While it's interesting to use data from other lakes as part of your argument, I think there are many things about Winnipesaukee that make it a unique case. So data from some other lake on speed-related accidents is barely more than mildly interesting here.

For the speed-related accidents you cite, I have never claimed that there have been zero speed-related accidents. Anytime humans are involved in something there will be deaths and accidents. You can regulate and legislate the piss out of something, and some people will still find a way to kill or maim themselves. That doesn't really support your argument.

Furthermore, while speed may have been a factor in these accidents, I don't see any data that speed was the ONLY factor. Were there other violations of existing laws that if obeyed would have prevented these accidents?

Also, what is the proportion of speed-related accidents and safety issues to the non speed-related accidents and safety issues.

Your arguments in favor of the speed limit law seem to revolve around the idea that implementing a speed limit will have a lake-wide effect on safety and quality of life for all recreational Winnipesaukee participants. The statistics and "facts" presented seem to indicate that implementing a speed-limit law is neither a "low hanging fruit" item, nor is it something that addresses the majority of issues that causes an unsafe environment on the lake. Read another way, it's easy to see why many people see ulterior motives in this law, it's solves little (if any problems) and seems to be of some real benefit or value to only a small minority of the overall population that has some sort of a vested interest in activities on the lake.

And my neighbor used to complain about kids on his lawn. That doesn't mean that his complaints are any more than the rantings of an old man.

Nonsense
 

Erosion? Pollution? Hogwash!!! You bring up pollution as an issue related to the Speed Limit debate. You have to be kidding. There are hundreds of other more important pollution issues to deal with before you remove relatively clean burning V8 I/O boats from the lake. A 2 stroke pollutes in one day what an I/O would in a whole summer. Then you try and sell erosion??? Come ON! One Cabin Cruiser will destroy everything in its wake faster than a fleet of speed boats. Talk about a reach!

In the first place there is NOTHING about Winnipesaukee that makes it so different from other lakes. Will someone please tell me why the Long Lake accident can't happen here? This is a silly argument!!

Yes, deaths happen at low speeds as well, they happen at no speed, on land, in the air, on skimobles etc. etc. The only relevant question is do they happen in boats at speeds greater than those proposed, the answer is YES! All of your comments along these lines are nothing but misdirection or denial. Lets stick to the point.

If you guys think that erosion and pollution have nothing to do with speed limits than please answer my question about municipal water supplies. And why does Quabin have a 10 horsepower limit? And why has the water quality in our bays been dropping for the last ten years?

Boats cause pollution. If you can't buy that fact then scrape together some small change and go out and buy a clue!

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. Below is a link to a Concord Monitor article that says so. Is that good enough?

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2006/02/...akes-on-boats/

hazelnut - yes, there are other causes of pollution. What is your point? Should we wait until all other sources of pollution are eliminated before we look at boats?

I anticipate the argument that speed limits will not reduce boating traffic on the lake. OK, let's look at it the other way around. Will speed limits increase boating traffic? Obviously not! And a true status quo is statistically unobtainable. As we have seen on offshoreonly.com some boats have already left because of speed limits.

I'll respond to the rest later, but lets start with the Quabbin. It is a MAN-MADE body of water that was CREATED to be a water supply. It is not a natural body of water like Winnipesaukee is. It was CREATED to supply water to millions of people. You will also note that no direct contact with the water is allowed, no swimming or wading for instance is possible. Don't ya think that makes it different than Winnipesaukee????

A few quotes from the Mass Department of Conservation and Recreation:

Source- http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/quabbin.htm

So tell me Bear Islander, is this a solid comparison to Lake Winnepesaukee? A basically uninhabited man-made body of water that does not have the depth that Winnipesaukee does and has a sole purpose of being a public water supply? Get over yourself...Who is misdirecting or in denial now???

No, I don't think it is. You post an article directly related to the speed limit debate. Where is this history of decades of concern that you discuss that is precedes all of this? All I asked for was some historical proof, you provided squat in my eyes. I'll paypal you $0.10.

