Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ski Man
Not me, and not anyone of the speed limit advocates I have dealt with. They are pretty universally just concerned about the dangers of high speed boating on our crowded lakes and about the safety that a speed limit would ensure. Why do speed limit opponents keep misstating the objectives of supporters?
|
I was simply opining (hence the use of the word suspect) that there are probably supporters who care more about the noise than safety. I seem to recall that WinnFABS own site (use to) list noise (and quality of life) as a reason for a speed limit so I'm not off in left feild here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ski Man
Again, I could not disagree with you more. Noise is obviously a problem on NH's lakes that most everyone opposes, but only a safety problem when it is loud enough and close enough to do ear damage, or when it is so loud as to interfere with one's ability to hear other warnings. You could even say that it is safer when you can hear a boat coming at you at 100 miles an hour than when you cannot. So stricter noise laws would certainly not improve safety, they would just improve our quality of life. Reducing boat noise would never substitute for the safety advantages of a speed limit. So I don't agree that you'd find "universal support" for a stricter noise limit instead of a speed limit. In fact, I expect you'd probably find "universal opposition" from the speed limit advocates for that trade. They are universally concerned about speed and its impact on our safety. But you will surely find universal support for a stricter noise limit in conjunction with a speed limit.
|
I didn't say anything about any trade but rather that a noise law would find near universal acceptance. I'm sure the some of GFBL crowd would disagree with me, so be it. Again you pass noise laws to control noise, speed laws to control speed.