[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

While the study may not have been a rigorous as a good university study, I don't think it so flawed that nothing can be learned of it. Basically it says what people boating on the lake know, there aren't that many boats out there going over 45, let alone way over. The problem is blown out of proportion.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has already had to compromise enough.

You've missed my point. Let me try to be clearer. What's the proper method to set a speed limit ? Do we toss up a bunch of numbers and see which has the most appeal ? Do we pick the one that the absolute "safest" w/o regard for any other consideration ? There was a time when engineers did the analysis to set speed limits. To some extent this is still partially true in this country. It's certainly not true for the proposed law. Where's the analysis that says 45 mph is the proper limit ?

I'll address your idea of "compromise" further below.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

It would affect only a minimal number of boats. So what ? How about if I, having a run of the mill boat speed-wise, ganged up with all the others like me and tried outlaw both high speed boating and kayaking because they both were a PITA to our (majority) boating pleasure. We would be the majority, would that then make it right ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

So what if the 4 or 400 MP officers you spoke said it would help them catch BUIs. Try that justification on driving your car and see how well it plays. Set the speed limit on RT93 to 45 mph with the intent that it'll catch the DUI's because they'll probably be unable to contain themselves at such a slow speed. That such a limit would unfairly impact people who, not being drunk, can safely drive at > 45 mph doesn't/wouldn't bother you ?

Again you're now letting the worst of "us" dictate what the rest of us may legally do even if it's the case that when we do it (vs the impaired), it doesn't actually harm anyone.

Regarding see you in your kayak, I do believe it sets a limiting case. Prove to me that 45 mph is that limit. Your evidence so far is more anecdotal than the study you call flawed above. How hard to see is your boat ? Harder to see than the Mt Washington that's for sure, but also not invisible. How do we get from anecdotal evidence to something more concrete ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?
So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

I can understand your reasons, I just don't "buy" them. Consider the plight of a pedestrian walking down the road. Should a drunk or inattentive or malicious driver pass them by as they are walking, they too are in potential danger. Should we limit the speed on that road to such a rate so as to give them time to jump out of the way ? What if that person is my mother who can't react all that quickly ? Should the speed limit be set even lower then ? I'd say the speed limit should be set such that the normal driver, unimpaired and paying attention, will be able to see the pedestrian and avoid hitting him/her at that speed. (The pedestrian has his role to play as well) And that at much (we can debate about how much more) more above that speed, this would no longer be true. Then we go after those who drive unsafely due to alcohol or whatever. You attack the problem w/o unduly restricting the normal guy.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

I'm not one who believes compromise is a bad word. But the present proposed bill isn't based on compromise. The thinking isn't that more often than not that boats at 55 mph pose a clear and present danger to the public at large and therefore should be restricted. It's the same you posted above, the lake is so big and 27 mins is short enough and 45 if "fast enough" ... all opinions which have has much validity as someone saying 25 or 65 is "fast enough". Let's say that kayaking and true high speed boating are incompatible. Certainly at some high enough speed this is true. The "compromise" you seem to favor is the one where you get to practice your recreation where and when you want, unrestricted and they "can take it to the ocean". Compromise to me might have been you get part of the lake and they get part of the lake. Perhaps it would have been "you" get days XYZ and they get days QST. Perhaps something different. Had I said "You can kayak on Squam and many other NH lakes, they're only minutes away" and called it compromise would you have bought that line ?

I'm not against laws, just bad ones.