Will NH lakes be safer?

[Island Lover]

A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!


Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided

[Yankee]

Based upon a 600 person telephonehttp://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/boat/survey. The last time that I checked, NH had approximately 1.2 million people living within its borders. 600, statistically speaking, is a very small sampling. That's just 0.05% of the population if my ciphering is correct.

[Island Lover]

Yankee

In a poll they don't call everybody in the state. Polling is a science. They call a sampling.

That why its call a poll.

And this poll is not the one you linked to. This poll was just taken.

And it also shows only 5% of NH voters think it will not make the lakes more enjoyable.

Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes more
enjoyable, or not?

74% - Yes, believe will make lakes more enjoyable
5% - No, do not believe will make lakes more enjoyable
21% - Undecided

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!

There seems to be an echo in the forum...

We have read these words previously.

Have you depleted your bag of trick-words?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by GWC...

There seems to be an echo in the forum...

We have read these words previously.

Have you depleted your bag of trick-words?

I don't think you have read these words before. This is a new poll, released TODAY!

The old poll from last June was 66%. That poll has been criticized here because it didn't mention 45/25. Now the poll taken a few days ago, specifying 45/25, is 84%.

NH voters want HB162.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!


Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided

This is interesting, it might be worth the money to conduct these polls?

Do you believe that preventing Tractor Trailer trucks from driving on our highways would make our roadways safer?

Or

Do you think not allowing people over the age of 70 to drive would make our roadways safer?

Or

Do you think that requiring everyone who boats should wear a PFD, would make our boaters safer?

Etc.

Can you guess what the percentages might be?

I agree with the poll results based on the question.

[Gilligan]

How many of the residents of the state use the lake or are boaters?
Non-boaters could well be influenced to believe that a 45/25 speed limit would make the lake a safer place. Faster than that in a boat can sound very scary to a non-boater.

A poll that targets those that use the effected lake would be much more significant than one which surveys the general public.

[fatlazyless]

Hey WinniLaker, let's not be picking on tractor-trailer 18 wheel trucks. Everything in this country got there on a big truck and truck drivers are held to higher driving safety standards than cars. Just ask you local police dept if they hold the big trucks to higher standards.

One large reason why there is now a nation wide shortage of CDL-A truck drivers is because it is a very difficult state license test to pass. About seven out of eight flunk it.

A simple and straight-ahead question it is. "Do you think NH lakes will be safer with a 45-25 speed limit?"

In case you forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat!

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Hey WinniLaker, let's not be picking on tractor-trailer 18 wheel trucks. Everything in this country got there on a big truck and truck drivers are held to higher driving safety standards than cars. Just ask you local police dept if they hold the big trucks to higher standards.

One large reason why there is now a nation wide shortage of CDL-A truck drivers is because it is a very difficult state license test to pass. About seven out of eight flunk it.

A simple and straight-ahead question it is. "Do you think NH lakes will be safer with a 45-25 speed limit?"

In case you forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat!

I wasn't picking on Tractor Trailers drivers, I was making a point, that the general public might not know the HIGH standards you speak, want me to point to a story where a tractor trailer KILLED 7 kids in a minivan that had stopped for bus to unload, ages 13 months to 15 years old. Never mind I just will (http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/natio...sh_x.htm?csp=1) As for 45 being hardly a slow speed, maybe in your boat, but my boat does 55 mph, I'm perfectly comfortable going 55 mph in my boat with my kids in the boat.

[Weirs guy]

I hate to chime in again on this as I don't own a boat, but I do view a speed limit as a limit on personal freedoms (like helmet and seatbelt laws).

Having said that, I think if we want a poll that really means something, why not a poll of users on this site who know someone who was involved in an boating accident that was caused by either:
a. excessive speed by a sober operator
b. lack of skills/training in boat operation by a sober operator
c. alcohol

And compare the results of these 3 issues.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I agree with the poll results based on the question.

Its nice to see that we agree on something. Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.

[SAMIAM]

The lakes would be safer if the marinas would stop renting boats to people who don't have a CLUE.......never mind being certified.I've never had a close call with a go fast boat....but I've had several with uneducated tourists in rentals.Two years ago a rental pontoon boat at WOT tried to pass between me and a skier in the water.They have no idea what the 150' rule means.Several times I've had rentals throw a wake up on me while towing one of the kids on a water toy.........while traveling at headway speed near shore.

Poll question......Would the lakes be safer if rental customers had to be certified???

