more expert testimony on SB-27
 

SB-27 would undermine commonsense speed limits on big lake

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...985/-1/CITNEWS

Anglers in the Broads? Yeah that's where they all shoot too during the fishing derby's isn't it? :laugh:

So a SL would have prevented the Blizzard collision? :laugh:

I'm glad to see the SL supporters are worried. Maybe I should ask to be a part of the WinnFabs team so I can toy with them:liplick:

Why do I keep seeing this being said? What substantiates this claim?

Nothing.
 

Nothing substantiates this claim whatsoever. Just the liberal, self serving, selfish agenda of WinnFabs. Screw everyone else under the phony guise of "safety". Compromise? Hell no. They want it all, their way - period. The broads are for sailboats and kayaks...not powerboats.

Anyway, my signature says it all: :fire:

Experts?
 

Who are the experts? Names please?

I think this might be a bit of sarcasm

Someone care to refresh my memory. What was the testified speed of the Blizzard accident?

I don't know about her speed as testified in her court trial, but this quote came from the Concord Monitor article, "Brakes On Boat Speed Limits" dated 12/2/2010;

I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS:

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach

A couple of problems I have with this letter written by Mr thurston if the lake is so congested that its hard to imagine not violating the 150 foot rule than existing laws say headway speed is he saying that its ok to be closer as long as you are under the 45 mph speed limit....... 150 feet is the same distance @ any speed ...... people where scared because people like him where telling them to be scared .... also isn't that the same thustons that have been renting boats to i would imagine very many inexperienced skippers , I am sure some know what there doing , that I have seen doing far more dangerous things than a boat by itself going 80 thru the broads . Like his its jmo.......... fire away

Other than getting his name right and the fact that he owns a marina, I dont see another fact in his poorly written letter.

I have read your post ten times and I still don’t understand any of it. :confused: Is there a question or statement that you made that pertains to Mr. Thurston’s article?

Maybe it might help me understand what you are trying to say if you quoted Mr. Thurston’s exact comment/s, and then after that write your rebuttal.

Also if you a problem with the way Mr. Thurston runs his business (I think that’s what you’re saying…not sure though) could you please have some facts to back that up.

jeffrey;
you say the law is working . Well here it goes . Is it bring you more business so people can rent your boats and you can make more.
Then the law is just for you. To get people that don't know how to drive a boat. What i mean is on summer day i was going down the channel and a boat you rented to sum expert cut across both lanes and smashed in wall across from your docks.
What a treasured achievement is how n.h. Went about how to get driver lic.to the day renter...

It may not stop anyone from boating, BUT.......

........I don't believe violation of the 150 ft rule, cutting off other boaters and speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed are "proper behavior" on the lake! So in that sense, a defined speed limit does nothing. :mad:

You are right Wolfeboro_Baja and I'm glad that you said that because IMHO that is what the SBONH members should be working on to make our beautiful Lake safer.

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....and what better way to do that then getting the SBONH to do just that.

The speed limit law has taken care of one problem, now we all need to get involved and fix what you stated.

Thank you for bringing that up! :)

We have been yelling and screaming about this since the very beginning of the speed limit debate and all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING and once again, the supporters are saying it didn't!! Wow, there's a surprise!

The speed limit law was just a law looking for a problem to fix and apparently it didn't fix anything! Wow, another surprise.... :mad:

You got the point you just don't want to admit it I gave an opinion just as he did all opinion no facts given in either case......... I have no problem with atone or the way they run their business just a little issue with the hypocrisy

People feel this way on both sides. I personally feel that the general public was sold on the idea of the 45MPH limit making the lake safer in general.

It only "fixes" one issue. It was just the easiest way to pass a new regulatory law on the lake because it is so cut and dry.

The accidents that occur would be avoided if the other rules/laws were enforced and obeyed.

The SL doesnt help with the 150ft rule, it doesnt help with right of way, safe passage, BWI, being courteous of your wake, and just proper education. It was the EASY way out. "Dont go over 45mph" everyone can understand that rule, its black and white and you dont need to think. It's simply an example of the government making a regulation rather than having people think for themselves.

