Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post - The Meredith News Editorial AGAINST speed limit

JayDV · 02-11-2008, 05:28 PM

Thanks Woodsy - Just a couple of clarifications from my post.

#2. Some of the people (from #1) share the lake (and could be counted as Capt Boney) with the good boating fold that go above and beyond friendly boatin practices.

I think that keeping everyone fully accountable for their actions (where no one can get away with goofing around, or arrogant boating) then you don't have to restrict any specific kind of boat or horsepower, although that can still be an imperitive if poor boating practices were proven to continue.

The manpower wouldn't have to be increased for enforcement. The sensors can gather the data and similar to the auto radar or toll running cameras (now also seen on some city stoplights to catch those vehicles running yellows). The software can simply mail the infraction with detailed timestamp and infraction data to the registrants address (the registrant would be held responsible for any infractions while not in his/her use). A simple strike 3 concept and stricter enforcement penalties could apply. Or not. These rules could be adapted based on how the boating traffic handles themselves BEFORE enforcement steps in. Treat people respectfully and they will respect others, at least until data collected proves otherwise.

These infractions could be speeds exceeding NWZ, or headway within 150' of others. I'm sure that any waterway of less than 400x800 had an allowable designated speed most people would not object because it really would be common sense. This would cover many of the waterways between isands not NWZ or speed limited.

I'm guessing at costs here but if a buoy-top unit costs $200 for 100 buoys(?) and a submersible unit costs $250 for another 100 points that would be $45,000. If the data was collected by independant firm, the "fee" would be fixed and reportings would be a fee for so many reports. I'm sure the details would reveal what I missed, but so far my conception has the lake covered for a one-time start-up cost of $45,000 and yearly costs to be recouped by infraction fees. This data can also be used to fortify court cases or lawsuits and would warrant a processing fee from the prosecution/defense atty. As they do every winter, the buoys come out and get reused. Penalties for damaging state property would help to keep Capt Boney from straying from the straight and narrow.

I really hate telling people they ["can't use their fast boat wide open because (although it may not be you) someone may some day, almost cause an accident so we just restrict everyone's usage"] until that time when it becomes the last resort. At which time, I would concede Bear Islander's point and allow him that, which he would never do, the good ol' "I knew that"

02-11-2008, 05:28 PM	#42
JayDV Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Fairfield, CT & island vacation Posts: 97 Thanks: 8 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Thanks Woodsy - Just a couple of clarifications from my post. #2. Some of the people (from #1) share the lake (and could be counted as Capt Boney) with the good boating fold that go above and beyond friendly boatin practices. I think that keeping everyone fully accountable for their actions (where no one can get away with goofing around, or arrogant boating) then you don't have to restrict any specific kind of boat or horsepower, although that can still be an imperitive if poor boating practices were proven to continue. The manpower wouldn't have to be increased for enforcement. The sensors can gather the data and similar to the auto radar or toll running cameras (now also seen on some city stoplights to catch those vehicles running yellows). The software can simply mail the infraction with detailed timestamp and infraction data to the registrants address (the registrant would be held responsible for any infractions while not in his/her use). A simple strike 3 concept and stricter enforcement penalties could apply. Or not. These rules could be adapted based on how the boating traffic handles themselves BEFORE enforcement steps in. Treat people respectfully and they will respect others, at least until data collected proves otherwise. These infractions could be speeds exceeding NWZ, or headway within 150' of others. I'm sure that any waterway of less than 400x800 had an allowable designated speed most people would not object because it really would be common sense. This would cover many of the waterways between isands not NWZ or speed limited. I'm guessing at costs here but if a buoy-top unit costs $200 for 100 buoys(?) and a submersible unit costs $250 for another 100 points that would be $45,000. If the data was collected by independant firm, the "fee" would be fixed and reportings would be a fee for so many reports. I'm sure the details would reveal what I missed, but so far my conception has the lake covered for a one-time start-up cost of $45,000 and yearly costs to be recouped by infraction fees. This data can also be used to fortify court cases or lawsuits and would warrant a processing fee from the prosecution/defense atty. As they do every winter, the buoys come out and get reused. Penalties for damaging state property would help to keep Capt Boney from straying from the straight and narrow. I really hate telling people they ["can't use their fast boat wide open because (although it may not be you) someone may some day, almost cause an accident so we just restrict everyone's usage"] until that time when it becomes the last resort. At which time, I would concede Bear Islander's point and allow him that, which he would never do, the good ol' "I knew that"