|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
05-15-2008, 08:47 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,761
Thanks: 32
Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts
|
HB847 Passed the Senate
HB847 Passed the Senate
Yea:14 Nay:10 Today is Yogi Berra's 88th birthday. Remember what he said.... "It aint over til its over" |
05-15-2008, 09:12 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
|
You're right
Quote:
The margin of approval, if you are correct is not enough to override a gubernatorial veto. |
|
05-16-2008, 07:13 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 132
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I hope it makes a difference.
Well congratulations to everyone that worked to get this bill together. I hope it makes a difference, and everyone feels safer. Still don't agree with it, but it is what it is, and won't change the way my family boats. We keep our boat around 30 to save gas anyway.
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane |
05-16-2008, 07:29 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin, Ma / Gilford
Posts: 1,934
Thanks: 450
Thanked 605 Times in 341 Posts
|
Okay -- (serious quesion) Now that it has passed & I suspect the Govenor will sign ........................ When does this go into affect ???
__________________
A bad day on the Big Lake (although I've never had one) - Still beats a day at the office!! |
05-16-2008, 08:04 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hopkinton NH
Posts: 395
Thanks: 88
Thanked 80 Times in 46 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
Cancer SUCKS! |
|
Sponsored Links |
|
05-16-2008, 08:18 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Effective dates and a prima facie primer....
Quote:
Baja is correct, the bill will not be in effect until January 1, 2009 and sunsets (expires) January 1, 2011. It will not be in effect for this upcoming boating season. Also of interest is that the limits imposed are of prima facie limits, not absolute limits. That is a very signigfcant legal difference. In a nut shell, that means that if you are going in excess of 25/45 mph you are not by default in violation of the RSA, as some have led everyone to believe. The State must show that even given the 25/45 limit, the speed that you were observed at was not reasonable given the conditions at the time observed. If the limits imposed had used the absolute standard, as are terrestial speed limits are in the State of Maine, all the State would need to show for a conviction is any speed over the posted limit. Bottom line? There is an extreme mount of leeway in the RSA as passed by the House & Senate, as some folks will quickly figure out next boating season. As always if you would like further information on the difference between prima-facie and absolute limitsor want to discuss other aspects of this particular legislation, please feel free to PM me anytime. Skip |
|
05-16-2008, 08:24 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 08:28 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 08:54 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Prima facie....
Quote:
It is exactly the same principle (and verbiage) that is used to define most of the road speed limits in New Hampshire. That is why you see that under normal driving conditions you must be going anywhere from at least ten to fifteen miles an hour over the posted speed limit to receive a summons in New Hampshire. Be forewarned however, many departments will stop you at excess speeds lower than that, and they usually have articulable suspicion to do so, but in most cases you receive a warning. Absolute speed limits by definition on our State's 65 MPH highways and school zones are notable exceptions to the prima facie rule. Prima facie limits are much more liberal in interpretation than absolute limits. You give an excellent example. You are out on the Broads on a clear and calm unlimited visibility day and its just you and a distant NHMP boat. If you can articulate in Court that the spped you are suggesting, 70 MPH, was reasonable and prudent given the conditions of the day than you, my friend, have just learned what an affirmative defense is! By the way, there is another side to these limits. Just because the limit is 25/45 does not mean that you can always approach these limits without due regard. Lets say its a foggy limited visibility day, and you are plying along at 45 MPH because that's the limit. NHMP can still cite you for unreasonable speed if they can articulate to the Court that given the conditions present that speed was unreasonable at that given time. So it does cut both ways.... While I understand the angst of folks on both sides of the issue, I truly beleive that this RSA as passed is no where as onerous as some may believe. The bottom line for probably 99% of the folks that are out there boating is that as long as they use common sense and obey all other current safety regulations, you will still be able to travel at the speeds you have been used to for years. In the end except for a few rare occasions I don't expect to see anything different out on the Lake. The economy and price of fuel will be the determining factor on boating conditions for the foreseeable future...when folks really decipher this particular legislation they will find that its biggest impact will be on one's particular emotions, not actions. Anyway, that's my $.02! |
|
05-16-2008, 09:07 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,959
Thanks: 80
Thanked 975 Times in 436 Posts
|
I will accept the loss with handshake and a good job to my opponents! It was a good fight, and they won... Perhaps all of the acrimony will dissipate now.
