cool, now your driving record is affected
 

This bill establishes speed limitations for vessels traveling on Lake Winnipesaukee. This bill also requires that violations of the general rules for vessels operating on water become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.

so now any moving violation on the lake gets put on your driving record. thanks guys, gonna have to find a different lake to enjoy myself on now

yes, that's just one more present they put into this bill to keep certain people and boats away from the lake. I ask you to reconsider your stand and come to the lake and enjoy. I for one will absolutely fight a speeding ticket on the water that will affect my driver's license. I will hire a lawyer to help me do this as I have the resources. I encourage EVERYONE who gets a speeding ticket on the lake to do the same, whether you're able to hire a lawyer or not just the fact that so many people are willing to fight this will send a message. I'm considering starting some type of legal defense fund for people who've received speeding tickets on the lake in case they are financially unable to hire a lawyer. We need to think of some snappy acronym for the defense fund. Any suggestions?? :)


PETOS (PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF SPEED) :laugh:

I will not disclose my drivers license number nor my SS# if I get pulled over. They can look at my boaters certificate and that's it. Also, I have already spoken to my surcharge board and they will drop any offense issued on the water.

It'll be so easy to avoid getting a ticket. The effectiveness of the speed radar diminishes with the square of distance so that if you double your distance from the radar, the effectiveness is reduced by a factor of 4. Just stay far away from stationary boats and slow to 55 or less when you can't. Honestly, I don't think it'll make a bit of difference. Most folks that go fast stay far away from other boats anyway. If they don't, they deserve a ticket.

The way I understand it, this little bonus that Winfabs pushed for is not limited to Winnipesaukee only. I think that any violation under General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water will be attached to your driving record.........This means all af NH. It also seems wrong that hearings were only held around Winnipesaukee when the bill affects the whole state.

perhaps Skip could help out.


Chase1

Perfectly effective....
 

Flyry49...

Your post shows that the new speed limit bill has worked *exactly* as its proponents intended.....

The lake is no more safer now than it was before... but one type of boater has decided to leave instead of risking a potential financial burden based on unreliable enforcement of a specious statute.

Sorry to see you go...

Gusman

I'm not sure I understand...what do you mean when you mention surcharge board and that they will drop any offense issued on water. Also, don't you have to show your license when asked for it by any officer whether walking down the road, boating, driving, etc.

Points of clarification....
 

KC is correct. If the NHMP officer asks, you are required to produce a positive means of identification in addition to your boating certificate. If you refuse to do so and only provide the certificate, as indicated by pm203, you are in violation of RSA 270:12-b and will be arrested as this is a misdemeanor offense.

As to chase1's contention that the ammended law means that any offense under RSA 270-b:2 (General Rules) on any body of water will be reported to NHDMV, I concur.

As originally intended the legislation proposed was to report speeding offenses occuring on Lake Winnipesaukee to the NHDMV. As finally passed the law reads that any offense under 270-b:2 that occurs on any public waterway in the State during the 2 year trial must be reported to NHDMV.

Finally, even though pm203's carrier may choose to ignore the NHDMV entry, the entry still stands as a State reportable offense and applicable points will be assessed to your driving record.

Id?
 

I have never had my drivers license with me on the water. Just my certificate and registration. I guess they will have to arrest me. :rolleye2:

What I mean is that you can appeal any driver points that have been assessed to your driving record due to a moving violation with your state's surcharge board, providing they have one.
Also, you do not need a drivers license to drive a boat. I understand about having some sort of identification on you, but I will not show my drivers license. What I am trying to say is that in the event I get pulled over for going over 45 mph which probably means 50-55 mph before they even react, I am not going to lay down and easily hand over any information that will be used against me. Maybe I will carry my passport (LOL). I doubt they can cross reference that.

Thank you so much!

You have confirmed my central argument for speed limits. I have been claiming for years that when a speed limit passes, people will leave the lake.

Less boats mens less congestion, pollution, noise etc. I pity the few large lakes left around that have no restrictions, they are due for an influx of performance boaters.

I hope some of the families that have been scared away find their way back.

And the lake will be safer, boats can not have an accident on Winnipesaukee, if they have moved to another lake.

Positive identification...
 