From what I gather, most of the Anti SL crowd simply feel that an unjust regulation was slapped into place without fully asessing what the situation was.

I saw Pro-SL supporters walking around and getting signatures from people in Portsmouth, NH. Most of the people probably never even have been on the lake, own or operate a boat (power or not) They were getting signatures from college kids and people who had NO IDEA what the real issues were.

That is what I have issue with. My boat goes 41MPH on GPS at maximum speed and probably never will own a "go fast" type of boat.

Everyone seems to long for the days of yesteryears when people were more respectful and courteous. With so many regulations being in place nobody had to learn courtesy and respect, they just follow the law or they dont. You can't impose laws and have the result be more courteous people.

Sorry for the ramble, i am in a rush to get out of work and enjoy a weekend of shoveling my roof. Good weekend to pro and anti SL folks alike!!

For someone who is in a rush that was very well written. :)

The speed limit law was never intended to fix all the problems on the Lake. It was put in place so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer. It serves no other purpose than that.

That being said. I have friends running around in hydrostreams, apaches and allisons which are certainly capable of running well over the speed limit. Some of them at triple digit speeds.

I don't think it is fair to limit this group of boaters, it is their absolute lifestyle to wrench on and run these types of boats. I thorougly enjoy having my rear end planted on the floor of a 19 foot boat that is running 90+ mph. These boats are NOT ocean boats, they are lake and river boats doing what they were built to do. It is possible to operate a fast boat safely without putting OTHER PEOPLE in danger. I am more afraid of captain bonehead at 45mph than one of these guys at 75mph.

Go fast, hurt yourself, dont hurt other people. That's where education comes into play and understanding boundaries.

I hope your friends have found a body of water that will allow them to go as fast as they want......however on Lake Winnipesaukee they will have to obey the speed limit of 45/30.

If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

Thurston's renters
 

I find the renters more scary than those who drives fast boats. I seen too many of them traveling the Weirs Channel NWZ at above no wake speed. One year a pontoon boat pulled right out of Thurston directly in front of a cruiser. The cruiser had to steer in front of me to avoid the renter. I put my craft into reverse and hit the rocks damaging a $600 SS prop. Several boaters pulled into Thurstons to complain. I guess this has happened before as Thurston already called the police and the MP. He was sitting behind his desk chuckling when the police told us to file a report and leave.

This is why I am strongly against temporary permits. I actually saw one guy fill out the test. The rental agent told him the answers. Not fair.

I think they should end the temporary permits now. Catering to a local business for short term profits and convenience is no way to manage safety.

Bingo! Another hypocrite profit taker. Well for me this is just another on the list of businesses to boycott (along with Alex Ray's restaurants (Common Man, Camp, Lago, Lake House) and Rusty McLear's establishments (Church Landing, Mill Falls, Inn at Bay Point) ). I'll pay double for gas before I fill up at Thurston's now.

Once again, my signature says it all.... Repeat after me:

It's pathetic all about safety as long as my wallet is not effected

As Jack Nicholson stated in one of his movies, "You Can't handle the truth".:D

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

Sorry, I know nothing of the kind. The speed limit has most often been called a "tool" that the Marine Patrol can use.

I am unaware speed limits ever been refereed to by supporters as a "panacea" or any word that is even roughly synonymous with panacea. I am not the one over-reaching here.


In any event, you should remember the Governor signed this bill into law only 7 months ago. Do you REALLY think he is going to sign a repeal this soon? Politicians hate the flip-flopper moniker.

Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me;)

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat:laugh:

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.:rolleye1:

Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management". ;)


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!
:confused::confused::confused::confused:

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions! :)

thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %

David Barrett the head of the Marine Patrol is opposed to the speed limit yet admits it is being followed. He doesn't say it works 100%. After all very few things work 100%. Below are some quotes from Mr. Barrett from a recent interview in the Concord Monitor.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in. :)

Wrong again. There were plenty of boats going over 30 mph at night. That is where the speed limits has had the greatest impact.

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.



