Speed Limit test zones dead in the water!
 

There will be no test speed zones on Winni this year and we are now back to the statewide speed limit proposal.

Read all about it HERE in today's on-line edition of the Citizen!

Website to Oppose
 

Here is the link to submit your opposition to this ridiculous bill

http://www.opposehb847.com/

All should get involved!

Moving the Hazard
 

As a practical matter, all that the southernmost speed zone did was to move the hazard from one side of Rattlesnake Island to the other. The Broads side of the island devolved into "the passing lane".

Just visiting my MD-friend's place on Rattlesnake became even more a hit-and-miss proposal: just to wave "Hi" meant running the gauntlet twice.

As most in law enforcement will tell you, "You don't fix crime with enforcement, you just move it".

Barrett loses another round in his attempt to scuttle speed limits with an 8 year "Pilot Program".

I hope this doesn't effect any of those big money jobs in the boating industry he has been preparing for.

what are you even talking about?

Were they (winfabs) afraid the facts would get in the way of their agenda? certainly seems so after reading the article.

Facts don’t matter …
 

… because this is not a rational discussion. Interestingly enough I do not believe that it is based on fear either, although “terrified” and “anguished” people make for good theater during hearings. The push for speed limits is fueled by anger and the desire for revenge over the death of one of their friends. There is no reasoning or discussion with such single minded anger. A large speedboat was responsible for the death of their friend so these boats must be removed from the lake. Since it would probably be impossible to ban a specific boat type the next best thing would be to pass a speed limit that would limit the enjoyable use of such boats and make them “persona non grata” on the lake.

The only thing that facts could do in this case might be to slow up the progress toward a speed limit. It is no surprise that the pro speed limit organizations don’t want to be bothered with inconvenient facts that would impede their agenda.

I'm not sure responding to the "we need speed" crowd is worth the trouble anymore. Just read the latest on the fatal Maine boat disaster. How many politicians are going to read that and vote against speed limits.

This bill is a done deal. Even the leaders of the opposition know that now. And Barrett acknowledged it in the article.

"I still believe a statute is going to pass," said Barrett.

Its not we need speed crowd. Heck, my boat won't even hit 40. It's the personal responsibility, personal freedom, smaller government, etc. crowd. We're becoming a society where the government is taking more and more responsibility for our choices. Remember 1984? Once we go down that slope there's no coming back. I think you've been missing that message all along. Anyway, I'm done with this.

Did you even read 1984?

You equate a speed limit to 1984? Get a clue!

Unfortunately, the reason that we need laws (like a lake speed limit law), is that too many members of our society put their own freedoms above the freedom of others. There are just way too many self-centered people who feel that they have the "right" to do whatever they enjoy doing - reguardless on how it affects others.

I'm not saying that everyone (with a fast boat) feels that way, but I do believe that there are enough of them to justify a NH lake speed limit law - to protect the rights of others (especially those in smaller, slower boats) to safely use the same lakes. Otherwise those with the most horsepower win - they get to keep their freedom, while the rest of us lose some of our freedom.

I said I was done, but personal insults tend to require a response. YES I read it. 1984 posits a world where the government is totalitarian in word and deed. According to the government, this life must be endured for the collective good. If you can't see the parallel with losing personal freedom and personal responsibility, then I give up. Like I said I'm done. I hope you archive your utopia it's clearly different than mine.

So you don't think 1984 applies, how about if I paraphase 1934?

First they came for the fast boaters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a fast boater.
Then they came for the rafters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a rafter.
Then they came for the yachters, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a yachter.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Here's the article on WMUR's website.A lot of reteric from the pro speed limit groups but no opposing viewpoints.It's certainly not because everyones in favor.Hmmm.
http://www.wmur.com/news/13915326/detail.html

very well said.

The lack of response is not because there is no opposition.

It's because the opposition knows its all over.




Explain please why speed limits on lakes will bring about 1984, but speed limits on roads are ok? Or are you against them as well?

That's not how I see it.Most fair media will show both sides of a hotly debated story.

What's the issue?
 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that if part of the objection to the pilot was the 8-year duration, change it to a one-year pilot, get the information and make an informed decision. Common sense?

My honest opinion is that speed limit or no, it's not going to change anything of significance on the water: I think most boats out there are doing less than 45 MPH, 45+ MPH on a weekend is typically hard to do comfortably with the boat density and associated chop, and then if you even have some boats doing 45+, what's the likelihood of an enforcement officer being in the right place all the time to stop it? My read of MP's data collection to date seems to support the idea that few boats are in excess of 45. And if the even smaller population of night-time boaters is comfortable going over 25, have at it!

What are we really debating here? I just don't see this making any difference if it passes or not. I'm now on the sidelines with Paugus Bay Resident on this one ;)

We are debating the future of the lake. It will make a huge difference!

Its not really about how fast a given boat goes. It IS about the direction the lake community is taking. I don't care if they hand out a lot of tickets or not.

When the speed limit passes the lake will take a step back from the more speed, more horsepower, more noise direction we are in now.

Most of the high speed boats will go somewhere else. I'll say that again so it can sink in. THEY WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

The lake will never go back to "Golden Pond". But it is a big step in that direction.

Ever since the speed limit debate began we have been told by the opposition that if it passes the lakes area will be economically devastated.

They claim that millions in high speed boat sales, service, hotel and restaurant revenues will be lost. Many people testified to this at the hearings two years ago.

Now we are supposed to believe that nothing will be changed by a speed limit! The old argument was not working so they will try a new one.

Boats that have moved another body of water can not be breaking the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. That makes a speed limit self enforcing. They will not be speeding, because they will not be here!

And the lake will be a little quieter, less hectic and less polluted.

Seeing as how speed limits on roads don't prevent people from driving at whatever speed they deem reasonable, what makes you think it will be any better on a lake? Where the officer to driver ratio is lower, and then travel lanes are less predictable, and it's harder to setup a speed trap?

A speed limit on the lake will only become a revenue stream to whomever ends up enforcing it.

As for the speedboats going someplace else, I also doubt that. There are really no other nearby inland lakes large enough to make their use fun, and a lot of their owners seem to have a vested interest in Winnipesaukee (slips, condos, homes, etc).

True enforcement may also become a bit of an issue, as speedometers are not a given on boats like they are on cars, so there will be a lot of "warnings" written. The sending units for many speedo's on boats are easily fouled, resulting in inaccurate readings.

Enforcement of existing rules (150', etc) would probably provide more of a reduction in annoyance than yet another law. If current laws aren't enforced well, what is so special about a speed limit law that makes people think it will have any realistic impact?

Islander you are insane!
 

Edit: I meant Island Lover in the title, But rereading it is appropriate for both parties!

The opposition is very much alive. Growing everyday, and its because of people like you and your ranting and raving. For that I thank you. Here's the deal folks for those of you that don't know.

Round 1 Winnfabs lost HB 162 in the Senate.

Round 2 Winnfabs invokes their right to petition the Commissioner.

Round 3 Starts because Winnfabs finds out Commissioner is not going to step on Legislatures toes, thus HB 847 is born. Round 3.1 is that the committee on HB 847 decides to table the bill until there is more data, that is supposed to come from the petition that WINNFABS brought to the commissioner.

Today round 3.2 WINNFABS finds out what their petition would have really meant, meaning the fact WE DO NOT NEED a speed limit, so what do they do. WINNFABS makes sure to scuttle THEIR OWN PETITION. Now for those faithful forum readers, it is obvious that they are not only out for the GFBLs as they call them, the recent thread on rafting shows that the same people want to get rid of the Big Obtrusive Cabin Cruisers....

In the end, they want, loons calling as they pass by in birch bark canoes.....

It is time that they are called out for what they are. Extremists, Winnfabs will win if the public believes their nonsense. I am here to tell you all, Stand up, be counted make the time to beat these people back! Come to the hearings, take the day off work if you have to. I have, many others have, if you don't we will all lose our ability to enjoy our lakes. Unless you have that birch bark canoe they all want to see.....

Its not the speed of a boat that is scary, its all the boats violating the 150 foot rule.

Noise is an issue on some boats and going 45 mph or less isn't gonna change that. Sorry.

Pollution is a result of the shear number of boats not the few that are going over 45 mph.

One member in particular from Bear island has stated in the past that their boat often exceeds 45 mph(even 60). I wonder if they are aware its causing alot of pollution while doing that scary excessive speed?

I just wish the MP would spend more time enforcing the 150' rule.

Who cares how fast a boat is going in the wide open spaces anyway? Geesh.

You are so right, Paugus, don't quit, we need people like you to speak for our rights. I get very frustrated getting in these kinds of discussions too. And JRC, I agree, very well said. And Local Realtor, I totally agree, it is the 150 rule which is NOT enforced. Evenstar is too young to realize that laws are made for those who don't need them. The others won't follow them anyway. My bitch is why do so many people get involved in this who don't live on or even near the lake. Why does someone who lives in say, Manchester and never comes here, care? Many of these surveys include these people who have no clue.

Hey! Lighten up. Islander is entitled to express an opinion here and we are all entitled to our opinion of that opinion. Leave the psycobable out of it. The insults too. :eek:

Yes the argument has changed from it will destroy the economy to it will not change a thing. If it will not change anything, then there is no reason not to give it a try.

If it doesn't work I will be in favor of a repeal.

Speed limits failed in the Senate by two votes. Those Senators have been replaced.

The petition was for a lakewide speed limit. Barrett decided that meant an 8 year test study in two small areas. Just a delay tactic.

The only thing it will change is limiting the rights of a specific type of boat that is capable of exceeding an arbitrary line in the sand.

If we want the lake to be a safer place, then we all should join together and ask the MP to step up enforcement of the 150' rule.

I also would like to ask: If a boat is going in excess of 45 mph and is no where near another boat, why is that unsafe?

Islander obviously feels that 60+ mph is safe, or they likely wouldn't be traveling on the lake at those speeds endangering us all, so to speak.

I have to disclose that Island Lover, Islander and Bear Islander all post from the exact same Metrocast IP number.

Thank you Webmaster for being forthcoming!
 

I will try and reel in my emotion and keep my posts civilized. But this is just the type of thing that fires me up. Obviously 1 person trying to look like 3 or more by using different screen names. That is a tactic the pro speed side has used from the beginning. Remember they are the ones telling us that there are thousands of speed limit supporters. Why do I always see the same half dozen at the hearings then???? Maybe the 6 are the thousands. After all perception is reality!

D-oh, a farce, just like the cause he/she is fighting for. Legislators, please pay attention and don't allow a one man band to dictate policy. Everything this person says is wrong and a sham.

Edit,

You know this type of dishonesty, and that is what it is, really ticks me off. This person should be ashamed of themself, like I said before, these people or should I say this person will resort to any DISHONEST tactic to gain what she wants. IL, Islander, BI, please don't go away mad, just go away.

The webmaster never said we were one person, just the same ip.

Didn't say you weren't either. Are you saying you're not one person?

Don't get the noose just yet :D :D

Although Islander and Island Lover are indistinguishable, Bear Islander has a different tone. I suspect husband and wife, with wife playing two roles. I could be wrong, maybe a third party is in the mix, a daughter perhaps.

Or maybe Bear Islander is a great actor. He has the willpower and stamina to get to the North Pole, he may stop at nothing to get this law passed.

Does it really matter that much? They all just parrot the WinnFabs talking points.

JRC, Good call, I too have thought Bear Islander and Islander were husband and wife. Ever see that Verizon commercial about another companies network when verizon compares themselves to the other network and all the cardboard people fall down? I guess Winfabs is the same type of organization with all those cardboard figures. :laugh:

In my post above I was asking them to come on the record and clear things up. They have the opportunity but seem to have decided to leave the dark cloud hanging over the whole charade. Big Surprise.

For those that haven't read it before, I'll say it again, my boat will barely go 50 mph, so speed limits really don't effect me. It's this style of getting things done that has got really got my hackle up.

I am just one person. The same ip only implies the same neighborhood. The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!

I hope and pray that the Legislators voting on this bill are taking into consideration MORE than 1, 2 or 3 people's opinions on a message board!! I'm confident that BOTH sides of the argument have many supporters..not just 1 or 2. On the flip side, still undecided on a speed limit. I have no problem with my boat as 45 is plenty fast for me and around 30 I'm usually screaming at my hubby or kiddos to slow down anyway...but...my jetski is a different thing altogether. Going 45 is fast but I've gone a lot faster at times while still obeying boating laws. Slowing down when I needed to wasn't a problem. It's also extremely difficult to NOT go over 45...I've tried to keep the throttle at 45 consisently and you just can't do it. Technically if there were a speed limit I could be stopped if I was clocked at 46....it's just a difficult thing to control.

Sorry, wrong again. that ip address is for a single cable modem (metrocast was mentioned). what the webmaster said was fact. you are signing in from the same cable modem; it is NOT the neighborhood. unless your whole neighborhood is sharing one cable modem (and this is probably ILLEGAL or certainly could be prosecuted by Metrocast should that be the case), the webmaster is indisputably correct.

Thank you for confirming, in a round about way, that an ip address can be shared by a neighborhood.

Now you can call Metrocast on Monday and turn us in.

Perhaps they're using a NAT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translator

I smell a rat.......
 

Maybe you should turn him in! :laugh:

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive! - Sir Walter Scott

Islander, Island Lover, Bear Islander...whichever he is, wrote:
If what doesn't work?

There are no speed limits now and there hasn't been a speed related fatality or accident that I am aware of since safety certificates became widespread in NH.

To legislators reading this, the problem isn't speed, it's the violation of the 150 foot rule. If that is enforced accidents will be reduced.

As far as WinnFABS getting the plug pulled on the pilot program it seems to me that the information being collected was NOT proving their point, so another end run was needed!

A new law isn't needed, just enforcement of laws already in place, and for that matter an MP officer can cite someone if they believe he/she is operating a boat at excessive speed for the conditions.

You know it's funny, I was reading posts from Islander yesterday before the truth came out and I was thinking, I can't tell the difference between these two people, Islander and Island Lover. Of course she will just lie, weasle and try to argue her way out of this, true to form.

Islander:
"I am just one person."

No question about that, there is just no way to figure out how many other different identities you post under. You are so bagged.:laugh:

Islander:

"The webmaster however, by linking me with a member that has a public identity, seems to have violated his own TOS. "

The webmaster pointed out three different identities to the same computer, you outed yourself under one of your identities. To try and turn this back on him is sleazy.


Islander:

"If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger!"


You have discredited yourself, try being honest for a change.

I know we all love a good conspiracy theory. But..

The webmaster never said same person, never said same computer, never said same home.

And how does any of that effect this piece of news?.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...dents_on_rise/

The article specifically states inexperience and alcohol as reasons for the rise in accidents.

One cable modem could be connected to a wireless router that a neighborhood could legally share and the IP address would be the same for all posts. It's quite possible that the three "islanders" are indeed three different people.

I knew he/they would use that one!
 

I figured Islander/Island Lover/Bear Islander would use that article.

In fact that article used national figures and the stats are from the New England states that DON'T require boating education. While the article did reveal those facts it was poorly written and easily missed.

Here are the boating accidents for Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006, the year the article used statistics from.

These stats were compiled by me using various media reports throughout the year and I broke out the figures for ONLY Winnipesaukee.

No stats from NH, where mandatory boating education is required for all but a few, were used in the article. The focus of the article was on the three states in New England where boater education is not mandated.

And, as a reference point. Massachusetts, which does not have a mandatory boater education law, does have a 45 mile an hour speed limit. What do marine law enforcement officials have to say?
Yep, Massachusetts has a speed limit but what they want is a mandatory boater education requirment. Interesting.

Also on the wish list:
So the border state that has what WinnFabs wants, speed limits, wants what NH has, mandatory boater education.

It doesn't.

Why?

Wrong state.

Go to Maine and lobby its Legislature for a speed limit if the situation there stresses you.

You did it to yourself and now you feel the need to blame another for your choice in life.

He never said you weren't either.

Funny thing is I have asked before and will ask again right here.

Are you the same person or are you not? If not are you all from the same house?

You have the opportunity to clear things up with the truth.

Are you going to come clean or let the speculation continue?

I guess it really doesn't matter because your credibility is sunk now.

I'm sure some hacker could let us know the answers we seek anyway.

Funny how a few months back I accused Islander and Island Lover of being the same person. The lack of response at that time said enough for me.

Anyone have any D-Con handy???

Lets face it, the end result of a speed limit being broken in a fatal accident will tag on a $50 or so ticket to the offender, the life would still be lost. I hope their fight to get a speed limit is worth it to them in the end, although I think the overall effect will be minimal.

and if the speeding boat stays 150' away from other vessels there won't be an accident. go figure. ;)

I thought I answered it already. But for the record I am one person. I have posted under another name in the past but at this time I am only Islander.

I am surprised there are 3 people using this ip, I would have thought 5 or 6.

You are correct in that it really doesn't matter, nor does the credibility of a online identity.

I have now answered more than I need to, or you have any right to know. The webmaster has not canceled or suspended my membership. If I am acceptable to him I don't need to justify myself to anyone else. I am through posting on this subject, If you have any more complaints address them to the webmaster.

Follow-up
 

I just wanted to add that I have been contacted and assured that the three members are in fact different people. The explanation was reasonable and I have no reason to doubt it. I appreciate that many of you nice people gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Was the other Identity you were posting under Island Lover and if not what was the other identity you were posting under?

Would you also like to let us know that you are the person quoted in the newspaper article speaking on behalf of Winfabs?

A special thanks to the webmaster for helping us clarify what has been speculated upon here in the forum and privately.

can you comment whether or not they are from the same house or does metrocast actually use one modem in an entire neighborhood? i find it odd that metrocast would set up an entire neighborhood with one single modem/ IP address. the only way possible is for a strong wireless connection. at the very least, they all certainly know each other and these comments aren't from a random group of strangers all agreeing with each other.

Same ip
 

Metrocast and all the other providers do not set up a whole neighborhood with one IP. The cable modem to a residence gets the ip... those connected to that modem through a wireless router.. all use the same ip when connecting to the internet... so you can hook up a wireless router and those PCs within range of it can hop on to the internet.. this is what all the fuss is about when setting up your home network... you need to put security on it to prevent your neighbors and unsavory characters from using your connection... Of course you can give the security info to your neighbors to let them do the same... The three posters absolutely can be different households or different people in the same household.. and in some cases... one poster might have an opinion to express and use the other poster to help edit the writing so as to be more coherent... hence the similar writing styles.

I know a few people who do that.. so lighten up folks!!

IG

i read it that you were saying that metrocast set you up this way, my mistake.

i understand how wireless routers/hubs/firewalls work. but i also understand that it doesn't travel very far and the three of you are in very close proximity to each other, most likely next door neighbors; certainly no more than a few hundred yards away from each other.

and please, don't PM me again; i'm not interested.

I said same neighborhood in my first post on the subject.

You apparently do not understand how "routers/hubs/firewalls" work because your assumptions are incorrect. I offered you a full explanation but you are "not interested".

So live in ignorance.

you just aren't nice at all are you?

I've been using the internet for 20 years, before web browsers, before windows (when gopher servers were used to navigate around the internet). i am well aware of what a firewall is, how it is used and how the 54,000+ ports of a tcp/ip stack are used and secured.

you sent me a PM accusing me of trying to find out who you are. trust me, that wouldn't be that hard.

you wrote something that didn't make sense to me (like many of your posts) and i was questioning what didn't make sense.

if living in ignorance means i don't have to listen to your convoluted explanation of how the internet works, i can live with that.

Question about "Cigarette - style - Boats"
 

It's clear to me that the Speed Limit crowd is trying to "cleanse" the lake of the so-called "Cigarette Style boats, which is their real reason for pushing the speed limit agenda. These types of boats include, but are not limited to, Cigarette, Fountain, Formula, Baja, etc. I think they could care less if a Jet Ski, Jet Boat, Bow Rider or Cruiser exceeds 45 mph, but they do care if it's a performance boat. Here's my question: Do you feel that the majority of performance boats are owned by:

1) People with waterfront or water access property that just use their boats for day boating?

or

2) People that keep the boat on the lake for the entire season and either sleep on their boats or just use it for day boating?

or

3) People that just bring their boat to the lake for the day and then leave?

In my opinion, the majority will be option 1 or 2 - not 3. Therefore, if the speed limit is eventually passed in some way, shape or form (which I highly doubt) these so-called performance boats are not going to leave the lake any time soon. I think the Speed Limit crowd will be in for a sorry, rude awakening if they think that they'll succeed in cleansing the lake of performance boats, as I believe they are attempting to do under the guise of "safety".

I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like Winnipesaukee



Some of these things are also true of PWC's but not all.

I have been told, but do not know if it is true, that Winni is one of the few municipal water supplies that allow unrestricted speed or horsepower. Anybody know about that?

Islander et al wrote:
So it's true! The ultimate goal of WinFabs and folks like you is to eliminate these boats from a 72 Square Mile lake! You paying attention in Concord? It has nothing to do with speed (which statistics show is not an issue in accidents on Winnipesaukee).

Islander et al also wrote:
Municipal water supplies in my neck of the woods also ban swimming :eek: Maybe you should be pushing for that as well since humans are a major source of pollution!

Funny thing is you do not mention the very large cruisers that are here and new ones are arriving every day. These large cruisers burn as much gas while cruising under the proposed speed limit. They are quite powerful, as it takes alot of power to push a 10,000 to 25,000 lb boat through the water at any speed. They deliver the largest wake of any boat on the lake, which undoubtedly causes more erosion than any go-fast boat ever could ever dream of. Last but not least, I would bet a fair amount of their skippers would rather not go to a pump-out station and deal with the dirty job of pumping them out, so when out in the broads the flip that little hidden switch and send all their waste into the water.
Ever wonder why the people of Squam Lake have passed an ordinance with NHDES to not allow boats with heads on board to operate on that lake?

She won't respond, she just sticks to her agenda.

What you believe and what is really true...
 

Well Islander... Your ususal rose colored view glasses are shining once again and you have managed to share your one-sided convoluted opinon of boats in general...

WHO... Let me say it again... WHO decides or WHO knows what boats (if any) are too big, too fast, too powerful, too dangerous, too noisy, etc.??? (by the way the correct usage of the word TOO is spelled with 2 O's) - I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT'S YOU...

Face it... There are countless sizes, style, shapes, colors, lengths, horsepower, etc... of boats and NO ONE specific style is ever going to go away...

Variety is the spice of life and that is why there are so many choices of boats... There is something out there for everyone (except maybe you)...

America in general, and New Hampshire more specifically, is LIVE, FREE, or DIE... Until that changes, I will have whatever kind of boat I WANT TO...

OR 5) Boat owners who believe they are well within their rights to operate their boat (which they bought legally) on a lake where there are no restrictions.

Wireless is not the only way to go. Cat5 run house to house works great and you can run 350 feet to a router then 350 feet to the next router. You can amplify the line 8 times. Therefore a one dimensional network expanding in two directions can connect 17 homes over a maximum distance of 5,600 feet. That is over a mile. If you figure a three dimensional network using 1 in 4 out routers the maximum number of homes is 16,387 and if there routers have wireless capability the answer is astronomical. All using 1 ip of the satellite.

But even island residents are not that energetic. However there have been several large size networks set up on the island. I am told some of the equipment that was used on Bear has been taken to Rattlesnake now that Bear is getting connected to cable.

Seems like you are targeting the wrong type of boat...
 

[QUOTE=Islander]I believe these boats are owned by


4) People that do not understand or do not care that their boat is to big, to fast, to powerful, to polluting, to dangerous, to noisy and cause to much erosion to be in a lake like WinnipesaukeeQUOTE]

...if what you say here is true. Why is it so hard to just come out and state your real agenda, rather than try to hide behind it? Also, please tell me how a performance boat causes too (too with two o's) much erosion? I'll never believe that one in a million years.

It has been said that high performance boats don't have large wakes. I live just outside a no wake zone. In my experience the largest wake, larger than the Mount Washington's, is caused by a performance boat starting out. The horsepower expended in getting up on plane is enormous, and creates the largest wake on the lake.

I believe the pro speed limit community has explained its agenda many times. It is summarized in #4.

Just for the record,Seaplane Pilot is very concerned about shoreline erosion.I was just at his place and he just spent a considerable amount of money to fix and raise his perched beach which has been beaten up by large wakes.He just built the first wall a short few years ago.He also started the thread "Wakeup? no Wake down!".And finally he does not own a Performance boat or a boat capable of doing much more than 45 mph.While he is a friend,he does not know I'm posting this.

B R posted some questions about me. I contacted her privately to attempt to answer them. In her response I was told in part

"don't bother messaging me. you are rude and obnoxious."

"as usual, you only speak half truths."

"don't bother me again. you people make me sick."


She then posted online

"you just aren't nice at all are you?"

Obviously B R has an agenda. That, and her instructions, is why I no longer respond.


Uncle Fun - The answer is ME. I decide which boats are to big, to fast etc. this is America and I will support any legislation I want. I believe you are entitled to your opinion. Why do you deny me mine? Live Free or Die cuts both ways.

chipj29 and Uncle Fun - You can have any kind of boat you want AT THIS TIME. That will change when horsepower limits are signed into law. Then you will be required to obey the law like everyone else.

Bear Islander, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. I have a home near an area (Dockham Shore) where a lot of cruisers come and go from and I'll tell you that these cruiser take-off wakes are exponentially bigger than any wake I have ever seen from a performance boat take off. See the earlier post by SikSukr - he has seen the damage and erosion first hand caused not by performance boats, but by cruisers.

ISLANDER: Apparently this is your SOAPBOX and Platform... Too bad it falls on a lot of deaf ears... Maybe you should run for State Rep. - get elected (not likely) - and then introduce some legislation which would only get voted down anyway... I NEVER said that I was denying you your opinons - but have some substance to back up your MISCONCEPTIONS about size, horsepower, etc...

By the way... Do you know something that the rest of us don't about horsepower limits??? There will NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER be horsepower restrictions... If a speed limit is not going to fly, than what makes you think horsepower limits are the answer??? How much horsepower does the Mt. Washington have??? Where do you think this regulation is going to come from??? Do you think the boat manufacturers will not build or sell boats with the largest horsepower allowed by the USCG and the NMMA (U.S. Coast Guard and National Marine Manufacturers Association)... Do you think the boat dealers will not sell any horsepower that a buyer wants to purchase??? Do you think the Marine Patrol will pull over a boat and ask to look 'under the hood' so-to-speak to check out how much horsepower a boat has... MOST engines do not even have any indication of how much horsepower they have -only the displacement typically... Horsepower has NO RELATION to wake size and practically no bearing on overall speed - because the bigger a boat is the more horsepower it needs to push it along - although it doesn't necessarily mean it will go faster!

You can have your opinions... I am not denying you that... Just try to make them not so extreme and more along the main stream... It's those extremist views coupled with proposed restrictions that are trying to make the lake user un-friendly - Fortunately, it will never work!!! Remember... Live, Free, or Die is not - Live, Free, or Die, except as outlined by the following restrictions... :patriot:

This topic is getting explosive!
 

I suggest we contact Jerry Springer and move it to his show! :D

I believe the folks that are Pro speed limit are doing it for the wrong reasons....
 

Let's face it, there's no speeding issue on Lake Winni. Look at the accident stats and get out on the lake for a day....speeding just isn't an issue. The 150ft violations? HUGE issue there and I really wish there was more ticketing related to that! Winnfabs thought they had it in the bag last year, then they thought they had it in the bag this year...all to no avail. We'll see about next years boating season but the number of opposers is growing immensely as the true facts are uncovered. I don't think any of the high performance boats are going ANYWHERE because I agree most of them live on or rent slips at the lake. Also, have your checked the economy and real estate market lately? Um, nobody is gonna buy those boats or any property there over the next 1-2 years.

I honestly can't remember the last time I drove my boat over 50mph but I'd like the freedom to do so under the proper conditions. No matter which side wins or loses (and even IF a law is passed).... this fight will never go away and neither will performance boats.

It is incredible how you people can just ignore facts you don't like. An independent pole shows support for speed limits has grown from 66% to 78% among registered NH voters.

NO STATISTICS? There was a fatality a few years ago involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a fatality this summer involving high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. There was a double fatality in Maine involving high speed craft that could just as easily happened on Winnipesaukee.

Four people dead in the area involving high speed craft is all the statistics I need.


If you think performance boats are not going to leave then the ones that say they will leave must be lying!

Even if they don't leave do you think they will buy new ones when the current boat gets old? Obviously not!

At least one Marina on the lake has stopped selling high performance boats already. They must see the writing on the wall.

I guess I missed the fatality on Winnipeasukee this year. The fatality you mention a few years back involved a boat that wasn't speeding.

The one in Maine was with a craft that was a sitting in the dark(most agree) and could easily have happened if the boat was traveling 30mph or even less.

See now your twisting the facts by making is sound like it
 

was speed that caused any of those accidents....which is was not. I believe the accident reconstruction from the death a few years back put the 'high speed craft' at a whopping 27mph....not to mention he was intoxicated AND hit a boat that had no lights on at night. We are all saddened by that accident but it's not grounds for a speed limit. This is the exact behavior I'm referring to. I actually have the 2006 USCG stats (freshly published)....Here's some info...read em and weep:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Unlike many states, the number of boat registration in NH is up slightly. Nationally, registrations have declined 2%.

two-thirds of all fatal boating accidents were drownings and nearly 90% of those were not wearing a PFD!

Alcohol was a contributing factor in 1 out of 5 accidents.

Skier mishap was the most common (22) boating accident in NH . . . collisions with fixed objects was next with 9 accidents. There were a grand total of 8 boat-to-boat collisons and according to the NH Marine Patrol, none of those 8 collisions involved a speed over 30 mph.

And interestingly, about 90% of the NH accidents involved boats under 25ft in length.

Get The Facts Straight First....
 

ISLANDER... Again and Again after I read your posts, I realize just how out of touch you are and how you distort your words to suit your cause... HIGH SPEED BOATS ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS - just as SPEED IS NOT THE CAUSE of most accidents...

Here is some info that may set your thinking straight... Then again, I must be dreaming... NOTHING will change your liberal and irrational views... Even this info:

Talk about ignoring facts you don't like................

***Speed is not a leading cause of boating accidents on New Hampshire lakes and rivers, and boat accidents have declined sharply, according to Coast Guard records examined by The Telegraph. (nh.com Feb 4, 2006)

Operator inexperience and inattention easily swamp speeding as a cause of accidents in the state, according to a Telegraph review of the Coast Guard’s Recreational Boating Accident Database for 1999-2004. Inexperience and inattention were blamed for 120 accidents; hazardous waters, 55 accidents; no proper lookout, 39; excessive speed, 35; the weather 28; careless/reckless operation, 24; machinery or equipment failure, 23.

Other causes were passenger/skier behavior, 16; sharp turn, 16; obstructed vision, 13; alcohol use, 8; congested waters, 6; improper loading, 6; wake, 5; improper anchoring, 3; improper boat lights, 3; overloading, 3; standing/sitting on bow, 3; rules-of-road infraction, 3; hull failure, 1; and unfamiliar waters, 1.

Boating accidents with injury or serious property damage declined by 68 percent from 1999-2004 in New Hampshire, the records show. The state began mandatory boater education in 2002. Across the nation, boating accidents fell by 38 percent during the same years. Deaths also declined, from six in 1999 to only two in 2004, the latest year available.

The number of reported accidents fell from 109 in 1999 to 94 in 2000, 74 in 2001, 68 in 2002 when mandatory boater education began, 49 in 2003, and 35 in 2004. That’s a decline of 68 percent over five years.***

SO... AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE... High Speed Performance Boats and even Speed are not the leading causes of accidents... Because a fatality involves a high speed craft does not mean that A) the high speed craft itself caused the accident. 2) Speed caused the accident. 3) There should be a blanket ban on high speed boats because you think they are involved in the most accidents... That is like saying we should outlaw Toyotas because they cause or are involved in the most accidents in this state... I don't know if that is true - I am trying to show a point here... Now I personally don't own a high speed boat, but you have to agree facts are facts... You have your facts and I have mine... The only difference is that I don't distort my facts to suit my agenda...

You are oblivious to tandem thoughts and justify your reasoning for your own self center. You know nothing about me and yet you choose to catorgorize me in general. You are so far from the truth, it sickens me.

Are You Reading This Concord???
 

It it not speed these folks are trying to ban, it's boats capable of speed!

Islander wrote
Note the wording HIGH SPEED CRAFT not accidents involved high speed because the accidents didn't involve speed over the limits being proposed!

Also note that the author had to go back several years to find an accident involving a HIGH SPEED CRAFT that involved alcohol, not speed, and had to point to an accident from another state where boater education is not required even to make the above statement!

CONCORD, this is a blatant attempt to outlaw an entire class of boat, and with it an entire class of people, from Lake Winnipesaukee.

As the data that the Marine Patrol was collecting will likely show, speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is NOT A PROBLEM, violation of the 150' rule IS!

To add to the discussion among your colleagues in Concord ask yourself and them, why did the folks who initially called for a speed limit REALLY throw down a roadblock to prevent two pilot speed limits on the lake?
Because they know that the data will show SPEED IS NOT A PROBLEM ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE!

Wow, you guys sure are time consuming.

yes, you can have networks with as many people as you want on them (ever heard of a university) that can even travel to other countries. i'm not disputing that.

what i am disputing is your notion that metrocast set up your neighborhood with a single ip address. this is against fcc regulations and i'll tell you why.

metrocast needs to be able to supply data to federal and local authorities should the need arise. an example would be suspected terrorists activity, downloading inappropriate material from the internet.... if the fbi calls metrocast and asks who is at xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ip address, they need to be able to identify the household, not the neighborhood. if the fcc allowed connections like you're trying to tell me you have, there wouldn't be any accountability for anyone's internet activity; and we know this is not the case.

so i'll stand by my statement that you are not all hooked up to one cable modem, that at the most you are sharing a wireless internet connection that's probably got a reach of 100 yards.

no matter how many times you say it, 1+1 will never equal anything else but 2. you can say it equals 3 as many times as you want; it will not change the facts.

btw: 1) you can run 600' between routers and 2) no one in my department has ever heard of a three dimensional network. did you make that up? 3) multiport routers aren't used that much anymore; most people these days use layer 5 switches. i have some that have 48 ports on them; would that be a 48th dimensional network??? WOW, that's sounds really cool. i didn't know i had one of those.

You sound EXACTLY like Island Lover. I missed the fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer, please provide details.

Your pole (sic) is useless, for all we know you polled your family and friends again and one more decided to register to vote.

How can you post about safety if you don't know about this summers fatal accident?

The accident a few years ago was at a speed greater than the proposed limit. Not much greater, but greater.

Uncle Fun - Horsepower limits are in effect on dozens of NH lakes already. The MP has no problem enforcing them. I'm sure you can sneak in a few extra hp here and there, but not very much.

HP limits are also common on municipal water supplies. In MA, Quabin has a 10 horsepower limit.

If you think horsepower limits are not coming one of these years, then you are living in a dream.

Islander, lover and or bear lover: What death this year in NH are you referring to? Give us details. Define performance boat. 25 or 27 the result several years ago would still be the same. I am not aware that authorities would really ticket someone for 2mph over. That could be an error for differences of equipment.

The Union leader Blog showed that most boaters do not agree with you. There should be a poll from educated boaters that have taken the course. The results would be considerably different. Would you like to have plumbers make decisions on your vascular system? That what your so called poll feels like.

POLL: As an educated boater in NH, Considering that more registrations are on the increase and accidents are on the decline, Education is now mandatory, and NH has a safe passage law. Do you agree that a blanket speed limit of 25 night and 45 day on all NH lakes and waterways would be beneficial to ALL users. YES or NO

You just keep changing tactics from one inaccuracy to another. I want you to tell me about the high speed fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer that you (ala APS, although he is much better at it) alluded to because I missed it and apparently so did all your SL friends.

Here is a real "fact" for you:

If you think 2 mph would make that much difference , you 're the one in a dream world. I think alcohol and/or inattention due to alcohol had more to do with it but heaven forbid we mention that. So lets ban alcohol just like back in the days of prohibition. I mean entirely , not just on the water or highway. I mean close the bars and liquor stores and rid your trash cans of brown bottles.

There you go again Islander!
The first mention of this ficticious fatal accident was referrenced by YOU, post #52
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...light=islander

Several folks asked you then to give details, you did not. Now you are again referrencing this high speed fatal accident.
I did a Lexis-Nexis search of publications, TV, broadcast and wire services for this fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2007. Know what I turned up?
Of course you do, NOTHING!

Then I localized it and did a search of 2007 in the Union-Leader and Foster's, want to know what I found? You already know Islander don't you?
NOTHING.

So when and where did this fatal accident involving speed on Lake Winnipesaukee happen? Looks like you're the only one who knows about it because we all know that you would never ever twist facts or make them up to aid your cause of getting High Speed Capable Boats off Lake Winnipesaukee, right?

Please do tell us about this years fatal Winnipesaukee incident, it seems that many are inquiring.

By the way, lets see what happens if you get your horsepower limit. Most marinas sell large boats, both cruisers and GFBL's. Hamper their business by taking that away and they go out of business. Maybe many of the big boats do leave. What funds the towns then? Industry down, major businesses hurting, the taxpayers have to make it up. Hopefully that will have a negative effect on your tax bill and drive you and your Posse of Protectors and your agendas off the lake. :laugh:

No
 

1 Vote For No.

While we are at it, who really is to say that he was doing 27mph and not 25mph? The speed was based on the damage done to both boats and not by any real reading. Depending on the angle of the drives when the impact occured this would affect how far the offending boat traveled up and over the stern of the boat that was hit. There is no way to tell where the drives were at and exactly how far up the nose was. It's all a guess.

Other than your thoughts that the boat in question does not belong on the lake Dan was not truly speeding or operating even operating faster than conditions warranted. Alcohol and innattention caused the accident (and maybe lack of lights?). Your petty speed limit revenge bill will not bring your friend back. Let it go, this is not the way to avenge him.

Islander, it seems as though your the only one who is aware of a fatality on Winnipesaukee this summer. Several people have asked for the details including myself and you just ignore these requests and continue with your agenda and misinformation campaign.

PWC fatality
 

Your confusion is understandable. You're thinking the fatality had something to do with a GFBL or at least speed. But last I heard the fatality was a PWC rider (15 yr old) with the cause still either undetermined or at least not made public.

"Who is to say he was doing 27" that would be the Marine Patrol. And they said 28 not 27. 28 is more than 25 which makes it faster than the proposed limit.

If you can assume that 28 is really a lower number then I am free to assume a higher number. From now on can I post that Dan was doing 68 mph? People love to say he was drinking, but he was not convicted of that and the prosecution could only prove he had two glasses of wine.

I suppose you want to assume the PWC in the fatal accident has standing still. However the accident certainly involved a high speed craft. Incredible how people have forgotten that accident. The legislature will not forget, nor will they forget the Maine accident.

I have no desire for revenge. In fact as far as Dan goes, there but for the grace of god go many of us. However I do not believe these boats are appropriate for Winnipesaukee.

If you cite a source, it's always good to read same!
 

I am surprised at your constant confusion over this issue. Did you not take the time to read the appeal that you cited for us numerous posts ago? Let me refresh your memory:




...The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257.


...WE AGREE WITH THE STATE...

Once again, and confirmed by the appeals court, Littlefield was convicted of the felony death of another by failing to maintain a proper lookut do in large part by the jury lawfully (and constitutionally) considering the ample evidence supplied by the State that he was intoxicated!


Methinks one should perhaps take the time to deeply consider one's own opinion! :)

Thanks Mac, this family has suffered a huge loss. I'm sure a speed limit and getting GFBL boats off the lake would have prevented this tragedy, not!!!!!! :rolleye1:

There is a reason why there is a law against children driving PWCs. How do you (Islander) know this was a "high speed" craft? How do you know it was going at a high speed? One more example of twisting the facts or in this case inserting your own incorrect facts to serve your agenda.

Why not, we're used to your misportrayals, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Seems like a perfectly logical progression to me.

Soapbox please
 

As the saying goes,"better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt".

Skip - Perhaps you should read my post again. I said there was evidence he was drinking. It was weak evidence however. I notice you used the word "ample" to describe the evidence. Did that come from you or the Supreme Court?

All the rationalization in the world will never make 28 less than 25.


The poll I quoted is from the American Research Group.


ITD - All PWC's are high speed craft. After the speed limit passes there will be less PWC's on the lake. People will just not be as interested in buying them, knowing they can not fully use them. It could be that a parent will be less likely to allow a 15 year old to operate illegally if there is a speed limit. Since a PWC can easily break the limit, it improves the chances the child will be stopped and the underage condition discovered.

However I never claimed a speed limit would prevent fatal accidents. Speed limits on our roads do not prevent fatal accidents. The idea is to set standards and hope they lower the chances a little.

Are you saying a speed limit will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident!

Anybody want to go on record supporting that statement?

You are so off-base on PWC it is amazing. Nice sweeping statement. Nothing like a little scare tactic to start the day.
Not all PWCs are capable of exceeding the proposed speed limit. There are several models which can barely do 40 mph. Sure they can get up to speed quickly, but that isn't part of the arguement.
A speed limit will NOT keep PWCs off of any body of water. Well maybe except Squam. Mine will barely do 50 mph, and I won't be going anywhere else. I just may run circles around Bear Is. at top speed. Go ahead and report me...I am going the speed limit.

Yes, of course there are PWCs that go over 45 mph. But they won't be going away anytime soon.

No confusion on my side...Islander clearly stated that the fatality this summer involved a high speed craft on Winnipesaukee. Last time I checked there was nothing tying the unfortunate accident with the PWC and the 15yo boy to speed. Many PWC hardly break a true (not speedo) 50mph under perfect conditions.

Risks and the right to persue happiness
 

Of course it will lower the chances - but how much? Do we have a 50% of all fatalities problem or more like 1%?

But why stop there? Why not go all the way?

Are you saying:

1. eliminating all boats from the lake will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
2. prohibiting kayaks from going out at night, even with lights, will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident?
3. requiring all passengers to be able to drive a boat will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (remember the sister who couldn't drive a boat when the driver went in the water to retrieve a map?)
4. prohibiting kids under 6 from swimming will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (how many kids have died?)
5. requiring all Mt. Washington boat passengers to stay at least 3 feet from the rail will NOT lower the chances of a fatal accident? (did they ever find that guy?)

Who wants to go on the record supporting those statements?

You see the point? There are many things that could lower the chances of a fatal accident. But we are not seeing 45+ speed as a signficant contributing factor (ie, more than n% of fatalities). Alcohol on the other hand is - and is addressed by law. Below a certain point, the risks and results are acceptable - above a certain point, they are not.

Some people (not all) like speed. The country was founded on a bill of rights that includes the persuit of happiness. Those who try to restrict that persuit through law need to be challenged by those who respect law.

When I hit 60, I plan to purchase a jetski that will do 60 mph and persue me some happiness. :D Until then, I will fight to keep the right to be within the law as I safely persue.

Can we quibble about the meaning of quibble?
 

Once again you are incorrect, and I will ask you to please take a few moments and read the Supreme Court case that you cited.

From the same NH Supreme Court decision:

...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening...

Sorry Islander....not "weak evidence" but "significant evidence; the difference being, well, significant!

But hey, thanks for continually sending me these softballs, Lord knows I can use the batting practice! :D