Speed limit permanent to be filed!
 

Given this article in the Laconia Daily Sun today and the quote from the bill’s sponsor regarding not waiting until next year to gather data…and the fact that the bill to eliminate the sunset of the {speed limit law} will be filed NEXT MONTH!

Perhaps it is time to consider opening the discussion once again. I recall Don saying he would weigh that option when the time came.

Yes
 

+ 1 With airwaves.

It was a little slow last week...I had enough time to read all the closed {speed limit} threads. I did not felt strongly either way before last week, that has changed.

Let the beating"s begin?
 

Why start another thread when the first one ended soooo badly that it had to be closed?

Those concerned (both sides) should take their anger out on the Legislator's and not repeat the clubbing that went on before.

That of course is just "my" opinion. ;)

Then again, this is a forum.

Its baaaaaaccccckkk!

Woodsy

Woodsy, you are a trip ;):laugh::laugh::laugh:

Given the Captain Bonehead threads, you'd think they would have bigger problems to solve. It would seem they don't have a good handle on what the "culture of the lake" really is :D

Since the SL passed, my fear was always that no matter the outcome, it would be easy for SL supporters to extend the 2 year trial. My rationale is that:
1. If the data comes back and shows that there were very few speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective in keeping faster boats off the lake.
2. If the data comes back and shows that there were a bunch of speeding tix issued, it could be said that the speed limit was effective and enforceable, and because a lot of tix were issued, is still needed.

Chipj29 - there is one thing wrong with your logic - you used the word "rationale". I don't think the legislature knows what that is - much less how to use it. Welcome to Mass in the Mountains.

Yes, open it back up. The public has a right to know, maybe now they will see this extremist group for what it really is.

Done
 

Got my senator, rep. and Lynch. By the way, my rep already returned my msg. Nice work!

Also a relatively quick observation:

Looks to me like 95% of the boats on the lake would have a hard time topping 45mph on the rough waters of Winni. From the posts on this board it would seem that we're overrepresented by the other 5%. As vocal as the 5% may be, it's pretty hard to overcome the numbers. Time to compromise.

Open it up
 

Speed has never been the real issue on Lake Winnipesaukee. The argument that peed has been the real issue was a pure fabrication by those with another agenda that happen to have enough money to push their cause.

Enforcing all of the laws in place last year (2008) will solve 99% of the real boating issues on the lake today. I believe that was also the opinion of the head of the NHMP.

If the bill to make this ridiculous speed limit permanent is going forward, in the interest of fairness, it is time to reopen the old thread or allow a new thread to open with some restrictions, such as one post per day.

Those in opposition to the speed limit cannot let the fictitious and fabricated spin of the few who seem to have the politicians in their back pocket continue to have their way without the ability to comment.

Again, we have our boneheads on the lake. They are the real issue. Speed is not.

Let freedom ring!

R2B

I have seen absolutely no difference on the lake with the speed limit. I don' t
feel one bit safer, in fact, I think the 150' rule is way out of control this year and that is the one that we should worry about.
Where do legislators get these ideas from ? The vocal minority?

Do something
 

Last time most opponents of the speed limit did not believe it would ever happen. There were simply too many powerful organizations and individuals that would protect everyone’s freedoms and there was no way it would be taken away by the special interest groups. There was simply no need for the average citizen to get involved, the belief was common sense would ultimately prevail.

The proponents of the bill were certainly the vocal minority but they were organized and determined to have their agenda pushed through. The proponents are still active. They want to make this law permanent before the “sunset” effectively eliminating any reflection, evaluation or opposition.

I don’t doubt it’s the Captain Boneheads that are the real problem. I would rather share the lake with 200 GFBL (excuse me performance boats) than one Captain Bonehead. We can sit and debate how Darwin was right or we can start to get our lake back.

I urge everybody to get involved before it is too late. Please open the thread not only to debate but to set a plan of action. We need to let the legislators of this state know we are the vocal majority and WE VOTE.

I will get off my soap box now.

Start contacting Reps and Senators - NOW!
 

Resident or not, if you want to stop this bogus end-around now, start contacting every rep and senator that voted for this rediculous legislation. This is the exact strategy that they had in mind from the beginning. Get the vote with the sunset law, then make the sunset law disappear by creating lame excuses for why it should be eliminated. Pathetic!