[Lakegeezer]

There is plenty of evidence that speeds above 45 is not a factor in any signficant number of accidents, so what's the point of the poll? Safer than what? Doesn't safer mean - less chance of an accident? Again, we have self-serving groups writing leading questions with a motive, asking questions to people who have been "educated" by previous advertising campaigns. Where is the independant pollsters writing the questions? Where is the segmentation by registered boaters (not voters). We continue going down the "feel good" route - let some people force others to change behavior so they can "feel safer" without actually being safer - and at the same time, reduce the civil liberties of safe boaters. The times, they are a'changing.

[lakeluver]

Sam,
I agree with you. Rental boats are generally too small for the big lake on a busy weekend due to lake traffic, not speed. A small rental boat out in the broads is not going to be fun, especially if there is wind and there are wakes.They have not taken any real boater safety trailing and are pretty
clueless.
How many times have we all had rental boats come way too close, only to have the renters wave happily at us as though they don't know they are doing something wrong?

[KonaChick]

This poll result was reported on Channel 9 News at 5 o'clock last night....interesting.

[SAMIAM]

That WAS interesting,KC.......they published the poll results and three people spoke for the bill.....they didn't have a single voice from the other side.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

That WAS interesting,KC.......they published the poll results and three people spoke for the bill.....they didn't have a single voice from the other side.

Thats because the opposition has pretty much given up. A majority of Senators are on-board with HB162.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Thats because the opposition has pretty much given up. A majority of Senators are on-board with HB162.

I am sorry, but if you think the opposition has pretty much given up, then you are going to be sorely disappointed next Friday.

And can you give your source for your statement that a majority of Senators are on board with HB162?

[Paugus Bay Resident]

And can you give your source for your statement that a majority of Senators are on board with HB162?

I'd really like to hear your response to that as well.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Here's my take on the poll results. There are roughly 100,000 boats registered in NH. Let's be generous and say that 80% of those boats are owned by NH residents. I think there are around 800,000 registered voters so, to make the math easier (for me), I'll assume that 1 in 10 voters own a boat.

If I didn't boat, and knew nothing about boating laws, boater education, enforecement, etc., I'd probably say why not to speed limits, we have them on the roads (not realizing that there are great differences bewteen cars and boats - line of sight, operating 5 feet away from another vehicle, etc.).

Basically, I'd bet that the majority of people being polled have not educated themselves on the issue, and if they don't boat, I can understand that.

That being said, I'm not surprised by the results. I think our senate will apply more stringent standards and a more deeper understanding of the issue when they review HB162. That's why we elected them.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Thats because the opposition has pretty much given up. A majority of Senators are on-board with HB162.

From the Union Leader..."Among those registering at the hearing yesterday, 150 opposed the bill and 59 favored it."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-2958d5d7d427

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Its nice to see that we agree on something. Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.

This boat would have some Lake (BI) residents shaking in their shoes, even with HB162 protecting them.

Read the specs for the Panther 80 (as in 80 feet with a cruising speed of 42 knots - just right for HB162):
http://www.baiayacht.it/

[Dave R]

I bet 84% of voter in NH once believed in Santa Claus too. Almost half of the residents of NH have below average intelligence; why does anyone really care what voters believe? Don't we (poorly) pay lawmakers to make decisions like this based on logic rather than emotions? I gotta go talk to my Senator, Jack Barnes and see what he thinks about all this. He's a pretty smart guy.

That poll is just hype. Both sides are guilty of hype though...

I think peoiple will continue to kill and die with some regularity while doing dumb things on the lake regardless of the outcome of the law.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I bet 84% of voter in NH once believed in Santa Claus too. Almost half of the residents of NH have below average intelligence; why does anyone really care what voters believe? Don't we (poorly) pay lawmakers to make decisions like this based on logic rather than emotions? I gotta go talk to my Senator, Jack Barnes and see what he thinks about all this. He's a pretty smart guy.

That poll is just hype. Both sides are guilty of hype though...

I think peoiple will continue to kill and die with some regularity while doing dumb things on the lake regardless of the outcome of the law.

As a NH resident and native, I'm very offended by your entire post.

New Hampshire lakes are public waters - owned by the people (residents) of NH. They aren't only for power boaters, or even just for boaters.

1,200 owners of NH public waters (NH residents) were polled. The results of the poll clearly show that NH residents are in favor of a speed limit.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

As a NH resident and native, I'm very offended by your entire post.

New Hampshire lakes are public waters - owned by the people (residents) of NH. They aren't only for power boaters, or even just for boaters.

