if the purpose of the speed limit is to reduce the "high speed" boat collisions, I don't see why you're mentioning accidents where such collisions didn't occur and you don't even know the speeds involved. For you I guess it is all about ridding the lake of those people you deem undesirable.

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

ITD - So there is no data! You made the whole thing up!!!

You said the data proves speed limits are not needed, now you have nothing but a weak quote from Barrett?

"The data that we're collecting is not giving us a sense that there's a lot of high-speed boat traffic,"

Spoken like a true political hack. He leaves himself a couple of back doors to get out when things go against him. What constitutes a "sense" how much is "a lot".

Barrett is not just a public figure, he is a political figure, makes a libel almost impossible. And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true, hence no libel. Plus he would have to prove my statement are false, he could only do that by never taking a job in the boating industry. As long as he is alive it is possible he may take a job in the boating industry, if he is dead libel no longer applies. There are more but what is the point.

Barrett's background is in law enforcement, not the boating industry. Unless you have some proof that he is lobbying for a job in the boating industry you are making false claims (certainly not unlike you :laugh: ) and should move on. Who cares if he is??? He has a right to work when at some point he does leave MP. He has a pretty big job to fill and i do not think he is doing a bad job. He deals with hundreds of bodies of water, he deals with constantly changing help, he deals with thousands of boaters and one island full of whiners. Give the guy a rest and let him do it! If you think that you can do better go file an application...

If you would really like to know what his plans are after MP I'll ask! I don't expect it to matter anyhow because no matter what he says you will discount it and crap on him.

Defamation, Libel and Slander
 

Here are some definitions without all the legalize.

The following partial definitions are taken from
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...efamation.html
Sounds familiar doesn't it?

I feel like I am in bizarro world when I read your posts. So let's use your logic on your statements. According to you, since there is no published data on speed then there is absolutely no need for a speed limit because there is no proof that boats are speeding. If we need proof that boats aren't speeding, then we should have proof that boats are speeding before we legislate a major change in the law and how the lake is patrolled. There have been no deaths on Winnipesaukee attributed to speed in years, if ever, so there is no need for a speed limit. Your case is beyond weak, it is non-existant. Just applying your train of thought.

"And I have a reasonable belief my statements are true", just the fact that you try to destroy someone's character based on this line shows that anything you write is suspect, how about just sticking to the truth instead of your twisted "beliefs", honestly, I'm not sure you can tell the difference.

To use your logic, one could say: "A study was performed for the month of July and revealed that not a single canoe was seen going accross the broads. Therefore, we've deemed it illegal for canoes to be in broads".

Just becuase people tend not to go terribly fast in boats is no reason to limit them if they want to and can do it safely (history has shown they can).

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

It's like here, but bog-slow and for cruiser captains.

I read today a current topic on how cautious they are around the many unlighted boats in their various after-dark cruising environments.

They don't have naked Brattleboro kayakers—the cruisers all have radar and it's far worse for them! :eek:

Les already moderates at least two forums and manages a related business.

He stepped into BoaterEd's Winnipesaukee speed topic in 2005. My brief summary appears HERE.

And from our own archive in full, HERE.

Minus the map of Lake Winnipesaukee which heads his post, I've quoted Les' entire post below:

Sounds sensible, huh?

Are you kidding?
A rational thinking person would deduct that if the MP's didn't write any tickets (and no they will not ticket for 1 mph over limit as boat speedos are usually far from accurate) Than there is NO SPEEDING PROBLEM on the lake therfore there is no need for an additional law that would do nothing but pull valuable MP resources away from FAR more serious problems such as safe passage and alcohol based violations. Oh yeaa, and drunk naked kyackers, which apparently we do have a problem with.:D

http://www.opposehb847.com/opposehb847/testimonials.htm

... more and more as each day passes!

But you are missing the big picture...
 

This supports the fact there is no need for a speed limit. And since I pay taxes in 2 NH towns....I REALLY don't want anymore of my money wasted on this effort! There are waaayyyy more important things to worry about in NH and I want my tax dollars and lawmakers efforts going towards those. This bill is unfounded and UNFUNDED. Money will fly out of your pockets to pay for it if it passes. Also, instead of marine patrol doing their jobs looking out for intoxicated drivers and helping boaters in need....they will be sitting in coves with radar guns. It's ridiculous. And of course you're right, it's some of my freedom being taken away....but there's more at stake here than that.