The current law was 6 years in coming and involved many public meetings around the lake area and many legislative debates. That does not meet my definition of "rammed through".

Agreeing to a 2 year study to gather data and then pushing it through a year early is ramming it through IMO.

I'm still waiting for you and other SL supporters to present objective data showing benefits of the speed limit.

Here's a a little tidbit. There are hyrdologic studies that demonstrate slow speeds through shallower depths increase the amount of sediment that is kicked up from the bottom.

When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

I'm not missing anything. The logic is quite simple to follow. The SL proponents argument is that a speed limit is the catch-all for what they infer are inherent problems with existing laws. So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.:laugh::laugh:
We didn't hear that in the testimony supporting the SL law did we?:confused:

Regarding my objectivity, I don't see many others willing to hear both sides and looking for data. I've stated many times I would support a SL if someone could show me objective data that the SL does anything of value. So, I would disagree with you.... Lack of evidence plus my own personal experiences on the lake is how I've based my decision.

Wrong another time. Speed limit supporters NEVER wanted or agreed to the so called "speed study". In fact they were totally opposed to it.

That was a sham of a last minute move to delay enactment of a the speed limit. Barrett pulled that rabbit out of his hat at almost the last moment to delay the bill. It was never taken seriously by the Marine Patrol that did it as evidenced by the fact the didn't log very pertinent data.

Where do you people get your information? It's almost all wrong.

So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.:)

So where do you draw the line? My boat is pushing 5000+ pounds with a 320 HP V-8 and does a whisper over 45 MPH on a good day. So what is too big? Too fast?

BI has mentioned HP limits. Apparently what was good for him prior to owning lake front property is not good enough for others to enjoy.

Look at the progression. 150 ft rule, rafting restrictions, mandatory education, now a SL. So what's next? Time to push back!!

Thanks lawn psycho! I do understand your frustration.

I personally barefoot ski at around 53 mph. Since the speed limit passed, I still do. My neighbors and others says if the MP ever pick me up for speeding there will be one hell of a demonstration at the court house. I didn't see that coming, but if it happens I have no control. Everyone loves to see me ski.

There was a social meeting last summer about restarting the Winnipesaukee Water Ski races. Mainly because the teenagers around the lake are bored and getting into all kinds of mischief. During the racing years many teenagers were busy practicing for the races. Very little mischief going on. After talking with Dunleavy, it won't be practical with the speed limits. Everyone would have to fill out forms in advanced to practice. Causing a huge paper shuffle at MP headquarters.

Bet the SL supporters didn't see that coming. They just don't give a damn!

There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

So your answer is what I suspected in that no amount of data would satisfy you.

As far as speed limits based on childrens camps, I think the number of boats on a busy day is a far, far a greater factor than speed. And that's just the facts of life. There are tons of places for camps to have small boats unfestered by motor boats. Do you think a speed limit would change your mind when traveling in the Weirs area on a busy weekend with a kayak?

It's no different then when I avoid traffic areas while on the road. So the bikers ruin the Laconia/Meredith area for me during bike weeks so should that mean they cancel the event for those who don't participate?

Comparing roads to the water is apples and oranges. We set road speed limits on OBJECTIVE data such as traffic volume, accident occurance, population densities, lane widths, number of egress points, sight lines, elevation changes, pavement type, amount of development, and a whole plethera of other criteria. Ever notice in certain areas where the speed limit miraculously changes from 65-55 seemingly for no reason? Now you have your answer..... And if you insist on comparing the water to the road, then do like the NHDOT (and all other States) and complete engineering studies before placing an arbitrary speed limit on the lake. And be careful what you wish for as the data is not likely to be in your favor.

lawn psycho,

When BI cannot "spin" his way out of a dabate--especially when confronted with facts, he will invariably pull out the "I'm afraid for the campers routine."

The merrimack river, newfound, highland, webster, etc.

If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.

http://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/30/a...ed-limits-set/

If you read the article closely you will see that the author is not describing how speed limits are set, but giving his opinion as to how they SHOULD be set.

More importantly he never disagrees with what I posted.