The Long Lake Accident cannot happen here because half the people involved were killed and one of the boats was destroyed. Talk about silly arguments! It was already against the law to collide with another boat, to operate under the influence, and to operate at night without lights, and those laws did not help.

I thought one of the purposes of the speed limit was to increase traffic on the lake through tourism. Isn't that why some businesses support the limit?

WE need the clue???? Ummmm yeah. Runabouts, Speedboats, and the like are NOT NOT NOT the offenders. If you want to champion a pollution effort start with 2-strokes and jet skis. If you want to champion an erosion campaign start with the cruisers. If we had a lake that banned 2-strokes and cruisers THEN and only THEN could talk less pollution and erosion. Getting rid of a FEW speed boats will have a little to no impact.... Here's a $20 keep the change.

My new nickname for Bear Islander is: "The King of Misinformation" a moniker that is well deserved.

I'm getting so discusted with this ,I hope you get your speed limit and every "go fast" goes somewhere else and now that YOUR lake is so safe , for every "go fast" that leaves you get 10 more Captain Boneheads in their 18' smokey , oil dripping two cycle bow riders to add to the congestion and idiocy of weekends on the lake.
I will personally laugh my azz off because you just shot yourself in your foot:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Just to echo the question raised by AL, where is the outrage and stated fear by Winfabs and their supporters over snowmobile deaths? I tried to start a thread asking this question following the deaths of 5 snowmobilers in 1 weekend but I guess it didn't pass the muster of our webmaster.

So why the concern over a problem that doesn't exist on Lake Winnipesaukee in the summer (boat speed or as the Marine Patrol has shown, lack of excessive speed) but no concern whatsoever by this same group of people over fatalities in the winter?

Could it be because the real agenda has nothing to do with safety but it is about getting a certain class of boats off the lake, period?

Way back in 1973 the director of a New Hampshire children's camp had a problem on his lake. He petitioned the state for help, and eventually a speed limit was set on that lake.

You and I discussed this earlier in this same thread. That was the "decades" I was referring to in my post. Sorry if I made it to obscure. For the evidence you seek go back and read your own post!

I guess we are in the "let's pick apart every little thing he says mode" now.

Cal - Thanks, I guess I will have to take my chances.

hazelnut - As I keep reminding people, I have always wanted to get ride of the big cruisers. I hope they ARE next. I am confident that the lake will have a horsepower limit eventually. The new two strokes are much better than the old ones. They have to be to meet the new federal standards.

I am in favor of a ban on two strokes on the lake, that will be a hard one to sell however. It will come eventually, it will have to. The lakes gas guzzling, gas in the water, oil in the bilge days are numbered.

A Bad Day on Winnipesaukee is Better Than...Err...
 

How about three bad days for extreme boating?

For 2002, 2003, and 2004, we were experiencing serial crashes of ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee. :(

Energy alternatives
 

Can't wait for those nuke engines to appear. No emissions, plenty of horsepower. Powered by powdered granite. :laugh:

Just checked the status of HB847, and nothing new happening since it passed the House on January 31. Did, however, notice that one of the House sponsors who is on the Transportation Committee is Sid "Live Free & Lovett" Lovett, a Democrat from Holderness.

Guess what? Holderness is the home town of Squam Lake. Looks like the movie 'On Golden Pond' could be coming to a Big Lake near you, sometime soon! :D

I have no clue, but it would be interesting to know if he lives right on Squam Lake? The Squamies are coming, the Squamies are coming....,it's like a Squamie plague with no jetskis, no houseboats, and Squam's 40/20 speed limit. Hey now, there's a 5mph concession....how 'bout that?

And how 'bout that Quabbin...??? I'd still love to hear your thoughts on how the two lakes are similar. Do you propose a 10hp limit? How about no swimming, skinny dipping (or chunky dunking it if is the case), or playing at the beach?

Getting back to one of our previous conversations, I had no issue with you comparing Long Lake in proximity and in relation. A drunk driver is a drunk driver, there was one on Long Lake and people died. There was one here and an individual died. I doubt the outcome would have been different if other types of boats were involved. You don't have to be doing 60mph+ to crush a 14' boat or kill someone seated in the back of a 22' boat . And one of those incidents did not involve excess speed for the conditions.