In addition, those of us that reside in NH should be prepared to vote these people out of office when the next election rolls around. They are ruining this State, just like their bretheren in Washington are ruining this country.

VOTE THEM OUT!

The Proper Way To Win - Speak The Truth
 

As those with time to spare have proven, if you talk to the right people, organize a little, and put out mis-information in all the right circles, your odds of winning are much higher. So, right back at em.

The MP knows full well what this new law would produce, little or nothing. They also knew the proponents would be disappointed, and warned that they shouldn't expect a deluge of violations. Because as Barrett said himself, it wasn't that big a problem to begin with.

Most people on most lakes, performance boaters included, know full well that the problem lies in enforcement. There are irresponsible boaters on everything from kayaks to triple-engined speed merchants. The proponents of the law knew that. They also knew that funding was inadequate, but did nothing to assist the process. Some Proponents have also indicated, both in writing and insinuations, that their main intent of the new law was to eliminate a certain group of people from the lake itself. That's quite a heady goal in the United States, given this country's propensity to save everything from endangered species to providing special rights to most every special interest group that exists.

The media and the public need to be educated, not brainwashed. If a small group is very vocal and outspoken, they can offer up a number of miss statements as they did last year. It was a popular time for them to succeed at their little project. Even though the outrage at the time was over a particular one or two accidents, neither involving speed, it worked. Their intent wasn't safety at all, they were prejudiced against a group of boaters they don't like, and probably have never met. Most of the ones I know of are pretty decent people, and are far more responsible with their boats than the general boating population. Admittedly, some are not.

So maybe now it's time for the rational boaters to have their say. For every proponent that wants to "change the culture" of the lake, there are at least that many that can rattle off a variety of safety issues on the water that go unexposed to the public eye. The general public only reads what they read, and watch the stories that they see on the news. If they hear a story where a High-Speed Performance Boat crashed into an island, they naturally assume that a Big Bad Fast boat crashed at high speed and these people need to be stopped. Ditto with the previous accident, which was arguably at a pretty low speed.

TV crews need to have their thirst quenched for newsworthy stories like this. They were duped, now maybe it's time to enlighten them. Video is a Very Powerful Force on TV news. There should be enough footage in one weekend to fill a documentary. Spokespeople against this law shouldn't use the same, immature and unhelpful tactics that groups like Winfabs used. Honesty works. While most acknowledge that the intent wasn't safety, that needs to get out in the public eye. There was a bad accident recently in Texas that involved a couple of wakeboard boats, one of which was driven at night by a drunk. Not much of a surprise to many of us. A woman was interviewed and noted that the problem now is speed, "those Cigarette Boats". LOL Not a one involved. Just as last year's tragedy proved, it was the individual that made headlines, the rest was inferred.

Most law enforcement people can tell you pretty quickly what the problems are on the lake. Whether their budgets and time allow them to do anything about it is another matter altogether. Groups like Winfabs don't care about the MP budget, and obviously don't care much about the Captain Boneheads out there. If they did, they would devote their attention to the real safety issues, not demonizing a particular group of people or their boats.

So how does one proceed?

NWZ means just that.

150' violations are pretty easy to shoot video of

Many of the recent statements (this year) made by proponents of the law itself should be quite damming in a nation of laws and common sense.

A brief review of the last 30 years of history of accidents on Winni alone would reveal that someone wasn't telling the truth last year. It would also indicate where the main focus should be.

Also, adopt a Rule 6. Keep the provision in the current law, and make sure you promote the aspect of Safe and Prudent Speed. If someone's out there flying around at 80 mph between boats in a congested area, bust em.

This cannot be a Pro Speed movement. I don;t care who you are, you'll never win anything. Be Pro Safety, Pro Common Sense. If you want to be against anything in particular,

Be the

BOATERS AGAINST CAPTAIN BONEHEADS.

What happen to the Thanks button?
 

This button will certainly reduce the space requirements. I want to thanks VtSteve for the last post.

VtSteve, that's a damn good letter to the editor and pamphlet material if I ever saw one!

Maybe even use Steve's post as a template email to send to legislators and the governor in order to urge the defeat of the bill to eliminate the sunset clause.