I really don't understand the supporters. The whole test pilot was a result of their request in a Meredith hearing when they petioned the DOS for a speed limit. Then because it wasn't going their way they bag on the pilot and call it a joke? And you also are now complaining about people actually slowing down so they can't be caught by radar???? Isn't that what you wanted, for people to slow down?

I'm picking up the phone to call my local reps again today to tell them how mad I am that time and money is still being wasted on this useless battle. We don't need a speed limit.

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

Now that you mention it….

Actually the founding fathers were most concerned about maintaining the “most” unpopular rights. Freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular speech for it does not need protection. It is meant to protect your speech in this discussion. I think you would find old Ben to be quite squarely against your position to limit the rights of a small group.

Benjamin Franklin wrote
Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania</ST1:p (1759)

My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.

Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

He was definitely showboating for the camera a bit and caught a wave the wrong way. His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead. Compare it to rear ending another car when you are moving along, the force involved certainly does not leave you sitting in your seat. Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds.

The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.

[QUOTE=Dave R]Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.[/QUO


Yes I would agree there are injuries from operating too fast for conditions on the lake in bow riders. In fact we've had a few ourselves when we were newbie boaters. A speed limit will NOT stop that...you can dictate the law but you can't dictate common sense. I was specifically referring to the video of the GFBL boat's racing at high speeds across the ocean. I've yet to see that happen here but I understand the broader meaning of the video and how it relates to us boats on Lake Winni. I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

Not that I'm aware of. Those boats handle typical Winni chop with ease and I rarely see more than 2 together.

What law are you referring to?

RSA 270:29-a
 

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

Skip beat me to it.

"We Can't See Waves"
 

If you're in a sailboat, you'll have the perspective to see that it's pretty common—especially on weekends.

They often observe the "Safe Passage" rule—so they're racing—but "legally".

1) The boat was "in a collision with itself", which wouldn't have happened going at a reasonable speed.

2) If it's "we can't see kayaks", can speeders also not see waves? :confused:

3) The boat is built to take it "at those speeds", but people aren't. The video shows that the boat wasn't "almost stopped", but still traveling fast—thankfully for the passengers. (And thankfully there's a video to demonstrate the bone-breaking physics at work at extreme boat speeds).

4) Remember that New Hampshire only requires Marine Patrol reports within 24-hours of a fatality and don't require any report of property damage under $2000. (A recent change from just $500, which statistically improves New Hampshire's widely-touted 2005 Coast Guard statistics for boating accident safety). :rolleye2:

5) Because of a lack of requirements regarding injuries, there's no consistent way to determine how often "falls in boat" will appear in Coast Guard statistics. Most boaters would just transport injured parties to an Emergency Room.

That title page statement includes the phase "essential liberties".

Rocketing along at 70+MPH isn't an essential liberty.

Although the "unlimited speeds crowd" is willing to give up their liberty to go fast:

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

If the law enforcement agent considers the boater's speed "careless and negligent", then he can stop the boater and issue a citation. See - the law already exists to cite speed if it is careless and negligent. WE NEED NO MORE LAWS (or taxes)!

Batter up....
 

As my grandfather used to say... "Oblivious to the obvious". :rolleye1:

270:29-a is a "catch-all" If a MP officer was foolish enough to use it to charge a boater with speeding, the defense would be simple. "You honor, The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat. The officer has exceeded his authority and replaced the legislatures judgment with his own!"

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones

Islander, you're pretending right?

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

You forgot to mention your source for this information was not winni.com, but I'm sure you prefer others think it was from here.

What's the level of risk?
 

We were out riding recently in our 22 ft bow rider. We were in the broads traveling about 25 – 30 MPH. The chop was moderate to light. I caught a single rouge wave and it threw us up and dropped us down. My wife, riding in the bow, got slammed hard and was sore for a couple of days. I usually see these coming and slow down but I missed this one. It can happen to anyone unless you decide to travel everywhere at headway speed.