I fail to see the logic however when comparing isolated incidents in other parts of the country as some love to point out. Accidents can happen anywhere, and for the overwhelming odds (including here) speed is not the major contributing factor. As far as snowmobiling, cars, etc more people die every year in these other vehicles than in boats. Speed lmits are not saving those people. What is taking their lives is drinking and driving, inexperience, etc.. Sure, limiting speed at some level can save lives, but when the incidents that people claim are the causes are actually provoked by large amounts of alcohol a speed limit didn't save anyone.

Quabbin and Winnipesaukee both provide drinking water for thousands of people. That is the relevant similarity. The relative numbers of people drinking the water doesn't matter.

Winnipesaukee is still in the pristine range, but the quality is dropping. When the water quality drops below pristine you will see some drastic changes. There will be calls for severe restrictions and they will pass in a walk. With respect to boats we are in what will be called the good old days. Every year anti pollution laws, codes and standards are increasing in this country. It is happening everywhere. If you think Winnipesaukee is immune you are in fantasy land.

Do you really think there will be 1500HP boats on this lake in twenty years. Not a chance. Try 100HP or less, that is my guess.

I don't think we will have nuke boating, but electric is a definite possibility.

Sure we may have electric boats or Nuke boats or whatever boats. I would WELCOME any new innovative idea that would lessen pollution. However, I could care less if said new style electronucleo boat does 75MPH as long as it is clean burning. Speed Limit does not solve a pollution problem. Who knows with new technology we may be whizzing around on 100MPH electric boats. Whooooopeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

What we need is something that can roam the lake in tiny numbers that have a high perceived danger but have little actual risk of hurting anyone to scare the 1000s of potential polluters away. If we could just think of something.:rolleye2:

Where's your water quality data? How do you know the quality is dropping? I have been unable to find anything newer than the 2005 UNH student project that drew its biggest conclusions from 1986 to 1999 data.

I have an idea to help the alleged pollution problem! I think I will get together a group, called the WMA, Winni Mainlanders Association. Petition the legislature to take all island property by eminent domain. That will instantly clean up the water quality by taking hundreds of boats off the lake, stop all antique septic systems from running into the lake. Now look what you have done, I am starting to make as much sense as FLL or BI.... Geez:laugh:

Hey there Rattlesnake Guy, yes it's true that rattlesnakes are pretty decent swimmers. They have to be, just to writher out to their island. Plus, they could supply the bike week venders with the raw material for custom biker boots, and belts........another win-win!

What makes you think failed septic systems are only an island problem? I suspect islanders are more aware and more diligent than mainlanders about this problem.

Dave R - The analysis is still done every year, the results may not be online.

I notice from another thread that you can't take your boat on some other bodies of water. See what I mean about ever increasing restrictions because of pollution. Will this restriction come to the big lake sooner or later? I predict Yes!

HEY! Hands off my Island you flatlander!!!!!!!!:laugh:

I guess you will , since I truely doubt your concern about congestion and pollution. It is all about speed and thats all , isn't it?

I don't believe it. As in all threads, everyone has a tendency to go off subject like myself answering this quote.:)

You might not have posted that if you had ever seen me drive my Seadoo. I love speed, next year I will be going Mach 4 as I leave the atmosphere.

Pollution is not my first concern, nor is speed. The direction the lake is going in is my first concern. It's all about bigger, faster, louder and get those kayaks out of my way. The opposition has actually suggested that children's camps may need to hire Marine Patrol details to protect their boats. Talk about clueless!!!

As with all things in life there are limits. How big is to big for this lake? How fast is to fast? Are there places that kayaks and canoes should not go?

Next summer visit a children's camp on Winnipesaukee for a day. Talk to the director and waterfront staff. I think you will find a new perspective.

Les,
Glad to see my suggestion was to subtle for you.

Here's an advance preview of what I'm gonna say when HB847 passes the senate.

Well golleeeee....I'm speechless....I don't know what to say, so why don't I just say,

sometimes you win,


& sometimes YOU LOSE!