Actually he does disagree with you. He prefaces the article by saying he removes his opinion and relies on the data. That's what an engineer is supposed to do.

http://livermore.patch.com/articles/...coming-to-town

Try this, and many more. I know for sure that almost every roadway on the country used this method for many decades. But I'm just addressing roadway SL. On the water is quite a bit different, and arbitrary limits plucked out of a hat are not really meaningful.

I have found that arguing with a statistician is a lot like wrestling with a pig, after a few hours you begin to realize the pig likes it.;)

Hey guys,

Instead of picking apart every minor comment I have posted, and then scouring the Internet for hours to try and find an expert opinion that differs from mine, why don't we talk about SB-27.

*COUGH, COUGH* Where in my posts do you see my scouring the internet? WinnFabs site is germaine.

The editorial above uses this argument against SB-27[...The proposed change to the law would replace hard and fast numbers with the words "reasonable and prudent...]

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening:laugh:

Here is something that I don’t understand: Why are the supporters of SB-27 asking people on this forum for data that supports a 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee? :confused:

We didn’t sign the bill that has imposed the speed limit. I think most of us have told you why we think that a speed limit is necessary (and you won’t accept that) and evidently Governor Lynch thinks there should be one also.

So Mr. lawn psycho, why don’t you write the Governor and ask him to show you data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. When you get his response it would be nice if you shared that with all of us.

Tell him that "Rusty" gave you an assignment, he knows who I am. :)

One other thing lawn psycho: Because you “have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis”, what are the odds that Governor Lynch will supply you with the hard data that you are looking for?

Governor's ear
 

Did you provide any direct input to Governor Lynch prior to him signing the bill? Like a phone call or personal letter. Just curious.:)

Rusty, you still haven't provided a shred of evidence that supports ANY numerical limit. The governor won't have it because it DOESN'T EXIST:)

Let me clue you in on the legislative process, the Governor merely signed something that was passed to him. The Gov. did not initiate the bill.

And if you want me to believe that you personally had the ear of the Governor to be the hedge point to get him to sign the bill, I have a needle to pop the air within your big head:laugh:

Thank you professor psycho for the lesson about the "legislative process".

What you could do in your letter to the Governor is to tell him that you know that he doesn't have any hard data but that you were asked to inquire about it. I would like to see what his response will be. :emb:

I'm going to let you have the last word on this subject because you know what I said about statisticians. :D

I'm still waiting for you to actually provide me data! I need data in order to wrestle ;)

I have answered that question many times. Look back at the old speed limit threads and you can read all about it.

However if you look back at post 35 you will see a quote from the Marine Patrol Director.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."


That one piece of DATA is all you should need.

Wrestle with this probability question:

Each of the letters of the word Winnipesaukee are written on separate pieces of paper that are then folded, put in a hat, and mixed thoroughly.

One piece of paper is chosen (without looking) from the hat. What is the probability that it is an i?

I'm sure the booze wasn't the problem. 3 mph slower would have made a difference or perhaps if they where all traveling at reasonable or prudent speed the outcome would have been different

BI, do you really believe that a speed limit would have yielded ANY change in the outcome of the Blizzard crash? Seriously?

I'll go with your logic however and apply it too you. So since more than three shorefront owners around the lake probably have a dock or beach violation, then all private docks and beaches should be banned. Less docks would also mean less boats to make way for the campers too!

Come on, you can do better than that. Here's a simple one that is counterintuitive to people. What is the probability that two people share the same birthday (only needs to be the same month/day and can ignore year). Hint: Not as common as you would think.

So now you are equating "dock or beach" violations with speed related deaths. Really!

The first person can have any birthday. That gives him 365 possible birthdays out of 365 days, so the probability of the first person having the "right" birthday is 365/365, or 100%.
The chance that the second person has the same birthday is 1/365. So the probability that both people have this birthday, you multiply their separate probabilities. (365/365) * (1/365) = 1/365, or about 0.27%.

No, my logic is that if ONE person is violating then we must pass legislation so NONE can violate.