Nice Job

Key statements for follow-up, referenced from the original article in Post #1


"Bosworth talks at length about the
impact of the fast boats on the novice
boaters and the fact that even experienced
boaters have altered their use of
the lake because of their fear of those
who travel at high rates of speed."


"Pilliod suggests that “The culture of
the lake has started to change. That
was what happened on Lake George in
New York. Enforcement officials there
have told us that education has had as
much to do with slowing down traffic as
enforcement of the speed limit laws.”


It sounds to me like nothing has really changed. Even though traffic is down on the lake due to weather and economic realities, it appears people have altered their behavior on the lake to ward off Captain Boneheads. You can't argue against fear and perception, but you can argue facts. The facts to start with are pretty easy.

Earlier this year, the MP had a statement in an interview that the MP hopes people don;t get their expectation up, because speed wasn't that much of a problem to begin with. The detractors challenge this argument, but not face to face against the MP (which would undermine their cause).

The last statement above indicates that LE has told them that education has as much to do with slowing down traffic on Lake George as the law itself.

Here's where the semantics come into play. Absolutely nowhere will you see anyone reference the bowrider that crashed there last summer on land. Number one, it was not a GF boat, and number two, it was an intoxicated driver. You won't see much press on the PWC that crashed into the swim platform of a moored boat either.

There are parts of the law that can, and should, be kept in place. The MP needs something with teeth in it to stop suspected boaters. Suspected of being BUI, or suspected of being reckless and dangerous. No, this does not mean stopping a boat at night doing 20 mph and saying he was speeding.

The only way this works is if an organization is formed that truly is unbiased. One that encompasses all boaters. Kayakers, other paddlers, small boats, large boats, sailboats, everyone on the lake. It's an organization that should have contact with, and the admiration of, the MP headquarters. Not only an advocate of boaters, it should open up communications between the media, the MP, and the community at large. When the media seeks a statement, This organization should always be ready to speak up.

Guys like Bosworth go uncontested in the news, spouting their crappola whenever they see their agenda losing ground.

You get something like this BS in the paper.

"For Sheldon Bosworth,
spokesperson for WinnFAB
(Winnipesaukee
Family Alliance for Boating
Safety), the data is
important."

A pretty narrow definition of Safety. A cursory review of their website shows that they've done nothing but be a Proponent of the SL law. It kind of reminds me of the of 55 mph debates. Remember that there would be "Blood In The Streets" if the highway speed limit was raised to 65 mph? Yup, their gone. LEO's concentrate on the real offenders, for the most part. Since the change, highway safety has been fine overall.

If Mr. Bosworth was at all interested in safety, his organization would do more than just advocate for the SL law. Perhaps they should just be replaced by an organization that really cares.

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

Bear Islander I call BS on that one. That case has not been tried yet, and you are not the Judge or the Jury. So leave it out. This latest move shows Winnfabs for what they really are. An Extremist Group, period, the end. Word on the street is they have already drawn up a bill aimed at boats larger than 30 ft, So called Wake makers, definitely aimed at cabin cruisers, no doubt they are going to claim, erosion, fear of big wakes etc.... These people need to be shut down.

Sorry BI, but...
 

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO! (a famous line from Animal House). Well it ain't over now, that's for sure.

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

May very well be BI, and I do understand and respect your statement. But even in your post, you reference "last year's fatal accident". It involved a single cruiser-type vessel, not a go fast boat. It also, from all indications so far, did not involve a very high rate of speed. If the SL had been in place at that point in time, I defy anyone to "seriously" state that the accident would not have occurred. Same with the other "infamous accident", also at a fairly slow speed.

I know, and I'm pretty sure you know, that the outcome would have been a very positive thing had both sides really focused on the problems, not the solutions. I really would like to see an organization that had everyone under one umbrella. It would have served the public well. But in this economy, and what I feel will be much higher boat prices in the future, all of this may very well be a moot argument.

As LI on the other thread pointed out, some middle ground should be found. Some think that people like myself are part of the small minority of GFBL people. I know my boat can at times do 55 or so, but it's not that fast, nor loud at all. I have a standard Alpha drive with UW exhaust. It's a cuddy cabin for crying out loud. It's a typical mischaracterization, but an organized one. Say it enough, and it will stick. There are very few (from what I've seen) GFBL boaters on these threads. What, maybe a dozen max?

A major point of those opposing the law was to try and get people fixated on the problems. The majority of proponents wanted you to focus your attention on one particular group of people, and ignore the rest. It's an argument of perception, an argument where a minority is singled out as being the root cause of all evil, facts be dammed. It's an argument that was successfully refuted south of NE, where it was clearly shown that proponents of a SL law targeted an area that was, in fact already a NW zone. Members of a certain Yacht club, were also shown on camera speeding through this NWZ in their YC boats, and operating too close to other boaters at the same time.

But that's neither here nor there. Even if the SL law is maintained, permanent or otherwise, something has to be done about safety. I don;t think anyone seriously expects proponents of the SL law to even be in the same room when a safety discussion occurs. They rarely (if ever) participate in any discussions concerning the infamous Captain Bonehead. A very interesting aspect of this discussion I might add. To the point where some SL proponents think there is peace and harmony on the lake now, whereas others have experienced the same old situations as in the past.

Hint: If things are admitted to be bad now, with decreased boat traffic, then what have they accomplished? Perhaps the recent spat of better weather will cause APS to update his thread that shows details of the numbers of boats, seemingly updated on the hour.

Nhrba
 

The defunct group did more than what WINFABS could ever do in the name of SAFETY. The group encourage MP to put out 150' bouys outside of pubic docks to make it visible what 150' really is.
They also sponsor the No Wake Zone between Eagle Island and Governor's Island. One member even put out No Wake signs in the Weirs Channel!
One of the rules they were going to sponsor was to make the area between Cattle landing and Bear Island a no wake on weekends. There were other rules and regulations to spoinsor and I am not going to elaborate.

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

OK Don, thanks for the message. Would you be opposed to an "opposers thread"?

Thought this was the opposer's thread.
 

It seems like everyone here oppose the SL. Except for Bear Islander.

Don, I don't see the Thanks button.

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

I wasn't aware anyone was in denial over the accident. Can you enlighten some of us that perhaps are a little foggy on the details?

1) What exactly never happened, and who said it would never happen? What happened?


2) What other Speed-Related accidents have occurred? Do you have a running list? With Details?

A question if I may
 

In what way was that "accident" speed related ... in the sense that the SL, if followed, would have been applicable and prevented the "accident" ?

What is a canard?
 

Do you mean that if the speed of the boat was under 25 mph that there would have not been a death? Or do you mean there would not have been a crash? Or, are you saying that last year's posts by some folks, said that a crash like occurred would have nothing to do with speed? I'm confused.:confused:

Here in New Hampshire, a 25 year old male can kill 3 people and badly injure a forth and the New Hampshire supreme court can declare him to not be a negligent car driver because "for some unknown reason he strayed across the center line for two seconds on Route 49 in Thornton in June 2006 and struck head-on, two Harley Davidsons with two married couples."

It can be somewhat reasonably argued that three deaths are three times worse than one death.

If and when the NHRBA president's trial goes to court, it will be interesting to watch the legal chess game that plays out between the Belknap county attorney and the defendant. Any verdict is possible now, considering what happened with the Thornton catastrophe?

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

Here we go again
 

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

Liberal crap?? Guess it depends on point of view. They remind me of birthers. :laugh:

Prudent speed
 

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

It would appear ELCHASE, that you aren't paying attention. Many people have responded to threads this year indicating that the same problems that existed before, exist today. People have pointed out and described specific incidents on the lake, quite a few of them I might add, where they did not feel safe and have had to alter their boating style to protect themselves.

I know it's convenient to focus on what you consider to be fast enough in a boat, opinions vary. But this quote from you is a prime example of not getting it.

It is Broke, and no, people cannot feel safe anytime on the lake. Anybody can go to Winfabs and read their propaganda. But people that share your viewpoint as stated, do not and will not participate in discussions of these problems. I might reiterate an rather inconvenient truth, again. A very select few people on these forums own boats that can do 60 mph, or even 50 mph. What you don't want to admit is that this is not the issue. You can say it is, but that does not make it so. The MP themselves know this, most everyone does. If you have a beef with the people themselves or their boats in particular, state so. Everyone discusses these things pretty freely, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Participate in the Captain Bonehead thread and make us believers. There are obviously many out there that do not share your belief that all is safe and wonderful on the water. Perhaps you should at least show an interest in their stories?

At least give some consideration to what's being said about unsafe boating on the lake as it is today.