::banana::cheers::cheers::banana:


Hey, if you like the lake at 75mph, you'll like it ten times better at 45mph,
so just slow down & look at the view,
& use less gasoline, understand!

Going 45mph is a wicked fast speed for most normal boats.

This has been a public service message brought to you from your local mental health rehabilitation center! ..b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b...:D

There is a saying in sports .... get cocky, get stuffed!

And something about waiting for a fat lady to sing or a Governor to sign the legislation.

Have you seen the water quality results for the last 5 years?

I do see what you mean by ever increasing restrictions, but we both know it's never been about pollution.

BTW, in that thread, it was determined that I can legally take my boat on Squam, I just can't take a porta-potti and a bed at the same time.

Hypocracy at its finest
 

As I bring your attention to post #277 written by AL, Skipper of the Sea Que an my response at #289, both on page 3 of this thread, there is another search underway for a missing snowmobiler

I do not speak for WinnFABS, but I will point out that the "B" in WinnFABS stands for "boating". I must assume that is why they are not involved in snowmobile legislation.

Your argument that we don't need speed limits because people are dying in snowmoblies make no sense what so ever. Apples and oranges! If you feel the need, found WinnFASS. (first "S" for snowmobile)

Apples and Oranges
 

Here is how it works:
Apples = Lake Winnie deaths from speeding boats over 45 mph.
Oranges = Lake Winnie deaths from snowmobiles.

Both the apples and the oranges represent serious personal injury. One yields an overwhelmingly high % of deaths compared to the other.

You have a mountain of oranges and a mole hill of apples. Which should you address first? Why concentrate on the mole hill instead of the mountain?

It makes no sense whatsoever to expend all this energy on the apples (deaths from boats over 45 mph) and neglect the oranges (high number of snowmobile deaths).

Just compare the numbers. Snomobiles cause so many more deaths than fast boats.

an aside. I laughed at your WinnFASS comment.

By your faulty logic we should fix all problems in the order of relative danger.

If we assume statistics show automobiles cause more deaths than trains, planes or snowmobiles. Then by your logic, we should stop all efforts to make trains, planes and snowmobiles safer. Once we have automobiles nice and safe we can start work on one of the others.

Should this method be extended to medicine as well? Let's cure Cancer before we start working on AIDS, Cerebral Palsy, Alzheimer's, Spinal Cord Injury etc. etc. etc.

Sorry, but your methodology is idiotic. There is no logical or particle reason why all safety efforts can not proceed in parallel. There is NOTHING whatsoever about the speed limit movement that is stopping snowmobile safety efforts or even slowing them down.

The WinnFASS idea is not really a joke. It seems that your idea of how to make snowmobile's safer is to try and kill the effort to make boating safer.

At least I, and others that support speed limits, are trying to do something positive. You may believe that we are misdirected, but at least we are not sitting on our fat asses and whining about snowmobile dangers not being addressed by WinnFABS!

If you think snowmobile dangers on the lake need to be addressed then put down the remote control and stand up and do something about it. Feel free to hit me up for a small donation.

BI wrote in part:
And there it is, the lie they keep repeating over and over and over that strikes fear into the minds of non-boaters among the population and legislature.

Boating is not safe! Boating on Lake Winnipesaukee is not safe!

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a vessel to vessel accident cause by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol accident records show there hasn't been a boating fatality caused by speed on Lake Winnipesaukee in years.

It doesn't matter that Marine Patrol research this past summer showed fewer than 1 percent of the boats clocked by radar were going faster than the proposed speed limit.

It doesn't matter that this is the first year that every operator of a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire will be required to have obtained a safe boating certificate.

It doesn't matter that the very thing they say is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee when Hi Performance boats are out there is happening when the boats are away for the winter, they just ignore that. Who needs a safe lake in the winter?

These things are to be ignored when you're ultmate goal is to eliminate a specific class of boat, period!