I should have made it the classic birthday problem and given you a group of people and asked the same question. Then you have to handle the different conditional probabilities.

When I was in college, my undergrad prof started out a random processes class with a similar problem trying to prove a point. The funny part is we had a pair of twins in the class. Completely spoiled his thunder :laugh:

The professor that I had (many years ago) was educated way beyond his intelligence. I couldn’t stand him…he acted sorta like you! However you do have some good traits and he had absolutely none!!!

There was a thread awhile ago about "Illegal" Float Plane operations on Pickeral Pond. It was started by Shedwanabe.

Being a Private Pilot, I volunteered some information based on my avaition knowledge. I was challenged by Skip to write a letter to the FAA to resolve the matter. WHAT..? Who am I to write a letter to resolve a LOCAL matter, as to whether a Float Plane can land on Pickeral Pond.?

This challenge by Rusty... seems eerily similar to my experience with Skip.

BTW: Shedwanabe. ...to his credit..did his own investigating and found that the Float Plane operations on Pickeral Pond were indeed legal.

SO: Is Rusty ...another screen name for Skip. ..?? :D NB

http://www.myemoticons.com/images/em...nking/ummm.gif I wonder what the probability is that I am Skip? :laugh:

Wonder who's behind curtain three?
 

Hmmm....I wonder too.

Well, at least you are no Bozo! :laugh:

With so many Republicans now in both the NH state senate and house, it seems like SB-27 could get passed because they want to "bring freedom to the waters," or some reason like that as candidate John Stephen said last October.

So, what's the procedure for a bill like this that gets started in the senate? Does it start in a senate committee, then go over to the house for a full house vote, and then back to the senate for a full senate vote, and then go to the governor's desk?
...........................

150' of safe passage space is just the blink of an eye in time when speeding around in a 27'-1200hp-8000lb GO-FAST going 70-mph, and that's why they like to refer to kayaks as "SPEED-BUMPS." .....ka-chunk.....hey did we just hit something? .....don't know....and don't care.....see you later!

Erica was smart enough to have a quart of vodka and a 38 handgun stored away on-board, but not smart enough to slow down to a very slow speed because she was "in a black hole" at the time. ....ka-chunk! ....goodbye Nicole....see you later!

Reading this new Bill is making me sea sick.:D

Below is some of the wording in SB-27 that I don't understand:
... shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights?
... The state of wind, sea, and current?
... The draft in relation to the available depth of water?
... The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment?
... The effect on radar detection of the sea state?

I know I'm not the brightest bulb in this forum but could someone who helped write this Bill explain these things to me.

This is how some of it is written:

(1) By all vessels:
(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(D) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(2) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(A) The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment.
(B) Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
(C) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather, and other sources of interference.
(D) The possibility that small vessels, ice, and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range.
(E) The number, location, and movement of vessels detected by radar.
(F) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Les

Going after Erica is one thing.

But I think you should leave the victims alone.

Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatin...-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Apparently we in NH are not smart enough to follow the same rules as the rest of the universe. Instead, we must be governed like children (or idiots), and subjected to the false agendas of the elitists like WinnFabs.

Repeat after me:

Most of the additions in this Bill are not measureable (they are guidelines only) and will just add confusion to the RSA.

Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA’s) are not guidelines, they are the law!

Guidelines didn’t control the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee before the law was put into place and they won’t if the speed limit is replaced.

The NH Marine Patrol can measure the speed of a boat but they cannot measure guidelines.

IMO absolutely no thought was put in SB-27 before it was written….it was just a cut and paste job that took about 5 minutes to do. The state of wind, sea, and current…. The draft in relation to the available depth of water….. The effect on radar detection of the sea state??? What a joke this is to put in a NH RSA. How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

This Bill cannot and should not replace what is written in RSA 270-D:2.

Are the Coast Guard Navigation rules written so that they are incomprehensible? Figured they had been around and used for a lot longer.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among
those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels;
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing
vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to
stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) at night, the presence of background light such as from shore
lights or from back scatter of her own lights;
(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of
navigational hazards;
(vi) the draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the
radar equipment;
(ii) any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
(iii) the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather
and other sources of interference;
(iv) the possibility that small vessels, ice and other
floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
(v) the number, location and movement of vessels detected by
radar;
(vi) the more exact assessment of the visibility that may be
possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or
other objects in the vicinity.