Who knows what will happen & how the political winds will blow in the 3 years between now and the sunset clause! We will have to wait and see... Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid. |
05-16-2008, 09:14 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Here's WMUR's article.I had thought I heard Lynch was leaning towards a veto on this bill but this piece says the opposite.
Boat Speed Limits Approved For Winnipesaukee POSTED: 7:22 am EDT May 16, 2008 UPDATED: 7:34 am EDT May 16, 2008 CONCORD, N.H. -- It looks like some boaters will have to slow down on Lake Winnipesaukee next summer. The Senate passed trial speed limits on Thursday for the state's biggest lake and the plan is on its way to Gov. John Lynch's desk. He has said he will sign it. The speed limits would go into effect on Jan. 1. Boat speed limits have been debated for years. The plan that has been approved differs from past plans because it applies only to Winnipesaukee and would go off the books in two years. The bill sets speed limits at 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night.
__________________
SIKSUKR |
05-16-2008, 09:17 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 140
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
Skip,
Did it pass as is or is it likely to have some amendments attached to it? What is the process from here?
__________________
"You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know" |
05-16-2008, 09:48 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
No more ammendments....
Quote:
As was discussed earlier, the only way it could be defeated is if the Governor chose to veto it and there is not enough votes to override, or if the Governor failed to act on it after the House was out of session it would fail in what is known as a "pocket veto". However, news sources covering the story today say the Governor intends to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. |
|
05-16-2008, 09:59 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Gilford,NH is where I would like to be and Southborough, MA is where I have to be
Posts: 87
Thanks: 14
Thanked 10 Times in 3 Posts
|
Live Free Or Die, Not Any More
I guess the old saying is going out the window
LIVE FREE OR DIE, perhaps NH should change the license plates and add more fees. Is this happening because all us MAssholes are migrating North? |
05-16-2008, 09:51 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA / Moultonborough
Posts: 146
Thanks: 46
Thanked 43 Times in 18 Posts
|
Quote:
Aside from all the banter - I still find it a dark day when laws are passed / enacted based on opinion and speculation vs. cold hard facts... But - whatever, I am just looking forward to a great summer in our new boat!!! Be safe out there everyone - I hope WE all have an enjoyable summer - see you out on the water!!! |
|
05-16-2008, 10:25 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,663
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 349
Thanked 630 Times in 282 Posts
|
Prima facie evidence
Quote:
The text of the HB847 is: Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful: (1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and (2) 45 miles per hour at any other time. I'm not a lawyer, but the use of prima facie in the law seems to imply that going over 45 is sufficient to prove that the speed was not reasonable or prudent. Maybe case law has watered down the meaning? We all want reasonable and prudent speed. That was never the issue.
__________________
-lg |
|
05-16-2008, 10:36 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Prima facie versus absolute....
Quote:
The key words are "unless rebutted". With prima facie limits, you have the right to rebut the State's charge and offer a defense to the limit imposed. Unlike an "absolute" limit, that dictates that constitutional issues aside, there is no rebuttal and that any speed in excess of the posted speed is grounds for guilt. The law could have been written in either language, but it was written as a prima facie limit that gives the defendant the right to rebuttal. However, most folks are not aware of the difference and plea guilty or nolo (contendre) to the charge assuming that all speed limits in New Hampshire are absolute. Hopefully I have made some of the folks out here aware that there is a significant difference and that a speed above 25/45 does not automatically imply you will be found guilty of speeding. Again, it all comes down to using a ton of common sense and always being aware of and obeying all other applicable safety regulations while you boat (or drive your car). Skip |
|
05-16-2008, 10:44 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
And if you do happen to get a speeding ticket (on the lake especially!), fight it in court!
|
05-16-2008, 11:04 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,532
Thanks: 749
Thanked 346 Times in 259 Posts
|
Here it is
Gov says he will sign the bill:
http://wbztv.com/local/newhampshire/....2.725701.html Quote:
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries" |
|
05-16-2008, 11:29 AM | #20 |
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
|
Thanks Skip. And every dark cloud has a silver lining....
Thanks once again to Skip for another one of his very excellent contributions to our forum community. A concise, non-partisan explanation. You "rock" Skip .
Now for the Silver Lining: My wife has balked at spending the money for a good GPS or chartploter. Well, with speed limits in place I'm going to need an accurate way to measure the speed of our boat. That's a GPS or chartplotter. No excuse now honey were going to start shopping. Be sure to practice watching those GPS units at night this season to maintain an appropriate ... 'er ... I mean legal speed for 2009. Don't take your eyes away from the water too long while reading the small speed numbers on your GPS . Believe it or not, I ran into Boston Mayor Tom Menino early this morning and I asked him if he had an "in" with Governor Lynch.... It was a long shot but I was thinking he might get the word "veto" to the NH Gov. He couldn't help. Happy and safe boating to all.
__________________
Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works. Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient. Last edited by Skipper of the Sea Que; 05-16-2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason: Read AP story AC2717 posted while I was writing this. I just have to shake my head... |
05-16-2008, 11:52 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
BI where were you last night? |
|
05-16-2008, 11:55 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cow Island
Posts: 168
Thanks: 6
Thanked 20 Times in 12 Posts
|
What a shame. The crazy thing is that i could probably count in my head the number of "go fast boats" on winnipesaukee.
|
05-16-2008, 12:07 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
|
Wait....isn't that the opponents arguement from the start? Why did we need a law again?
|
05-16-2008, 12:13 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
SIKSUKR |
|
05-16-2008, 12:35 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Quote:
Every now and then somebody will open it up on the broads... so what! |
|
05-16-2008, 12:50 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,761
Thanks: 32
Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts
|
Quote:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62708 http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post62946 http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post67878 http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...oads#post68378 IL - I am doing communications for an expedition crossing Greenland, had to stick by the electronics. |
|
05-16-2008, 02:26 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Its getting awfully deep in here.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally Posted by Bear Islander ...Hi Skip Good to see we have finally sucked you into the fight!... Hi Richard, Nope....not suckered in just yet, was only dipping my big toe...when the "stuff" starts to pile up deeper than my waders, I'll do that on occasion! __________________ Ignorance of the law is no excuse! http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=74
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ] |
|
05-17-2008, 11:22 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,761
Thanks: 32
Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 03:47 PM | #29 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Didn't the Governor say he would not pass any bill that was not funded?
|
05-16-2008, 12:22 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
As has been said before this won't affect me one bit as my bow-rider struggles to hit 50. It's just a shame that so much effort went into a law that will not have any real impact on safety. Here's to another summer boating alongside captain clueless and his posse. If anything at least safe boating certificates are mandatory for all now. Hopefully MP will be able to clamp down on that now. Have a safe summer. |
|
05-16-2008, 12:35 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Congratulations on winning a hard fought fight. Let's see if this has any effect and how everything looks two years from now.
Remember, the truly wonderful thing about American democracy, elections are never more than two years away. Any mistake can be fixed. |
05-16-2008, 12:43 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
|
For 2009, I'm predicting a 0% increase in speed related accidents....up from 0% over the past 100 years.
Please feel free to respond with incidents not related to alcohol. |
05-16-2008, 12:52 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,532
Thanks: 749
Thanked 346 Times in 259 Posts
|
I got this in an email
I received this in the email as I signed to oppose the speed limit. I am sure many of us got this today
This is a UnOffical breakdown of the voting, again I stress unoffical breakdown and a view of how they think teh voting went down though not official, Supported HB847 Joseph Kenney Kathleen Sgambati Betsi DeVries Molly Kelly Bob Odell Margaret Hassan Martha Fuller Clark Iris Estabrook Jacalyn Cilley Harold Janeway Sylvia Larsen Deborah Reynolds Peter Burling Joseph Foster Opposed HB847 John Gallus Sheila Roberge Peter Bragdon David Gottesman Robert Clegg Theodore Gatsas John Barnes Robert Letourneau Lou D'Allesandro Michael Downing People's thoughts?
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries" |
05-16-2008, 10:51 PM | #34 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
And you guys really should be careful about dismissing the ability of this lake speed limit law to stand up in court, because the exact same "prima facie" language is used in the highway Speed Limitations: NH RSA - Section 265:60: Quote:
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
||
05-17-2008, 08:07 AM | #35 | |||
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
|
Who should be careful?
Quote:
If they are in an accident while "OPENING it up", I would assume that they were still in the process of getting up to their desired speed before the accident. Is that what you said? A minor point probably - Anyway: How much bigger would that book be with the proposed "new law" compared to the same accident with the current rules, like a violation of the 150' rule and safe, reasonable speeds etc.? Quote:
Quote:
Thank you. ------------------------ AL, Skipper of the Sea Que Kayakers love water --- This boater loves life & wife and enjoys Champagne
|
|||
05-17-2008, 10:02 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 302
Thanks: 85
Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts
|
I think it would be interesting to find out WHAT STATE the people who voted for this bill are orginally from. I'm sure there are those that have moved here from other states, to either get away from the CRAP in thier home state, or because they could not make it in the political ring in which they came from. The question is " ARE THESE POLITICIANS THAT VOTED FOR THIS BILL ORGINALLY FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE OR ARE THEY IMPLANTS FROM OTHER STATES? "
|
05-17-2008, 11:06 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,663
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 349
Thanked 630 Times in 282 Posts
|
A bit gender skewed
In analyzing the vote, 90% of the women senators voted for the speed limit while 64% of the men senators voted against it. Emotion over logic?
__________________
-lg |
05-17-2008, 09:47 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pitman , NJ
Posts: 627
Thanks: 40
Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts
|
That's what happens when you allow a woman into politics
__________________
Paddle faster , I think I here banjos |
05-18-2008, 10:06 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
|
|
05-18-2008, 08:32 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
|
|
05-17-2008, 10:09 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Goodness, I can't even be nice on this forum, without being critized for it! And I gave you the actual NH RSA - I'm not making this stuff up, but since you don't believe me, here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...265/265-60.htm And I asked you nicely to please stop using a distorted version of my signature. Continuing to do so is a trolling - which is in violation of forum rules.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
05-18-2008, 06:17 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,615
Thanks: 256
Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts
|
Please re-read my posts carefully...
Quote:
Only by taking the information I have presented piecemeal or out of context can you imply than anyone in this thread was insinuating that the new legislation could be ignored or defeated in Court. My intent was to show that the limits imposed are not absolute in nature and that there is a certain amount of reasonable leeway given the proper conditions, the most important issue being that you are always operating your boat in a safe and reasonable manner. That you may not be able to comprehend these concepts is acceptable, as you have never presented....in your incredible resume...any credentials related to your expertise in matters pertaining to New Hampshire's criminal code. Or perhaps I missed that post? Have a great summer, Skip |
|
05-18-2008, 08:56 AM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
But since my education is being questioned yet again: I graduated from NHTI last May with a degree in Paralegal Studies; I did my internship at the NH State House, under a UNH Political Science internship program, by working as an aid to a NH Senator from early January until early June of 2007; I just completed my Junior year at Roger Wiliams University, where I'm doing a dual major in Political Science and Legal Studies. Now I'll likely get attacked for "bragging" about my abilities again.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
||
05-18-2008, 07:54 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Quote:
I find it offensive, provocative and illogical so please remove it. "Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water." I'm a boater and I love people, not objects. I also love spending time on my boat. It's a personal insult to me that you suggest in every post that I "love" my boat. I'm also a kayaker and I strongly believe that kayaks are boats and should be treated as boats with the same right and the same responsibilties. You personally insult all kayakers in every post be discriminating between boaters and kayakers. All kayakers are boaters. Your signature should read: Boaters enjoy boating... Boaters love being in the water |
|
05-21-2008, 10:58 PM | #45 | |||
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
|
Error by omission
I'm not claiming that you made this stuff up Evenstar. I'm just saying that you left out an important portion of what Skip quoted which qualifies the "exact same language".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hmmm, you say I am violating forum rules. Well now, maybe we need "new and improved" rules that are sure to reduce violations... no wait, that's the speed limit con... never mind. Some boaters love kayakers --- and some don't
__________________
Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works. Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient. |
|||
05-19-2008, 08:59 AM | #46 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 73
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
If a boat revs in a forrest and no ne is around does it make a noise?
Quote:
If they could prove that over the speed limit was the primary cause of an accident how would that effect the penalty? Quote:
BTW, I am a boater, what about my love? |
||
05-19-2008, 09:20 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts
|
Just like on a paved road
[QUOTE=Mashugana;70770]Your key words are the key. If no one was around to witness an accident how would they know for sure what the actual speed was? No MP with radar or other trained witnesses. The cause of the accident might have included unreasonable speed but how would they arrive at a given number?
I bet they try to measure the SKID marks to determine the speed! |
05-20-2008, 05:46 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Evenstar: I can go for a walk in the woods durring hunting season, I would not do it, but I could. I also would not even think about asking those that hunt to not do so because I want to take a morning walk in the woods. From what I am hearing you say I should enact a law that says that no one should be able to hunt so that I can take my morning walk? Your chances of being hit on the water are infinately less then being shot while walking in the woods during hunting season. Both are statistically much less then being in a car accident. Live and let live. There is an entire lake out there for everyone to use, find a place that you do feel safe and enjoy it.
The argument about me not being able to see as far at speed is totally false. If the proponents of the law ever drove one of these boats they would realize that. How is it that my vision becomes less when traveling at speed? When you are driving in a car does your vision become less when you drive at highway speed vs. traveling around town on back roads? Also, when I drive slower I have to look at 360 degrees of the lake as people could approach from the sides and behind. As I travel faster it is less important what is behind me and more improtant what is in front of me. Get up to 70 or so MPH and there is almost no chance that some one is aproaching you from behind. This allows me to focus more on what is in front of me. How is it that my vision is less at speed? |
05-20-2008, 08:22 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
You and others here contend that kayaks should be restricted to certain areas of the lake – I contend that an experienced sea kayaker should be able to safely use the entire lake – without fear of being run over by high speed boats. My boat is made to use on the main lake. I’m not supporting a bill that would limit what parts of the lake that powerboats should use. Besides, I’ve had close encounters with high-speed powerboats when I’ve been only a few hundred feet from shore. And others had testified about similar close calls relatively near the shore. I should not have to hug the shore or be restricted to coves to be safe from being run over. Slowing down the fastest boats to a safer speed is the fairest thing for everyone – since it is the least restrictive. My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here. I never stated that vision is less at higher speeds – just that vision doesn’t magically get better at higher speeds (as some forum members have suggested). Not every boater has perfect vision, and not every boater pays enough attention to smaller boats, and visibility is not always perfect out on the lake. Combine any of these with high speeds and you can have a dangerous situation for smaller boats.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
05-20-2008, 01:24 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts
|
its not speed it is distance
[QUOTE=Evenstar;70826]
My statement has always been that some powerboat operators travel at speeds that are faster than their ability to see smaller, slower moving boats. I am basing that on my own experience on Winni. I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). It is not the size of boat. I have had Captain Bonehead run right up next to me in a 19' boat. It is the 150' rule and not speed! |
05-20-2008, 01:54 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Evenstar. My smaller boat (the one that I use the most) is probably only 2-3 feet longer then your kayak. I am willing to bet that it sits only slightly higher in the water then a kayak. I have NEVER had any issue with some one almost running me over at speed. Lots of people have violated the 150 foot rule around me. Not once has it been a speed boat at a high rate of speed.
|
05-20-2008, 02:40 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
|
YES IT HAS! You yourself said it happened on Squam. Why do you keep saying this when you know it isn't true. Need I go back and post your comment again???????
|
05-20-2008, 03:04 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
05-20-2008, 04:09 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
|
I know... here you go, you can all read it for yourself : http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...0&postcount=36
While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. |
05-20-2008, 06:39 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
|
Marks in the milfoil
Quote:
Hey maybe they can measure disturbed milfoil. The new pavement. If no one is around and your boat doesn't sink what prevents a hit-and-run?
__________________
|
|
05-19-2008, 10:20 AM | #56 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's examples from this thread about what others are suggesting: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why is my signature suddenly an issue? It was never meant to be an insult to anyone - so please don't take it that way. It doesn't state that boaters love their boats more than anything else or that they only love their boats. It does not state that kayaks are not a type of boat. It does not state that kayakers don't love their kayaks. The point on my sig is that, if you kayak, you'd better love the water, because you are going to get wet. A slightly modified version of my sig could also be very appropriate for collegiate sailing as well, as I get much wetter racing sailboats than I do when I kayak.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|||||
05-20-2008, 12:37 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
|
05-20-2008, 05:35 PM | #58 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
No I didn't. Others make it an issue by trying to us my signature against me.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In my very next post,#43 (which was posted way back on April 4, 2005!), I wrote: "That powerboat operator saw us just fine. He passed with 40 feet of us and laughed as his wake swamped us." So this is clearly not a case where a high-speed powerboat operator was going too fast to see me! I also explained this in my reply to your former accusation: Quote:
Why is it that I have to constantly defend myself on this forum???
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
||||
05-21-2008, 06:24 AM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
|
Quote:
How many powerboats have been hit by a powerboat on Winni where the operator had not consumed alcohol? I think tipping and drowning seem to be the issues that are claiming kayakers across the region. I know I've read of at least 2 in the past few weeks. So, if I'm going over 45mph and enter somebody's 150' zone with a smile it's ok? |
|
05-21-2008, 11:33 PM | #60 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My actual statement was (if you actually bothered to read all of it): “I have had high-speed powerboats violate my 150 foot zone because the operator didn’t notice me in time to give me that space that the law requires him to. This has happened more than once and I am basing my belief that they didn’t see us on their reactions and on their expressions when they did finally notice us. This has happened when visibility on the lake was excellent – in the middle of a sunny summer day – even though our kayaks are very easy to see (bright red and bright yellow). This has also never happened on Squam, where there is a 40 mph speed limit. And we spend much more time paddling – especially on busy summer weekends. So speed is a factor here.” So please stop your personal attacks on me. You have no right to repeatedly accuse me of lying. Your attacks are personal – they are intentional – and they are done with malice. The legal definition of slander is: “an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.” Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|||||||||
05-22-2008, 08:39 AM | #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
|
Quote:
Again, without proof (radar, laser) that these boats were going 46mph or faster, you seem to make great case for better enforcement of the 150' rule. The speed limit is not going to solve this. Quote:
Few members of the forum have posted that their boats are capable of reaching 45mph. Of those, many admit that they reserve pushing their boats to speeds of 45mph in open areas, such as the broads. Let's say 10% of the boats on the lake are going 45mph or higher at any point in time (0.29%, speed survey, blah, blah, blah - we know those numbers are just totally fictional and serve no relevance about speeds on the lake) but applying this logic - it seems like you'd have a better chance of being stuck by lightning, involved in an airplane crash, or winning the lottery (might be a good night to buy a ticket) than having MULTIPLE incidents with a "Speeding" vessel on the lake. But that is just my opinion (except for the lottery ticket thing - you seem to be able to beat the odds time after time!!!!!). |
||
05-22-2008, 11:02 AM | #62 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
You posted a while back about a close call on Squam. Whether he saw you before he violated your 150 foot zone or not or unintentionally or intentionally came at you was not referenced in any of my posts. You pointed to a 40MPH limit on Squam as the reason nobody ever infringed upon your 150foot zone. I used YOUR WORDS to remind you that in fact it had happened to you. If you just stopped the whoa is me attitude and stuck to your arguments you may be a bit more well received here. This isn't personal and it never will be. I absolutely 100% disagree with everything you say. Oh well move on. I don't dislike you, I don't wish you ill will, I don't know you. Unfortunately you fail to see where you have been extremely condescending and negative to just about every poster on this forum. Maybe you don't mean to be, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don't. Unfortunately most here and most I've spoken to personally or have PM'ed me think that you do mean it and that you are being smug and or arrogant. Sometimes the written word does not accurately reflect the true personality of somebody. I have but one request. Please stop playing the victim. |
|
05-22-2008, 06:06 PM | #63 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
You falsely accused me of lying, again. You completely misunderstood what I posted – even though I made the distinction very clear. And even after I had pointed out what I actually wrote. That is very much a personal attack. Before accusing someone of lying, you really should make sure that they actually posted what you think they posted. Quote:
Quote:
If you and others think that I’m coming across as “smug and or arrogant,” perhaps that is due to that fact that I have to provide credentials for every single ability, for every bit of experience, and for every statement that I make on this forum. I am not a smug or arrogant person. I can not even make a helpful post or make a joke without someone here criticizing me. You blatantly attacked me by calling me a liar again and demanding that I be moderated for my actions – and then you tell me to “give it a rest!!!” If you would just back off and quit attacking my posts and falsely accusing me, I wouldn’t have to spend nearly as much time defending myself here. I am “the victim” because people like you have made me “the victim.” I am not playing anything – but have merely tried to defend myself from some really hostile attacks, that I don’t feel like I deserved. You seem to wait around for me to post just to rip my posts apart – and whenever anyone else criticizes me, you are one of the first ones to chime in and add to the feeding frenzy. You claim that you don’t hate me, but your actions say otherwise. Quote:
I’ve stated more than once that my sea kayak is nearly 16 feet long, so when a powerboat gets within 3 or 4 of my kayak lengths from me, they are much closer than 150 feet. Being less than a second away from a likely fatal collision is what I consider to be a close call. Close calls can be reported – but, as far as I know, no one actually keeps track of them. Have you ever seen a published report that gives the number of close calls on NH lakes? How do you enforce a violation that wasn’t intentional? Sure, the MP can cite they operator, but how does that prevent an unintentional violation from happening again. And that’s not going to do the paddler any good, after a powerboat collides with them. Again, I’ve stated this over and over – so, either you guys are not getting this, or you’re just choosing to ignore what I post. It is my belief that unintentional violations happen because the operator is traveling beyond his abilities to see smaller boats in time, so if he is forced to slow down, he will be traveling at speeds that are now closer to his abilities. Plus when you are going slower, you have more time to react. That is a fact. Therefore the speed limit should greatly reduce the number of unintentional 150 foot violations. Quote:
I’ve been 100% truthful in my accounts of close calls on the lake. The main reason that I’m supporting enacting a speed limit on the lake is based of my own personal experiences on the lake. And I’m not the only person who has recounted numerous close calls from high-speed powerboats while paddling.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|||||
05-25-2008, 06:53 AM | #64 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 45
Thanks: 8
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
|
Weird logic repeated over and over.
My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar.
Quote:
Comments in red by The Commodore.
__________________
The Commodore |
|
05-21-2008, 06:33 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Evenstar: First your point about you getting hurt more in your boat then me in mine if we get hit by the same boat I am sure you can see is very flawed. It is the low stance of the boat that allows the other boat to travel up and over our boats should we ever be hit. It has nothing to do with the weight. Now your boat may break in half and mine may not but I assure you the damage to the occupants and boats would be substantial.
Now your point about the Squam incident... First back in 04 or when ever it was you pointed out that the guy was laughing at you as he passed. Well how are you sure that the other people that have come close to you (violated your 150 foot rule) also did not have the same mentality. When I first went up to the lake I did not know about the 150 foot rule and did go to close to a friend of mine. He explained the rule to me that I had no idea about and from then on I obayed the rule. You could also just be running into every jerk on a boat. They come in all shapes, sizes, powers, speeds. I was anchored at a beach and I had a sail boater hit me and actually claim that he had the right of way!! He actually said that since he was a sail boat that I had to get out of his way! Speed had nothing to do with that incident stupidity had everything to do with it. Again those same people are going to not know the laws and will still come way to close to you. Speed limits do not fix this problem for you. Lastly let the owner of this board decide what is or is not against the rules of the board. Just about every post on this forum is moderated. He has read them all. I would assume that if he thought that they were against forum rules he would either edit them or not post them. Everyone needs to lighten up on this board and have a little more fun. |
05-21-2008, 11:54 AM | #66 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Evanstar you lied and said it never happened on Squam yet when I post YOUR words that clearly state somebody came within 40 feet of you VIOLATING YOUR 150 FOOT ZONE I am attacking you???????? Enough is enough. You are bordering on troll posting now. I move to have you moderated again because this is getting absolutely ridiculous. |
|
05-21-2008, 08:47 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
|
Let her talk, it only helps. If her argurements are all they have...
|
05-20-2008, 12:54 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,412
Thanks: 216
Thanked 782 Times in 464 Posts
|
Quote:
Give it a rest and move on. |
|
05-24-2008, 01:36 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Bay State
Posts: 119
Thanks: 8
Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts
|
Misleading spin from the pro speed limit side
Quote:
Boaters often "get away" with breaking the law now. Violating the 150 foot law is one we all know. That does not mean they can "get away" with it if they get a ticket and go to court. You know that MP can't enforce every rule 100% of the time. It will be the same when a speed limit rule is in effect. Do not diminish the potential of that speed limit law. What you are suggesting is that you can violate the new law. You can speed and get away with it. If you get a boating speeding ticket you will not get away with it. You will be allowed to present a defense different than what you could say if it was a car speeding ticket. You still have to face a judge or plead nolo or guilty. Bear Islander has said that boaters behave when the MP are around. I believe we all agree on that point. They will be around more if they do not have to have 2 officers in one boat with a radar gun. Those 2 officers could be in 2 separate patrol boats potentially causing twice as many boaters to behave. No new law required for twice the safety. As has been said many times. More enforcement of the current laws works. You can't spin that.
__________________
|
|
05-16-2008, 08:18 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 329
Thanks: 28
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
|
When is the Govenor review
When is the Govenor reviewing the bill to pass or veto?
Also, is there a role call so I know how the person who represents me voted? |
05-16-2008, 08:34 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
|
|
05-16-2008, 07:30 AM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,075
Thanks: 215
Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts
|
Welcome to the NEW New Hampshirechussetts.A lot more great bills to follow.Next up,lets make sure those bikers start wearing helmets.
__________________
SIKSUKR |
05-16-2008, 07:35 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,547
Thanks: 3,162
Thanked 1,094 Times in 788 Posts
|
The lake will become the next Quabin Reservoir.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day. |
05-16-2008, 07:59 AM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
Interesting
At least to me...in the Concord Monitor, it quotes two Dems as being opposed to HB847, D'Allesandro and Letourneu.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...PAGE/805160385 |
05-16-2008, 08:04 AM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
I think that it is very sad that people have been so quick to enact a law that has the sole purpose of trying to remove a certain type of boat off the lake. When that law does not work they will try and put another law on the books and another. It makes me sick to my stomach really. By the way my boat puts out a MUCH larger wake at 45 then it does at 65. Evenstar understandably will still not feel comfortable going across the broads, people will still violate the 150 foot rule, people will still not boat safely. So what law is next guys?
|
05-16-2008, 09:19 AM | #76 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 24
Thanks: 2
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
|
So will jet skis and cabin cruisers next to be banned from the lake?
|
05-16-2008, 09:26 AM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
|
I am so excited to fire up my twin engine speed boat and cruise the lake this year as well as next year. If the Governor signs the bill, it will still be business as usual. The noise will not go away and the speed will not go away. Winnfarts hase accomplished nothing.
|
05-16-2008, 09:55 AM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,874
Thanks: 521
Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts
|
Quote:
Cruisers will be banned via some kind of wake limit law. Or something like that. |
|
05-16-2008, 10:15 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,761
Thanks: 32
Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts
|
Two Democrats voted no, Gottesman and D'Allesandro
Two Republicans voted yes, Kenney and O'Dell So it was not as partisan as some predicted. Some Senators wanted to table it and add an amendment for an exception in the broads. However the vote went against them 13 to 11. Very close. |
05-17-2008, 06:59 AM | #80 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 08:06 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,177
Thanks: 664
Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts
|
Heard on the radio today that two of the Senators that voted for the bill are not seeking re-election: Senators Burling and Estabrook. They must feel great that they left such a legacy for others to deal with. At least we don't have to vote them out - they are leaving on their own. That only leave 12 other Senators that we have to send packing. Goodbye Senators - plenty of room in liberal states. We want Live Free or Die Conservatives back. Same goes for you, Governor Lynch - if you don't veto the bill, I think it's time for you to be voted OUT! Where's Steve Merrill when we need him????
|
05-16-2008, 09:31 AM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Littleton, NH
Posts: 382
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Quote:
And it is your opinion that the "sole purpose" of this law is to "remove a certain type of boat off the lake." That is not why I supported it. How can you state with such certaintly that I will "not feel comfortable going across the Broads?" I will not even know that myself until after the law is enacted and then I will let you know how safe I feel crossing the Broads.
__________________
"Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|