And BTW BI just so you don't think I ignored it, I did respond to your apples and oranges post but since it's been about 24 hours I will assume my response won't make it so don't read anything into my silence on the topic.

status hb847
 

Just checked the quik bill search at the NH Senate and after passing the house on 1/31, it now shows 3/13: "Introduced and Referred to Transportation and Interstate Cooperation."

On March 16, 2006, hb162 was drowned in the senate by a vote of 15-9.

Wonder what it will be this year, and when it will occur? The legislature is in session today and tomorrow, but I have no clue as to when hb847 will splash across the senate floor?

Reminds me of a saying from the back of a marina forklift: If you want to go splash,
you best have the cash!

After that hb847 gets passed, I wanna see a NH Marine Trades Assoc bumper sticker that says: We have the cash, so where's our splash? :D

I've posted this several times, but have been pretty much ignored every time: The absense of boat fatalities and collisions is NOT proof that the lake is save. What about close calls?

There are no statistics on close calls, but that doesn't mean they are not happening. In fact it has been my personal experience that they happen rather often.

I've shown why that study was not even a valid study. They basically did everything wrong; in fact that study was so flawed that it could be used for an example of all the things not to do, when you are attempting to do a valid study.

I'm actually in favor of having lake speed limits apply to snowmobiles.

My goal is to make NH lakes safer, period. The original bill was for all NH lakes, and that's still my goal. I honestly feel that a speed limit is a good way to make any lake safer. It's not the only way, but it is part of the overall solution.

You are correct, those things don't matter. As I have explained many times it's not just about safety. In fact safety is not my primary reason for wanting speed limits.

Any "reasonable" person can understand that what happens on the ice in winter has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with HB847. It's just misdirection and denial.

Plus safety is not an absolute. There is no such thing as a "safe" lake. Safety is relative, and speed limits will make it safer.

Your restrictions that only certain accidents count, and only if the speed can be absolutely determined, and only if it happened boat to boat etc. etc. are silly, more denial. Winnipesaukee does not have an invisible safety shield that protects it from serious accidents. The Coast Guard considers speed to be one of the primary causes of boat accidents. They don't recognize any exception for this lake.

I have asked why the Long Lake accident can't happen here. I have received no answer!!!

It has been answered in the past. I have answered it prior to. It can happen here. It can happen here with or without a speed limit!!!

A speed limit will not stop a drunken driver from speeding. If he is smashed and wants to drive, I don't think a speed limit will deter him from cranking it up. We have clearly seen that doing 60+mph innebriated will kill someone as happened on Long Lake, we have also seen that you don't have to do over 30mph to kill someone here. If a person gets hammered and gets behind the wheel they are already breaking the law, so what makes you think that a speed limit will curb their behavior???

If you want to stop the deaths, stop the drunks. Why have MP hang out just around the corner from the Meredith docks watching people come out of the NWZ? Why not have them at the dock watching people get in their boats. Why don't local police put some focus on policing at the docks as well? We eat out in Meredith often by boat and I can't tell you how many times we see smashed people stumbling down the docks and getting into their boats.

How about spot checks leaving the Naswa? Stop the drunks and lives will be saved.

I just don't understand this comment BI. Why wouldn't safety be the issue. It should be the only issue. All efforts should be directed towards making/keeping the lake safe. A speed limit does not address the issue. The issues are compliance with existing laws. The issues involve BWI as was stated here. The issues involve inexperienced "captains" getting the keys to a rental. The issues involve ignorance or just plain defiance of the 150 foot LAW! The efforts of the law makers and the Marine Patrol should be focused towards these endeavors not a complete waste of time Speed Limit. When the next fatality occurs after the Speed Limit law is passed what will you say? The Meredith tragedy would not have been prevented with this law. This law changes nothing with regard to safety. Yes SAFETY what's that you say? SAFETY, the number one issue that should be the main focus!

BI wrote:
So reality doesn't matter, what matters is you get a type of boat you don't like off the public waterway.

My point about what happens on the ice that is being ignored by your crowd while you wage a crusade against Hi Performance boats with a solution in search of is to feature the statement you just made. SAFETY IS NOT THE ISSUE even though it says so in the acronym WinnFABS, Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating SAFETY.

Thanks