The guy in the video was being a hot dog. He pushed his luck and it ran out. Unfortunately his passengers also paid the price. Is there anything wrong in hot dogging per say? Most of the moments in sports or history that we celebrate (and relish) probably involved some pushing of the envelope. Sometime this is done for a good cause, sometimes just for fun. Explorers set off into an unknown ocean to discover foreign lands. More explorers roamed this country, poking into every nook and cranny. Families traveled West through mountains, deserts, and Indian attacks to reach new homes. We invented jets and some crazy people were the first to test pilot them. We landed on the moon. Firemen rush into burning buildings. Policemen face down armed criminals. An outfielder slams into a wall to catch a fly ball. We climb mountains. We sky dive, scuba dive, ski (water and snow), and race horses. We ride roller coasters, really big and crazy ones. We have Iron Man competitions that would grind most average people into jello. I took a teenager for a tube ride and snapped around a turn and he flew off. I was worried if he was OK. He gave me a huge grin and asked if we could go faster. Aren’t these all forms of hot dogging? For every one of these endeavors people have died or been seriously injured from time to time. Yet most people either participate in some of these activities or live vicariously through the participation of others.

The boat driver in the video decided to take others along for his ride. He was cited for “operating at an unsafe speed for the conditions”. This is a great 20/20 hindsight citation, as some boating laws are. If you had asked boaters or authorities in the area what the “safe” speed was before the accident I doubt you would have gotten a consistent answer. The reason his speed was “unsafe” was because something bad happened. Therefore it must have been unsafe. Were his passengers avid power boaters that understood the risks? I don’t know? If they were then they willingly participated in a risky ride. Even so, if he was careless, as it appears he was, he exposed them to more risk than they expected. Had they ridden with him before and knew he was a hot shot? Well…. If I go for a ride in your car and your tires are going bald or your brakes are shot you are exposing me to more risk than I expect as well. Maybe you didn’t sleep well last night and you’re not as alert as you should be. It would be wonderful if these things didn’t happen to those along for the ride but they do; sometimes because of negligence and carelessness, sometimes because of bad luck. When people are negligent or careless they should be prosecuted.

What level of risk are you willing to accept? If you require high levels of safety you better not get into a car (40,000 deaths a year in the US) or most other forms of motorized transport. Airplanes are the safest forms of transport but some do crash, usually with 100% fatality. Bicycle riding results in some nasty falls. Even walking, especially in the winter, can lead to serious injury and even death. Shoveling snow can lead to heart attacks. Do you go out when it is about to rain? Better hope you don’t get hit by a bolt out of the blue that can hit 10 miles from a storm center. Do you worry about electrocution when you use electrical appliances? Watch out for skin cancer from being out in the sun. There are hurricanes on the coast, tornadoes in the Midwest, blizzards in the north, and severe thunderstorms and flooding almost everywhere. In 2003, 35.000 people died in Europe because of a heat wave. There are insect borne fatal illnesses, tainted food, sexual predators, and internet identity thieves. My God, I am terrified to get out of bed in the morning. But then I need to worry about obesity and blood clots from being sedentary. And, and, and, … :(

You know, the problem is that life is risky. The solution is to realize that the likelihood of being a serious victim of any of these risks, including being in a boating accident, is very small. Take reasonable steps to carry out your activities safely, like having your lights on while boating at night, and Get On With Your Life. :D

Jeff, very well put.

Lets not forget Islander, of WINFABS fame, freely admits she would choose a higher speed than the 45 mph proposed limit, as she has a boat capable of 60mph+ and regularly travels at those speeds on this lake.

Therefore she must consider that speed safe, due to the fact that she operates regularly at that speed in her own boat willingly and by her own admission.

Legislative intent, and it's requisite legalese!
 

Well jrc, she could be right. Legislative intent can be the affirmative defense employed by a savvy defense attorney.

Unfortunately Islander has a fatal flaw in her latest legal rambling. In order to offer the theory she espouses, the record surrounding the debate of the House Bill that was defeated would clearly need to articulate that the Legislature clearly stated the there be "no limit on the speed of a boat". Additionally the Attorney would need to offer into proof, either by deposition or direct testimony, a significant number of the legislators present voting down the Bill clearly stating that their intent, whether implied or not, was to allow unfettered speeding on New Hampshire waterways.

The record is available on-line, we should anxiously await Islander's direct quotations of pertinent legislative testimony that confirms her theory.

Remember, Islander used the phrase "clear legislative intent" in her latest diatribe. Clearly she can easily reference us to the source that verifies such a bold legal claim! :)

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.


But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

I feel Mike is lucky to own a formula! :laugh:

How you say it
 

I try to stay out of this thread but I am against more speed limits on the lake.

I am not a member of a "we need speed" crowd. To make such a statement shows your obvious bias. Are you trying to persuade people that anti-speed limit means we want lots of speed? There are more choices and opinions.