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

What does Skip think...Just wondering...:D NB

PS: If I keep talkin like this I'm gonna be moderated..Been There..Done That....YUP: Maybe I'm just kidding...:)

And what data exists to show that 45 MPH is too fast??????

Hey Rusty, I think the WinnFlabs supporters must feel like they are standing on the deck of this ship. MUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVRxv...eature=related

I'm sorry but if you can't understand those statements, then you should NOT be operating a boat and that goes for anyone else that can't understand them!! You people that are so confused by those statements, do everyone else a favor and STAY OFF THE LAKE; YOU'RE THE REASON THE LAKE IS UNSAFE!! It's not unsafe just because a boat can travel faster than 45mph. :eek:

There's more than just the literal interpretation of the word "rule" that can be considered. You've never heard of "rules of the road" when driving a car? Perhaps you shouldn't be operating a car either!! :eek:

NH RSA’s are not meant to be training manuals. If you want to know what the Boating Safty Rules are then go here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule...saf-c6100.html


These signs will take the variables out of my calculations when I need to know how fast I can go.


http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/imag...5mph-small.png

http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/imag...0mph-small.png

NH small businesses
 

Maybe you should throw out all the rules governing small business in NH. That will be a huge relief. How about it?

Also all the rules for NH insurance industry. Maybe we can have some competition to drive down the premiums. What do you think?

Works for me! ;)

Rusty...

Not sure what your backround is, but rest assured the Coast Guard "Rules" carry the full weight of law behind them.... You can and will be cited by the USCG for breaking any of them! Violation of any of these "rules" in the wrong circumstances can and will result in death or serious injury! Most of our existing boating RSA's take thier language DIRECTLY from USCG Rules & Regulations and the COLREGS!

International Maritime Law has been around alot longer than this country has existed! Most of the laws we have on the book in NH and the rest of the US regarding safe boating operation come directly from COLREGS!

http://www.boatingsafety.com/colregs.htm

If you notice, the COLREGS (also adopted by USCG) are broken off into numbered sections.... Rules 1-3 define the terms used. Rule 4 on defines the actual Rule of Law.

Also... last I checked there are no "signs" bobbing in the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee telling you what speeds are allowed. In fact I dont recall any signage at the boat launch either!

Woodsy

Why not just make one huge sign that says BOAT NOT PERMITTED and then all the problems go away. It would even stop the people from griping about shorefont property taxes as the house values drop, island properties would become worthless and less people would mean improved water quality, there would be no risk to humanity of getting hit by a boat, the docks would not need to be in the water and impacting fish species, no need for marine patrol expenses and maintaining all the markers, there would be no BUI, no need for the legislature to come up with endless laws to appease a small number of people who happen to own on Winni. Those are all just ideas from the 1st 1 um into my frontal lobe I'm sure there are many other ills that the banning ALL people from the lake would solve.

See, don't tell me I can't solve problems! Be careful what you wish for Rusty.

< 45/25 IS Reasonable and Prudent!
 

1) "Common sense" is the rarity we have all been striving for: "reasonable and prudent" is not.

2) "Near where we stay" is the language of a visitor to the lake: Winnipesaukee's lakefront residents aren't the only complainants. :(

Come to think of it, under 45 is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. The vast majority of PFDs aren't capable of water impact at any greater speeds: If your PFD was purchased recently, look inside yours—you'll see that disclaimer! :eek2:

Humans Aren't Endangered...
 

One of my winter visitations includes about 40 square miles of mostly woodlands and a few hundred residences. The speed limit is 25-MPH, and in a few places, 20-MPH.

With a hundred miles of dead-straight roadways, why is the speed limit set at 25?

Because these roadways pass through about 40 square miles of a Federal Wildlife Preserve set aside to save an endangered sub-species of deer!
:eek2:

So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations