|
Quote:
People have been cited in traffic accidents for doing 50 mph or so on an interstate in a snow storm. Too fast for conditions. It's been used in many courts in boating accidents as well, successfully. |
I really Tried to use reason and logic but.....
Quote:
I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!! |
Quote:
The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this.... 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. 45/25 is only one part of the current law. |
As I have posted before on this very subject, no law(s) can ever legislate responsibility. I don't believe the speed limit is making the lake any safer than it was before, nor is it stopping those who want to go fast from doing so. After all the lengths I've seen stupidity taken in regards to operation far exceed the amount of laws that could potentially be written to forbid each and every discreet act. Additionally I might add that most of the idiotic behavior I've witnessed had little to do with speed and more to do with throwing any kind of prudent judgment right out the window.
The last thing I think anyone wants to see is a bunch of legislators in Concord that become "ban" happy as exhibited by our neighbors south of the border. Please enough is enough... a simple reckless provision is enough if enforced. |
BI- no issue
Quote:
|
Since 1981 ...
Quote:
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. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/...0/270-29-a.htm However all of this skirts the question as to how this incident speaks to relevance of the 25 MPH limit. It doesn't. "Reasonable and prudent" was an attempt by those opposed the HB162 to stop a set MPH limit. It was rejected as such and only included in HB847 as an adjunct to the 25 MPH limit. As such it's redundant with the RSA above. |
Quote:
Bear Islander. I have read all of your posts and lets just agree to disagree on the speed limit issue. However. 1. the fat lady has sung for 2 years. Currently they go away at the end of 2010 so it may be premature to say "they are here to stay" 2. Please do not use the tragic accident, which is still pending, as a pawn either for or against the speed limit debate. Let it play out on its own and we will then see the "proven" causes 3. I will not disagree with you on the compromise you propose. I don't like it but I can go along with it. Unfortunately I think it would be again used by some (not saying you) as a tool to try to put the limits on the entire lake. Carry on. |
I would like to reiterate what others are saying about the SL and safety. The truth of the matter is the lake is no safer now than it was without a SL. If you were out on the water the past two weekends you would see this first hand. We need to stop wasting time and resources on what doesn’t work, it’s that simple. Put a MP boat in every bay on the weekends and pull over the boneheads that continually break the laws we all ready have. Just the MP presence will make people think twice.
Malibu |
Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.
The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point. |
Quote:
My contention is where you state "reasonable and prudent". There was an accident, the boat hit an island, there was a fatality. Whether going 10mph or 30mph it is safe to say the boats operation was not reasonable and prudent. That being said, we can "what if" the accident to death (which has already happened) saying limits would have prevented it is purely speculation and an opinion. Hopefully this time around the SL debate will be based on fact and not speculation. So again lets agree not to go down the speculation path and argue the particulars. Such as How many tickets have been issued? Has the Marine Patrol seen a difference this year opposed to last year? etc. Actual Data... |
Quote:
I also agree that the only thing the trial will prove is if she were drunk as well as going too fast for the conditions. |
Quote:
How on earth can you make a statement like that?? Your contradicting yourself! In one paragraph your saying a speed limit would have made a difference, in the next you stating that the boats operation was not reasonable or prudent for the conditions! I dont see how you can argue that a speed limit would have mattered.... I am sure you agree that the 25MPH Speed Limit is not an absolute. There will be times and conditons on the lake when a speed much less than 25 MPH would be considered "reasonable and prudent". The estimated speed at impact has not been released, (I am sure we will get that number in Oct) so we have no way of knowing if in fact she was traveling at a speed greater than 25 MPH! All conditions being equal, without knowing exactly how fast she was travelling, you really cant logically form an opinion if a 25MPH speed limit would have made a difference. WinnFabs used the same argument for the Littlefield/Hartman accident. The NHMP accident team estimated that speed at 28 MPH! All things being equal, It may be that she was travelling too fast for the conditions that night, and there is an existing rule for that. It's possible that she wasnt keeping a proper lookout (got a rule for that too) Its up for a JURY to decide what are the mitigating circumstances surrounding this accident to determine her innocence or guilt, not you, I or anyone else. The only way one can ABSOLUTELY say the accident would not have happened was for that boat and those poor souls to have never left the dock that day! Woodsy |
Quote:
HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way. That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law. |
Quote:
Either way, this accident would not have been avoided by a speed limit, reasonable or prudent, careless or negligent - "in my opinion". You have "your opinion" so lets check the opinions and the speculation at the door and discuss what the speed limits have accomplished now that they have been in effect for the year, not what we think they could have accomplished when they weren't even in effect. The speed limit debate has been opened up to discuss the results and if they should be continued so please lets keep on topic. Hopefully that is clear enough... |
BI Is Right
Quote:
but..... and you knew there would be a butt somewhere :D You go on to say Quote:
Quote:
I agree with you're general premise that the wording changes in the new law are good ones, long time coming. Makes it easier to actually get a conviction. Unfortunately, when you went off in all directions during the SL debate, your most salient points were lost in a sea of boat wakes, NWZ's and other such rubbish. But you're too smart to not know that :rolleye2: At any rate, most of us agree with the bulk of the wording's intent, and also with the general framework of boating safety. Until the MP is not living hand to mouth, most of it is a moot discussion. The folks that are strict supporters of only the speed limits themselves? They have no data, never had any data, and can't even hang their hats on accidents that support their only cause. We know this because we'd be inundated with data on an hourly basis if they had something, anything. I'd prefer to stay on track with the safety thread myself, at least it's constructive. |
BI,
Please stop hiding behind the words "Reasonable and Prudent". We all know HB847 is about so much more than that. Stop using the smoke and mirrors, please! Until Jan 1, 2009 we had this: 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. "Operate in a Reasonable and Prudent Manner" is just another way of saying "Do Not Operate in a Careless and Negligent Manner" in my opinion. You are just spinning things again for your agenda. Quite frankly, I completely agree with Reasonable and Prudent. Those are great words. It is the 45 MPH limit during the day on the whole lake that is your fight. My objective is Boating Safety, so I embrace Reasonable and Prudent operation for all vessels. However, before we had to operate in a manner that was not Careless and Negligent. I really do not see any real difference, except for while Careless and Neglient only effected power boats, reasonable and prudent effects all vessels, including sail boats and kayaks. R2B |
What really is upsetting is if you read the article it says (the winfabs spokesman) states they do not have the time to wait for the data to be collected and must file legislation now.
This is an absolute 180 in comparisson to the reasons they fought for the testing and 2 year provision to begin with!!! See give them an inch and they go for the mile.... It is beyond frustrating! |
They did fight hard for the data, almost as hard as they fought to get a poll consisting of very broad language done.
They can't wait for any data because it shows nothing, just as it did last year. They openly accused the MP of not doing the job properly and of being biased. With the lake traffic down this summer, and hardly a mention of a ticket, much less a ton of them, what do they have? Same as always, an agenda with no data. If they were part of the Global Warming debate, god knows what kinds of laws they could get passed:eek: Getting back to the BI support for the wording. It's important to understand the difference between the old and new wording. Old: 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. Try to take that one to court. So now you'd have a boater arguing that 24mph is safe and prudent because...... blah blah New 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. Specific, not vague and open to all kinds of legal interpretations. It also gives the MP the ability to bring into play that speed is important to the event. I disagree with BI that the new wording is all that important to last year's accident, although it most assuredly would have applied, and would make the prosecutor's job much easier. The prosecution apparently didn't have much problem coming up with multiple charges anyway. But the wording is very good, and does not in anyway restrict anyone's ability to enjoy their craft on the lake. There may be cases where an MP interprets the conditions to be real, and may not be correct. But this wording has teeth, and will at least give the LEO's some help in getting a real bad guy off the water if there's one around. This is not a law that's aimed at someone innocently being only 100' away from a dock or boat, or just screws up without a foul. Hopefully, LEO's will use it prudently, and target those that really need it, like repeat offenders, habitual recklessness, that sort of thing. It also makes it easier to stop the drinks, which is important. |
Quote:
Where and whom did the poll, and how were the questions worded? Were these people polled a good sampling of boaters or just residents without boating experience? Not to mention it is again difficult to say 80% of the population from a poll because sampling does not constitute a unbiased % of the population. That would be like saying, lets not hold elections, lets just go by this Poll conducted by CNN..... :eek: I have no problem with a supporter and opposer threads where people feel "safe" to discuss their own thoughts without opposition. What I have an issue with is people making remarks that go unquestioned that others can then go back and contitute as "fact". The old saying " I read it on the internet / paper so it must be true " comes to mind. I also invite elchase to answer the questions posed by myself and other posters that have been posed since the intial posts. Is this a case of "Ring and Run"? |
hmmm
Ocdactive,
There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts. Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone… There is a presence I’ve not felt since…. I think somebody is BACK :eek: |
Quote:
I understand no discussions no debates, however it shouldn't give your free rain to just post any piece of data and not state where it is from or how it was derived.. Otherwise anyone could turn and start making up %'s and posting them in the opposers thread as well. Later on someone could go back and think they are accurate or others (not going to name names) could go and use many different pieces of different threads to try to prove a point. I am just looking for checks and balances. If you want to make your own thoughts and opinions known and state them there I am all for that and I believe that is what the ideology was for their inception. However if you go there to start pushing an agenda and making statements from others, data, facts, or supposed truths from others then you should be able to be called out on them. I think that if we can not question these so called facts then the moderator should have anything not "opinions" or "personal experiences" removed from those threads. |
Quote:
How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters? I'm not seeing much productive discussion about the topic. This is not what I had in mind when I reopened it. :( |
[QUOTE=webmaster;102175]
How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters? QUOTE] Thank you Webmaster, You have helped get to the heart of the topic. There is very little NEW data available. That is why I am very sceptical of data quoted in many of the posts and why see it as something to contest. The 2 year trial law with a sunset provision was designed so actual data could be recorded on the "whole" lake and not just some test areas with "actual" consequences. This was the base line arguement for the intial law in the first place. Now legistlation is trying to be hammered though where it has been stated on both sides that "data has yet to be collected". This is why it is imperative to discuss the issue. Without data, you are correct only the old arguments from past threads are there to be checked. I am simply making sure that people do not quote information from the past without basis to do so now that it has been put back on the table. There has already been data posed by the opposers (see Mee n Macs research) which show we are serious about discussing the topic at hand and not just rehashing old arguements. Needless to say this is a very heated and controversal issue which will always lead to spirited debate that some take very personally because it directly effects their lifestyle at the place they have come know and love, no matter what side of the argument you are on. |
As most everyone knows, there is really no such thing as permanent for a law passed by the New Hampshire legislature. As the winds of state politics shift around the political compass, what gets a pass one year, can do a complete come-about and get repealed in the next year.
For many years up till November 2006, the Republicans were large and in charge at the NH State House. Also for many years, the NH Marine Trades Association, a lobbying group supported by a number of NH boat dealers, was a consistant contributor to Republican candidates across the state. Not to worry.....things are definately looking up for the Republicans here in NH......witness the big Jeb Bradley, state senate win that took place last spring. How do you think Jeb will be voting if this current speed limit sunset scuttle makes it to the senate? Jeb will be saying that it is simply a solution look'n for a problem....and then pocket that NHMTA thousand dollars contribution! Not to worry! :D:):D Hey...when the kayak connected businesses want to contribute to a Democrat....all the Dem politicos want is a box of granola and some yogurt....different strokes for different folks.....ahem |
change you can believe in. :D
|
Quote:
Speed is a Relative Term. 45mph in your boat maybe fast. 45mph in my boat is just a tad over cruise speed and the superior hull design makes it seem as you are only going 25mph. Yes Speed is Addictive!!!! I agree 100% with Safe Boating for everyone on the lake and I have done so for the last 10+ years. I am fanatical over the 150 rule and would never do a high speed blast in one of the bays or with boat traffic in the area. HOWEVER, Speed Limit or No Speed Limit if I am in the Broads all alone and I feel it is safe to do so 50mph to 60+mph will occur often... Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around? |
Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....
I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits: "Have you ever been in a performance boat??" It is apples and oranges. Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys. I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident..... I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe. If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat. It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it. On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc. Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner. It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution. |
Quote:
I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee. |
Quote:
|
It is absolutely incredible that Rep Pilliod and his supporters would file such a bill so early and only after a few months of actual boating season. It really shows what they are really made of and their true intentions. One can only hope that the people see them for what they are and hopefully question any further bills on their agenda. Their total lack of respect for the state and abuse of their powers for personal pleasure is unacceptable. Good moral fiber seems to be in short supply when it comes to this group and their actions.
|
Quote:
If the current speed limit is to be extended then the only reasonable way to do it is for the the speed limit to be renewed before it expires in about 16 months. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't see how the number of boats on the lake that can go over 45 changes anything. Not many civilian planes can go MACH 1, yet there is a MACH 1 speed limit over the entire USA. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Water quality, tourism, fair distribution of public resources, erosion, noise, conservation, loon mortality, children's camps, the direction the lake community is headed in. These are all reasons to have a speed limit. |
Quote:
|
Of course BI, you have honestly reported your motivation for a speed limit for some time.
But others have a different motivation: Quote:
|
Quote:
Very well said... While I do not always agree with BI, he has always stayed true to his beliefs. Some of which I personally feel are unfounded but that is what discussions and debates are for.... As mentioned others have a completely different agenda and are not willing to particiapte in civil conversations. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.