As I have posted before, there are a number of ways ellectronically that an officer can confirm your identity in the field even if you have not a stitch of ID on your person. You would be amazed at the technology and records that are now instantly available to the law enforcement community, courtesy of vast federal funding since 9/11.

Your conduct will determine the depth and breadth of your contact with the officer. As has been pointed out before, depending on the situation a quick certification glimpse may be all that he needs or desires. But a more serious matter, especially one that will result in a summons, will require the officer to absolutely establish your identity. Once your identity is positively established your motor vehicle record and license information is automatically retrieved, even if you have no license on your person.

And in the event of a conviction the system will basically automatically forward the appropriate information to NHDMV.

My best and final advice? Be polite and courteous. File your complaint, if you so desire, to the appropriate supervisor after the stop. And remeber, the trial is held later in a courtroom, where cooler heads prevail, not out on the water. If you are receiving a summons then that"judge" has already determined your guilt. Save your ammunition and argument for a more appropriate venue, one where you stand a chance of prevailing! :)

Yes, but my not everyone is leaving. In fact, I am going to enjoy the lake even more. And, any familes that have been scared are a product of the pro-speed limit group and their manufactured propoganda.

Ahoy there Skip. Another slightly different question. When sailing in my 14' sailboat which does not have a motor, I assume I need to keep the registration on the boat, but what about a boater education certificate or a personal id such as a NH driver's license. Also, what is the penalty for sailing it unregistered?

I'm sailing away.....
 

You definitely need to have the boat registered and the registration with the boat. I do not have a copy of the fine schedule with me, but suffice to say it would be worth several months of midnight runs to Micky D's for you! :)

As long as you're not hanging a motor greater than 25 hp off the stern, you do not need to have a boating certificate. And no, you do not need to carry any identification with you, it just makes life a little easier when "dealing with the man"....;)

no place to keep it
 

This is particularly troublesome if you are in a small "wet" boat such as a Sunfish (which foolishly requires registration in this Live Fee and Die state), in a bathing suit, with no place to keep a registration.

Ya, it must stink that people who don't own property along the lake shore used to come up and use your lake. I mean really, how dare they use the largest lake in the state.

Some of the local insurance companies that sell boat insurance have freebie, give-a-way, key rings with floating, watertight, registration holders that can be attached to a boat, somewhere........or worn as an earing.:D

Maybe instead of going after the segment of people who help keep the tourism industry afloat (pun intended) we should go after some of the camps on the lake. If you think about it they are more densly populated than your average 4 bedroom lake house. Less camps = less congestion, less people, less boats, less pollution, less noise. There would be none of this if we enacted a law to get the camps off the lake and make them move to a different lake. That's my "what if". :rolleye1:

Nature provided you with a storage place - your backside... :eek:

The MP requesting ID and proof of certification may have a change of mind when you reach for the rear of your swimsuit... :D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

YA my what if 2 .....and less families in boats =less kids= less people=more room to pass. Left Alton Bay Friday evening..passed 3 boats, 2 were MP boats...we went 60mph no problem made it to Cow Isl safe and sound. Where were all those "scared" other boaters..OH YA THEY ONLY COME OUT WHEN THE WEATHERS NICE AND DURING THE DAY MOSTLY ON WEEKENDS=more congestion =increased chance of accidents[/COLOR]. DUH?:rolleye2:

I am not leaving nor are we getting out of performance boating. Looking forward to next weekend!

Acronyms
 

I just got caught up on this thread and read KonaChick's post about coming up with an acronym for the defense fund. A couple of ideas immediately came to my (twisted) mind.
There's Speeders IN Kourt (sic) or SINK.
And, since people on both sides of the speed limit issue seem to think one would have to be pretty dumb to actually get caught, there's Defense Of People Excessively Speeding - a little awkward, I know, but it leaves us with the potentially appropriate acronym of DOPES.

I am having a hard time believing that you wrote this post- you truly are a piece of work. If your paramount reason for supporting this bill was to decrease traffic on the lake, you are more self-centered than I believed.

If you had stated that your central argument was safety, I would have given you a break even though I believe that virtually every safety issue on the lake could be solved by enforcing the EXISTING 150' rule.

I am still shaking my head and holding back on typing how I really feel!!

It took me awhile to understand it as well, duh. I know how he feels, and in many respects I can sympathize with it. Waaaaaay back my dad used to shake his friendly fist at the loud boats and the cruisers with their huge wakes. This was well over twenty years ago.

With the advent of development, greedy towns that wanted to build stuff, taxes became the holy grail. Unfortunately, the trend began in the 60's and never stopped. I guess that's why I was always a big fan of boating at night. Far more peaceful and quiet, with gentle cooler breezes. It amazes me how scared people are of their own shadow at night. Not enough true mariners left I guess.

OOPS ! The truth slipped out:rolleye1:

Cal....hit it right on the head......the REAL reason behind the speed limit crowd has nothing to do with speed.It's getting rid of big pricey boats so that the greenie crowd can have the lake to themselves.What a coincidence that not many have them have to make a living in the tourist industry.

I wonder how this will play out.

There are few, if any, speeding tickets handed out during the two year "trial" period.

Will the speed limits crowd say the economy tanked so there were fewer boats on Winnipisaukee so we need the law to become permanent?

Or, Will the speed limits crowd say SEE...the law is working, even though boat traffic was down, so we need to keep it in place.

Which will it be???

It depends on what baseline data is used at the end of the 2 years. If there have been no accidents that have been directly caused by excessive speeds over 45/25 before the law is enacted, it is impossible to reduce that number. Therefore, I can only deduce that speed-related accidents will either stay the same or go up during the 2 years. Then what? Will we say that the speed limit actually caused accidents? :laugh:

Someone moved East and started a "Consulting: Strategy/Management" business. :rolleye2:

Actually if the boating economy doesn't tank, as I believe it will (has), then yes, the speed limit will actually cause accidents.

In spite of what some say, when you have a limited funding source that depends on a diminishing resource and increased performance mandate, then something will suffer. If the funding for the NHMP does not increase then funding additional mandates will mean cutbacks in other services.

So Yes, speed limits can actually cause accidents.

Now, before Skip jumps in on this, I want to point out that Bear Islander and his crew still have not answered the questions that I raised about the NH Boating Statistics already established that they refuse to address because the statistics don't support their fear mongering!

I saw a blurb on the 6:00 news this evening that boater registrations are down 20%, I don't recall if it was just in MA or Nationally. The news piece was focused on fewer boats expected at the Boston fireworks later tonight. then they morphed the story into gas prices, the economy and a drop in new boat registrations. I got the impression they meant nationally. If that's the case, NHMP will feel the pinch in funding, absolutely the perfect time to enact a useless law when they will already be stretched.

Just look around at the local marina's.There are still hundreds of boats that are not out of storage.

cause and effect
 

I think it would be fair to say that this has little or nothing to do with speed limits and a whole lot to do with the economy and gas prices.

That is not my prime reason for supporting HB847 and I never claimed it was.

My predictions for what will happen after it passes, are not the same as my reason for supporting it. You are reading much more into my words than what is there. However that error is fairly common on this forum.

Ummmm huh?

Prime reason isn't the same thing as Central Argument?

Then you post this?
"You are reading much more into my words than what is there. However that error is fairly common on this forum."

Bear Islander I mean COME ON! You are so your own worst enemy it is comical. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

If in fact the TV report mentioned by EricP of a 20% reduction in boat registrations this year and SAMIAM's local observations correspond then it does have something to do with speed limits since the only source of funding for the NH Marine Patrol is revenue generated by boat registrations! A 20% reduction in funding as the NHMP is being asked to do more...?

Please stop trying to twist my words. My "central argument" was that a speed limit would, in the long run, lower the number of performance boats on the lake. I think you know I have said that over and over. That is my PREDICTION.

The REASON why I want less performance boats on the lake is an entirely different thing. A prediction is not a motive. But I think you know that and are just looking for an argument (or a chance to use a large font).

Now here is my chance to use the rolleyes.

Whatever...:rolleye2:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Other infractions
 

So to clarify violation of the 150' rule, of the NWS zones, violation of RoW, overloading, and ??? go to your vehicular driving record ?

Also is that 270-D Boating and Water Safety ....

Actually, it just applies to section 270-D:2.

And yes, any violation of this section on any public body of water (except the specifically designated speed limits applied to Lake Winnipesaukee) will be annotated on your NH driver's record during the two year trail period commencing next year.

Not so much!
 

I hate to be the one to to tell you this but only about .005% of the boaters on this lake even know there was a bill being passed concerning a speed limit. I find it amazing myself but that is the reality, I was recently surrounded at Braun Bay by hundreds of boaters, the Marine Patrol came to enforce the rafting rules. Of the hundreds of boats there, only a small percentaged knew what rafting was? I had people coming up to me and asking me what was the deal with the Marine Partol, I had to tell about 25 to 30 people what was going on, that boats needed to be 25ft from each other, and if two boats were tied together, it needed to be 50ft. I then had to explain that three boats tied together was illegal. I happened to mention the speed limit to these people and they didn't have a clue what I was talking about. Only a hand full of the boaters I know even know about the speed limit, and of those boaters none of them will be leaving the lake any time soon. They like myself have been on this lake for 15 to 20 years and would not dream of leaving. If you want to know why boats are not going in the water and what type of boats, go over to Mt. View and see all of the big cabin cruisers sitting on blocks, not GLBL,s. Of the groups of people I spoke with this weekend, many have been boating two years or less and to them the world of boating on Winni is great with no rules to worry about. Just a waste of time supporting or not supporting a speed limit because life and boating with go on with or without it.

Kahuna, did you mention that the speed limit is not in effect until 1/1/09?

did you miss a decimal point? you're saying only 5 in 1,000 winnipesaukee boaters know about a speed limit being passed? i find that hard to believe.

It's even harder to believe because .005% is 5 in 100,000 not 1,000

Also 1 in 20,000

Isn't this the same number of speeding boats that were clocked during the MP speed survey? I thought that number rang a bell!!! :laugh:

Based on the last New Hampshire census this means only 66.7 residents know about the speed limit. Even if we round up that is only 67 NH residents.

More than that voted for it in the House and Senate. See what happens when you make up a statistic.


Ryan -

Then that must also be the number of people that will be inconvenienced by the speed limit.

1 in 20,000

You can't have it both ways!

Governor Lynch signs HB 847
 

In an AP story in both today's www.citizen.com. and www.cmonitor.com it says Gov Lynch signed it yesterday.......oh well....probably not a surprise to anyone that he's done gone & signed it, ayuh.

So, in November's race for governor, do you vote for Sen Joe Kenney (R) Wakefield, who as a state senator voted yes for HB 847 in May, or for Gov Lynch?

I checked the web site of Governor Lynch under news and events and it still hasn't been noted there.

Could be that signing it late on Monday was the last thing he did before leaving on vacation? I have no idea....total conjecture....as usual?

Nothing about it yet in the Union Leader, so what does that tell you?:D

Based on what I saw and experienced this past holiday weekend, the law is going to have minimal impact on the lake.

Just a few things I saw to backup my claim:

• People passing other boats at planing speed within 150'.

• Skippers leaving the shore at full throttle.

• Vacationers that could care less about having a boating certificate.

• Same vacationer on his Jet Ski jumping cruiser wakes within 50 feet of the boat's stern.

• Multiple boats tied up and rafting together.

• Very few, if any boats travelling over 45mph.

• Not a single MP the entire weekend. Either on the water or from the beach.

I asked one of the local marina employees about the lack of MP presence on the lake. Answer: Gas prices are keeping the MP boats at the docks.

If the economy continues at this pace into 2009, there will be 1 MP boat sitting outside the Weir's channel doing random BUI searches. The remainder of the "cowboys" will still be breaking the current, unenforced rules.

I had a great encounter on Sunday:
Was heading up Paugus bay from The Margate towards Weirs. I'm about 200' behind another boat and some guy cuts between my boat and the boat in front of me, pulling a tube with two young kids on it.

We have a solution to that now....HB847:)
And nobody to enforce it - or any of the existing laws...:(

It tells me you shouldn't be looking for NEWS in the Union Leader. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

They are an opinion only paper (and I use the word paper lightly)

This is the problem- HB 847 will only be germane in this case if the boat that cut between the boats was speeding.

Enforcement of existing rules and laws, in this case the 150' rule, would solve this problem. I am on the lake fairly regularly and, quite frankly have much bigger issues with 150' rule violators than I do with speeders. If a boat is 150' plus from anything (especially us)speed is fine by me! (Note my old BR topped out at a whopping 48 last week so I have no skin in the game)