1,200 owners of NH public waters (NH residents) were polled. The results of the poll clearly show that NH residents are in favor of a speed limit.

[/B]."

Was it the killing and dying, the Santa Claus part of the intelligence thing that really set you off? The first time someone dies on the lake after the speed limit passes, you'll see what I meant, the people will still die in dumb and/or awful ways. Santa Claus is not real. By definition, just under half the people in any state have below average intelligence.

I like to canoe, a lot.

I live in NH, and have for 37 of my 40 years.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Was it the killing and dying, the Santa Claus part of the intelligence thing that really set you off? The first time someone dies on the lake after the speed limit passes, you'll see what I meant, the people will still die in dumb and/or awful ways. Santa Claus is not real. By definition, just under half the people in any state have below average intelligence.

I was offended by all your comments.

As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.

[sum-r breeze]

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude!

Regards, The breeze
make sure to wave because I'll wave back

[ApS]

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither! I like lake geezer's attitude!

What Franklin said was, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Five tons of boat operating at unreasonable speeds among lesser boaters doesn't strike me as an essential liberty.

(But that's just me).

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by sum-r breeze

I Think Ben Franklin's Quote goes something like this.....
Those who would give up any measure of liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither!

So why then do we have laws?

We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So why then do we have laws?

We have and need laws because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty.

From RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

Who's intruding? Check out the definition of intrude (your word of choice):
1.) thrust oneself in as if by force
2.) enter uninvited
3.) enter unlawfully on someone's property

Since human power boats were on the lake first, who actually intruded?

In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding?

We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Who's intruding?

In recent years canoes and kayaks have been virtually forced off Winni. So, again, who's intruding?

We're not trying to force the powerboats off the lake - just get a law passed to slow the fastest powerboats down - so that we can have an equal right to use NH lakes - that's all.

Nobody is telling you that you cannot enjoy your sport on Winni, it is you that chooses not to. Yet you are supporting a bill that FORCES powerboaters to slow down and cut the enjoyment of the sport which they prefer, who is forcing who??? You already have an equal right yet are trying to limit others. Please show me where in the law books you are being limited in your use of Winni. Your post is just plain rubbish.

If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Nobody is telling you that you cannot enjoy your sport on Winni, it is you that chooses not to. Yet you are supporting a bill that FORCES powerboaters to slow down and cut the enjoyment of the sport which they prefer, who is forcing who??? You already have an equal right yet are trying to limit others. Please show me where in the law books you are being limited in your use of Winni. Your post is just plain rubbish.

If you do not feel confident that your skills are good enough to survive on the lake maybe you should go elsewhere. Nobody has hit you or anyone else in a kayak that I have heard of in NH, if this is not the case please show facts to prove.

Or perhaps this well trained , skilled , prepared and talented kayaker is not as good as they would have us believe
In those infamaous words of "Captain Ron" , "If somethings going to go wrong , it will go wrong out there".

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Cal

Or perhaps this well trained , skilled , prepared and talented kayaker is not as good as they would have us believe

What's missing in this picture below?

Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who.

And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

What's missing in this picture below?
Our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker with the sea kayak, that's who.

And shame on all those GFBL boats that are easily seen in the picture, preventing our avid, "let nature provide the thrills" kayaker from enjoying the Lake

GWC: I don't see any fish in your picture either, so does that also mean that there are no fish in Winni?

I fail to see your point, and don't enjoy being laughed at, just because I prefer kayaks over powerboats. And I have actually kayaked on lakes in larger waves than what your picture shows. I've also done Class III white water.

Notice how the waves in your photo are biggest closer to the shore (breakers), which is why hugging the shore is not always the best thing to do.

Here's a typical sea kayak shot, to give you a better idea of what sea kayaks are actually made for:

[John A. Birdsall]

Originally Posted by Cal

OK Now I understand. It's ok for kayakers to intrude on powerboaters.
That makes it all so clear

You know I have heard complaints about kayakers and the speed limit. Perhaps if you would paddle half as fast as Willie Coyete runs, then you too could go 45 mph.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I was offended by all your comments.

As far as average intelligence goes, that's just not true. IQ scores are calibrated against the norms of actual population. So 50% are average and the other 50% is split between above average and below. That's called a bell curve. The mean (the average) is the sum of everyone’s IQ scores, divided by the number of scores. So below and above average are usually within 10 percentage points of 25% each.

I think you need to lighten up a bit. Look at your bell shaped curve for a moment, it has a center point and does not have a flat top. I was referring to everyone that falls left of center on the curve. That would be 50% of the area under the curve.

Showing the results of popular polls on subjects sach as this tends to push the assumption that voters should decide the laws. Problem is, what's popular isn't always right. Britney Spears is popular... I think I'd rather have wizened folks making laws based on logic. If the wize people do a poor job, they can be fired easily enough.

The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I think you need to lighten up a bit. Look at your bell shaped curve for a moment, it has a center point and does not have a flat top. I was referring to everyone that falls left of center on the curve. That would be 50% of the area under the curve.

Your comments were insulting to NH residents - I was offended. Don't make insulting comments and then tell one of the persons you insulted to "lignten up".

The House of Reps is the junior varsity of lawmakers. They are there to represent the wishes of the populace and the fact that they voted for the bill makes perfect sense, as most of them will never be Senators. The Senators are the varsity team, a wizer group in general, and they will hope vote with more logic that emotion.

The senators should represent the public opinion, especially in areas of public safety. And they have a responsibility to follow the intent of existing laws, in passing new laws.

HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Your comments were insulting to NH residents - I was offended. Don't make insulting comments and then tell one of the persons you insulted to "lignten up".


The senators should represent the public opinion, especially in areas of public safety. And they have a responsibility to follow the intent of existing laws, in passing new laws.

HB 162 is necessary because of some of us have lost some of the rights stated in RSA 270:1 "... in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

According to NH law, the reason for regulations is to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses. That should be the main arguement for passing this bill. This bill will pass if the Senators make their decisions based on logic. I'm more worried that logic won't even be a factor for some of them.

I guess the truth hurts. My "insulting comments" were entirely true. I'm also a NH resident and I don't want the opinions of NH residents to cloud the judgent of my elected leaders. Public opinion is a silly method to set a speed limit, or enact any other safety regulation. One should really pay attention to physics and statistics in this sort of calculation, not opinion polls. Would you prefer the general public decide things like construction, plumbing, fire prevention and wiring requirements or would you rather have an expert do so?

Are you unable or unwilling to use your kayak on the lake due to the presence of boats going more than 45 MPH? If so, the problem may be your own. I see lots of kayaks out there with fast boats alos present and everyone appears to be having fun. I don't think you've lots any rights at all.

Proponents for this law seem to forget that it's considered bad form, at the least, (and is quite likely already against the law) to actually hit another boat, regardless of speed. Most boaters avoid hitting other boaters. Statistically, you are really quite unlikley to get run over by a power boat out there and are much more likely to die from something like an act of God or bad judgement.

[Skip]

From today's Manchester Union Leader:

Fatal Ice Boat Collision, Lake Sunapee

[sum-r breeze]

Weis Guy,
The Lake will not be safer. I know the size my wake at slow speed (before getting on plane) and the size it is after getting on plane. Big difference.
If this bill passes we should all go PLOWING around the Lake at 15mph and show the elite liberals the trouble they caused.You won't be able to ge out on that water in any thing less than a 28footer. Just a protesting thought....
Anyone been within a 1/4 mile of the Mail Boats? The size of that wake is downright dangerous! Getting back to my Quote from Franklin.... I think it's an Essential Liberty to be left alone when out on the water! Keep all your restrictive laws to yourself and leave us alone!!!! We go out on the water to get away from all that nonsense

All the Best,
The breeze
Make sure to wave cause I'll Wave Back

[Lakegeezer]

HB162 should be limited to only the first paragraph:

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Island Lover, when you say "Yes the lakes will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit.", I suggest you really be saying "Yes the lakes will FEEL safer with a 45/25 speed limit." Nice feelings is all you are going to get out of the law - feelings at the cost of civil liberty. It is a very steep price!

[Island Lover]

Lakegeezer

Why don't you go back up about 15 posts and read where winnilaker admits the lake will be safer with a 45/25 speed limit. Then you can argue with him!

[overlook]

He was only agreeing with the results, do not spin it. The results would be considerably different if the poll was conducted with only boaters or registered boat ownwers.

Boat Safe, Boat Smart- no HB162

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by overlook

He was only agreeing with the results, do not spin it. The results would be considerably different if the poll was conducted with only boaters or registered boat ownwers.

Boat Safe, Boat Smart- no HB162

There was no spin at all in my comment. Here is the poll question...

"Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided"

And this is winnilakers responce...

"I agree with the poll results based on the question."


I find his answer refreshingly honest.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

There was no spin at all in my comment. Here is the poll question...

"Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided"

And this is winnilakers responce...

"I agree with the poll results based on the question."


I find his answer refreshingly honest.

Wrong again, you took one sentence of his response, used it out of context to portray him in a way that is false. More proof of what you have been doing.

I wish I could say you have been "refreshingly honest" but I can't because doing things like this is not honest.

Pay attention sentators.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by ITD

Wrong again, you took one sentence of his response, used it out of context to portray him in a way that is false. More proof of what you have been doing.

I wish I could say you have been "refreshingly honest" but I can't because doing things like this is not honest.

Pay attention sentators.

ITD

I went back up to the post in question and checked. She did not take "one sentence" she took a whole paragraph. More importantly I took winnilakers comment to mean exactly what it said. It was not taken out of context in my opinion.

I think you are getting a little carried away here. I know you want this speed limit to fail, but this is not the way to go about it.

Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

ITD

I went back up to the post in question and checked. She did not take "one sentence" she took a whole paragraph. More importantly I took winnilakers comment to mean exactly what it said. It was not taken out of context in my opinion.

I think you are getting a little carried away here. I know you want this speed limit to fail, but this is not the way to go about it.

Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way.

Bear Lover,

I don't see a whole paragraph, I see one line of winnilaker's and a repeat of the poll question. I suggest you look at IL's post again, you're mistaken, or was it a mistake?

There is one sentence used out of a post containing nine lines. The line used without the benefit of the other 8 lines can be interpreted differently then when used with Winnilaker's complete post.

What's important is accuracy and honesty, keep things in context.

Finally, I don't need to PM Winnilaker, it's very clear from his post what he meant.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by ITD

Bear Lover,

I don't see a whole paragraph, I see one line of winnilaker's and a repeat of the poll question. I suggest you look at IL's post again, you're mistaken, or was it a mistake?

There is one sentence used out of a post containing nine lines. The line used without the benefit of the other 8 lines can be interpreted differently then when used with Winnilaker's complete post.

What's important is accuracy and honesty, keep things in context.

Finally, I don't need to PM Winnilaker, it's very clear from his post what he meant.

I understand EXACTLY what winnilaker is saying. His meaning is obvious, you are misinterpreting. Winnilaker asks...

Do you believe that preventing Tractor Trailer trucks from driving on our highways would make our roadways safer?

The obvious answer is YES

Do you think not allowing people over the age of 70 to drive would make our roadways safer?

The obvious answer is YES

Do you think that requiring everyone who boats should wear a PFD, would make our boaters safer?

Again this is a YES

I agree with the poll results based on the question.

This is another YES

He is pointing out that there is more to the enactment of a law than just a statistical improvement in safety. Otherwise we would all be driving around in Volvos at 5 mph.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Why don't you pm winnilaker and ask him what he meant? Not that its all that important either way.

No need to PM me. My point was, that given the question and the people that probably answered, you can see how they got those results. But I don't find the results relevant.

If a random survey called me and asked me:

Would our roadways be safer is we prevented people over 70 from driving. I would answer YES. And I bet a high percentage would as well.

However, what's the reality of passing a bill that terminate the rights of people over 70 from driving. I think many would call that discriminatory, why, because there are many responsible drivers over 70. And there are actually statistics that show the elderly are the #2 demographic that causes accidents behind teenagers.

And the same goes with my Tractor Trailer driver question.

So for the record, I don't suppport HB162, I don't think the poll holds the weight supporters feel it should and I don't think the results of such a law justifies the reasoning for it.

[Weirs guy]

So, nobody wanted to take my poll I see. What, are the supporters afraid of the outcome? Lets try this, as a "below average intelligence" NH voter, maybe someone can explain to me exactly how the speed limit will make me safer should I venture out on the lake in a boat. Am I less likely to be slammed into by another boat? Will the water be less choppy by reducing speeds? I guess I just don’t get it.

[Lakegeezer]

An interesting article came across my desk, and while reading it, I sensed a strong parallel between the culture shift in the US and the fear induced speed limit law project we have been following. Its a bit off-topic, and a bit 'heady', but a good read never the less and puts things in perspective.
Title: Culture of Fear: Dealing with cultural panic attacks by Ronald Bailey

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021706.shtml

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

An interesting article came across my desk, and while reading it, I sensed a strong parallel between the culture shift in the US and the fear induced speed limit law project we have been following. Its a bit off-topic, and a bit 'heady', but a good read never the less and puts things in perspective.
Title: Culture of Fear: Dealing with cultural panic attacks by Ronald Bailey

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021706.shtml

Good find. Doubt it'll change anyone's mind though.

