Good point.
And while they are considerably smaller than the big Lake, there are a number of bodies of water in New Hampshire that already have horsepower limits. So indeed the lawmakers here in New Hampshire are also quite familiar with that concept.
I am confused about one thing though.
Those that supported the speed limit legislation by and large believe that there has been a positive effect on the Lake since implementation. A positive effect means that if the State believes in that perception then further legislation or restrictions are probably not that imminent. It is the nature of politics.
On the flip side of the coin a number of folks here opposed to speed limit legislation continue to state that the regulation has had no effect, and give numerous examples of how the Lake, in their perception, remains as or more dangerous. A negative effect usually results in the State not rolling back legislation, but in increasing more and more layered legislation to force people into compliance.
Without taking sides in the debate, if I was a legislator with little or no ties to the Lake (like many are) and I viewed this website as an authoritative source of information (to which many here argued when the boating thread was temporarily moderated) I could easily be convinced that additional legislation is warranted. A lobbyist may not have a hard time convincing me of same.
I'm not taking sides in the debate but just offering an insight as to not only how the speed limit legislation was passed, with all its additional riders (dmv points, all water bodies subjected to General Boating requirements) but how Bear Islander's predictions could easily pass the Legislature in future sessions.
Interesting corners, in my humble opinion, that some folks may be painting themselves in to!