[fatlazyless]

Oh, nobody knows how our 24 Senators will vote.
Nobody knows, not even the Senators themselves.

One day, they wake up and think about that marina campaign contribution that they got last election.

Another day, they wake up and think about Lake Winnipesaukee and its speedy reputation and whether that's good or bad for the tourist biz of the state.

Another day they wake up and remember that boat ride in a constituant's big fast boat and what fun that was.

Another day they wake up and feel bad for all the smaller boats getting bullied by the big bad go fast-be loud boats.

Another day, they wake up and say to themselves "I wonder what I think today, who knows?"

24 Senators: 16 Repubs w/ one lady Senator, 8 Dems w/ 4 lady Senators and it is just too close to call. A vote taken today would probably be different than a vote taken on the next day. Even if the Transportation Committee recommends one way, the overall Senate is not bound by that and could vote the other way.

So, n-o-b-o-d-y k-n-o-w-s.........

[SAMIAM]

I do admit,that as a NH native,that I am below average intelligence.But,somehow it annoys me when people that do not live here profess to know more about how to run our state than we do.
Vermont is a good example of a state that was overun with well meaning tourists from NY,Conn. and Mass. Now you can't even mow your lawn there without a permit.

[RegalStan2450]

The uneducated boater is a much greater threat to kayakers and canoes than a 100 mph educated boater. I passed plenty of canoes and kayakers last year. I always slow down, keep my distance and wave a friendly hello just like most other boaters do.

If this was really about safety I think the people in favor of HB 162 would be pushing for eveyone who registers a boat in NH or rents one , to have a boating certificate. You should not be able to register your boat without first having a certificate..

This would make the lakes instantly safer and cost almost nothing compared to a useless speed limit. The uneducated boater is the danger on our lakes not speed. This bill does nothing to address safety IMO.

[RegalStan2450]

About the poll results. When HB 162 was first brought up I too thought it was a good idea. A speed limit should make things safer right? If I was polled then I would have answered yes to HB 162.
I then started reading and slowly realized this bill puts too many restriction out there with very little results. I just don't believe it is about safety anymore. Poll 600 people in NH with boating certificates instead. The people polled should be educated boaters or I would call it a bogus poll.

My wife has been listening to me talk about this. Yesterday she finally said "Maybe the speed limit will make the lake safer hun".

I got on my soap box First I asked"We have been boating for over 10 years. Have we ever had an incident with a fast boat?" Her answer"no". "Have we ever had an experience with a uneducated boater?" Her answer "yes several times" . With one very close call.

Finally I asked" Do you think a educated boater with a fast boat should be limited to 45 mph on a huge empty lake during the middle of the week?" "of course not" she said. I told her that this law would make that happen. She felt that was totally wrong and why can't they just have a weekend and holiday speed limit , like alot of NH lakes do.

She realized this was an incredible infringement on our NH liberties even though our boat barely goes 50mph.

I would even agree with a weekend speed limit because that is a compromise at least(and I only go boating on weekends).It seems there is no compromise though, If the proponents really want safer lakes they should push for stricter boater education IMO. Again this bill does nothing for safety on our lakes IMO.

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

A recent independent poll by the American Research Group shows that 84% of New Hampshire voters think a speed limit will make the lakes safer!


Do you believe that a 45 miles per hour daytime and 25 miles per hour
nighttime speed limit for boats will make New Hampshire lakes safer, or
not?

84% - Yes, believe will make lakes safer
9% - No, do not believe will make lakes safer
7% - Undecided

NOT ALL VOTERS were polled first of all. Educate yourself on how polls are done and how things are worded.

[Arby]

I have been boating on Lake Winnipesaukee since 1976, and in those years have seen many foolish and dangerous acts committed by boaters. In my opinion, the question regarding the speed limit SHOULD BE: "What do you think the best method would be to increase safety of boaters on the lakes?"
I believe the answer to this is required safe boating programs. In my 30 years of boating on the lake, ALL of the dangerous acts that I have witnessed have one thing in common - ignorance of the rules of the "road" and ignorance regarding the operation of a vessel. Lowering the maximun speed on the lake, will not make the boaters any safer. I have yet to witness any dangerous acts which were speed related. (If you are curious - I do NOT have a performance boat.)
In closing, I truly hope this law does not pass because it will adversely affect the boating enjoyment and many of the lakeside businesses around the lake.