What Speed Limit ????????

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Mr Chase,

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

Yes

Not only have I violated the speed limit on roads I have violated the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, day and night.

Most people think going a little over a speed limit is ok. And we all know that the police allow it. It's just human nature.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes

Not only have I violated the speed limit on roads I have violated the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, day and night.

Most people think going a little over a speed limit is ok. And we all know that the police allow it. It's just human nature.

Thank you and Sunset for your honesty.

I agree with your assessment (that magic less than 10 on 93) on the roadway SL. My point was we all break or bend rules (some probably by using this forum right now) but that does not make us criminals or even scofflaws.

I wonder what the enforcement wiggle room will be if MP actually starts trying to measure speed.

The fact is that everyone breaks the SL (except maybe my mother), the worst offenders are often LEO. In VA they have installed traffic cams that automatically send tickets to offenders, quite a few were handed out to the police (and not going to calls).

Anyhow it is too bad that we strayed off topic on many of these threads regarding the SL. There has been a lot of talk about compromises and a few members call this the compromise. What if this law sunsets? Let's assume that for my next statement. I have read some great points from many on both sides, such as

1) Doubling the the distance from shore that requires headway only
2) Creating more NWZs near camps
3) 35 MPH SL in our tighter areas (such as the run from Moultonborough Bay to Green's Basin)
4) Increased SL out on the broads with an increased distance "bubble"
5) Adopting a version of the USCG Rule 6 (as follows)

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

We all want to have a safe lake, I believe adopting and enforcing some of the above would accomplish that better than the law that is set to sunset next year.

Originally Posted by Ryan

the MP was also asked to provide a survey of speeding on the lake.

Did you just make that up? They certainly were not "asked to provide a survey". In fact, if you look back at the history, you'll see that they took it upon themselves to conduct a contrived and unscientific "survey" that most impartial observers said did more to slow boats down before clocking them than it did to see covertly what was really going on out there. And the Legislature saw through this attempt to circumvent and sidetrack the pending legislation and got upset, actually publicly scolding the MP over it...so the "survey" was debunked and discontinued. The MP did a wonderful job last summer by accident. It must have killed them to see things slow down so much that they could only find one speeder all summer. But the truth eventually surfaces, no matter how hard some try to obscure it. If boaters are not speeding, you just can't give out tickets.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Why do you feel entitled to take away their enjoyment?

Because "their enjoyment" prevents "mutual enjoyment". It's not all about making sure that the high-speed crowd enjoys the lake, its about making it mutually enjoyable for a variety of co-existable uses. Its either a choice of the need-for-speed over everything else or a choice of everything else over the need-for-speed. Which do you think a legislator is going to choose?

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Racing and the need for speed was a tradition on this lake.

Sanctioned racing under the supervision of the MP over a closed-off portion of the lake, as has always been the tradition until the advent of the GFBL, boat can still be a tradition. Nobody is going to object to a return of the weekend of offshore boating races...provided it is appropriately planned, noticed, and supervised. As to the "need for speed" this sounds like something worthy of therapy.

Originally Posted by chipj29

According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8368
According to this poll http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8420, ... it is obvious that a lot more are against it than you may think.

Please tell me exactly how many of these were citizens of NH, how many times each voted under different names and from different computers, how they were RANDOMLY SELECTED, and how you can be sure of all this. Otherwise, these are not "polls" just because you call them "polls". They are recruitment sheets.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I know that elchase posted his response to another thread...why? Probably because he wants this one, like the actual Coast Guard and Marine Patrol information to disappear.

I loved the CG thread until it morphed into just one more Anti-SL clone. It gave me a chance to enlighten readers to how CG categorizes fatalities according to the speed that the boat of the victim was in...so that if a 85MPH cigarette boat runs over a stationary canoe, it is a 0MPH fatality, not an "excessive speed" fatality.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

What matters is the findings of the economic impact of boating in NH.

Exactly. Boating is a huge source of income for the state and we can't risk that income just to satisfy the "need for speed" of a tiny few.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Did you just make that up? They certainly were not "asked to provide a survey". In fact, if you look back at the history, you'll see that they took it upon themselves to conduct a contrived and unscientific "survey" that most impartial observers said did more to slow boats down before clocking them than it did to see covertly what was really going on out there. And the Legislature saw through this attempt to circumvent and sidetrack the pending legislation and got upset, actually publicly scolding the MP over it...so the "survey" was debunked and discontinued.

The results do not support your cause, so your spin is expected.

Looking back in history, the NH Division of Safety Services used MP resources to conduct the survey. Unscientific, hardly. There is so much relevant, factual data in the report all you can do is attack the MP and spin the data. The DSS published their findings in a report, so to say the survey was discontinued is false. Public scolding....laughable.

Average daytime speed on the lake 22.72MPH.

Sounds like the Wild West!!!!!

[Seeker]

Count me as one of the 217 who voted against the SL in the poll. And yes I am a NH resident and one of my boats was on Winnie. Not all of us have to continually post (if we did El would wear out his keyboard) and I doubt there are many with 25+ screen names.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The results do not support your cause, so your spin is expected.

Looking back in history, the NH Division of Safety Services used MP resources to conduct the survey. Unscientific, hardly. There is so much relevant, factual data in the report all you can do is attack the MP and spin the data. The DSS published their findings in a report, so to say the survey was discontinued is false. Public scolding....laughable.

Average daytime speed on the lake 22.72MPH.

Sounds like the Wild West!!!!!

Actually the transportation committee was the one that ask for the survey. I was at the fact finding meeting. The supporters says there is 'mayhem' on the lake and NHMP says it is not so. The supporters have no fact to back their claim and neither did the MP. So the committee wants the fact, hence the survey.

Funny thing is, the supporters shut down the survey early, because it was not in their favor. They claim the boaters knew where the survey was taking place. Not so. The MP posted two location, with 4 others that was indisclosed.

Same reason why they want to remove the sunset clause, the facts are not in their favor.

[DEJ]

You are correct about the disclosed locations for the speed info gathering. There were at least 4 undisclosed or covert positions from where MP gathered their info which they presented to the transposition committee per their request. Those are the simple facts, no spin.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Actually the transportation committee was the one that ask for the survey. I was at the fact finding meeting. The supporters says there is 'mayhem' on the lake and NHMP says it is not so. The supporters have no fact to back their claim and neither did the MP. So the committee wants the fact, hence the survey.

Funny thing is, the supporters shut down the survey early, because it was not in their favor. They claim the boaters knew where the survey was taking place. Not so. The MP posted two location, with 4 others that was indisclosed.

Same reason why they want to remove the sunset clause, the facts are not in their favor.

WOW! I never knew that. So in fact it was the transportation committeee itself that asked for the test?

These Senators must be banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out a way to spin the facts that support a Speed Limit. I really would like to see a televised explanation from one of the senators who supports the SL. It would be a riot to actually hear the words, "there have been no tickets, every single person has adhered to the law and we have stopped all those speeding boats from speeding all over the lake." I wonder if the good senator could actually say it with a straight face.

[Bear Islander]

SL supporters never requested or wanted the survey. The survey was proposed at the 11th hour by forces opposed to a speed limit. The purpose of the speed study was to hold the speed limit bill in committee and thereby delay it from going to the full legislature for an additional year.

As a delaying tactic it worked beautifully. However it was all a sham and nobody knowing the facts, including the Marine Patrol, ever took it seriously.

Adding insult to injury, the opposition then claimed WinnFABS requested the study.... pure fiction!

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

SL supporters never requested or wanted the survey.

How true that statement is, they knew what the results would be and the survey clearly showed there was NO speed issue on Winnipesaukee!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by DEJ

How true that statement is, they knew what the results would be and the survey clearly showed there was NO speed issue on Winnipesaukee!

If absolutely no one was going faster than 45/25 then what is the problem...the SL hurts no one? Oh, I forgot, another unnecessary law on the books. Of course we know this isn't the case at all...many on this forum have admitted to significant violations of 45/25.

[DEJ]

Around and around and around we go, when will the spin end?

Laws should be and are for the most part are made to correct a problem. No problem which in this case was cleary shown by professionals did not exist then no law is required. That is the way it is supposed to work unless as I suspect there is a hidden agenda here.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Around and around and around we go, when will the spin end?

Laws should be and are for the most part are made to correct a problem. No problem which in this case was cleary shown by professionals did not exist then no law is required. That is the way it is supposed to work unless as I suspect there is a hidden agenda here.

But I just told you...many on this forum have admitted to speeding. This is why so many SL opponents are against the SL...they want to go fast...so there's the problem.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

If absolutely no one was going faster than 45/25 then what is the problem...the SL hurts no one? Oh, I forgot, another unnecessary law on the books. Of course we know this isn't the case at all...many on this forum have admitted to significant violations of 45/25.

Actually, of the 3852 boats that were surveyed 36 boats were clocked over 45MPH (<1% of the total). These 36 boaters must not have received the memo to keep their speeds under 45MPH to skew the results of the survey.

[BroadHopper]

Again, I have to remind everyone the reason. It is a known fact that WinnFabs is planning on more laws. Specifically horsepower and length limits. When I approach Rep. Pilliod about this he said, 'Speed Limit is a good start, we have to start somewhere'. So he didn't deny it. Many of us have heard the Winnfabs folks talking to NH Lakes Association representative about more restrictive laws. I'm just trying to prevent erosion of our rights to boat on the lake. If it is about safety, then let's pass safety laws, not laws that discriminate class of boaters.

I'm all for the penalty portion of the law. And to put in our DMV records. Let's replace the 45/25 with the reasonable and prudent clause and give it some teeth like the USCG rules. This will effect all class of boaters, not just the 2%. We need to reel in the boneheads and 'cowboys'. Any speed can be unreasonable and unprudent if the condition warrants. Setting 45/25 as an arbitray limit will send the wrong signal that this is the safe speed on this lake. Even when the conditions do not warrant. Just like the 150' limit. There should also be a reasonable and prudent clause. There can be conditions when 150' can be dangerous.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Again, I have to remind everyone the reason. It is a known fact that WinnFabs is planning on more laws. Specifically horsepower and length limits. When I approach Rep. Pilliod about this he said, 'Speed Limit is a good start, we have to start somewhere'. So he didn't deny it. Many of us have heard the Winnfabs folks talking to NH Lakes Association representative about more restrictive laws. I'm just trying to prevent erosion of our rights to boat on the lake. If it is about safety, then let's pass safety laws, not laws that discriminate class of boaters.

I'm all for the penalty portion of the law. And to put in our DMV records. Let's replace the 45/25 with the reasonable and prudent clause and give it some teeth like the USCG rules. This will effect all class of boaters, not just the 2%. We need to reel in the boneheads and 'cowboys'. Any speed can be unreasonable and unprudent if the condition warrants. Setting 45/25 as an arbitray limit will send the wrong signal that this is the safe speed on this lake. Even when the conditions do not warrant. Just like the 150' limit. There should also be a reasonable and prudent clause. There can be conditions when 150' can be dangerous.

And therein lies the rub. What I have been saying all along. This is the beginning of a very slippery slope. I know that some of you supporters think we are being paranoid but I'm telling you we are not. There are people out there looking to try and shape this lake into "On Golden Pond." Horsepower limits, length limits, two stroke bans, etc. etc. are just around the corner.

Sunset if we do as you suggest, just turn a blind eye and accept this, we are losing the beginning battle in a long war. So perhaps you don't care if HP limits, length limits and two stroke bans etc. are enacted. I don't know your stance. I for one think that this is the beginning of a bad, bad time for Lake Winnipesaukee.

This is not a "sky is falling" mentality. It's reality. I know there are many on your side telling you that it's just not true but it is. I can tell you that BI will at least be honest and tell you that the HP limit is a not too distant reality. Bye bye cruisers. Some will applaud, the same individuals who are applauding the speed limit. It is biased targeting. I think it is a shame. This is not Squam lake. This lake has its own identity. If you want Squam move to squam. Many chose this lake due to its personality. Many are trying to shape it into something it is not nor will ever be.

[ApS]

"...It is biased targeting...This is not Squam lake. This lake has its own identity. If you want Squam move to Squam. Many chose this lake due to its personality. Many are trying to shape it into something it is not nor will ever be..."

Even after 53 seasons on Lake Winnipesaukee, I am criticized with the words, "This isn't your lake".

I never, ever, thought of Lake Winnipesaukee as "my lake" until aggressive boaters tried to take it away!




My first post to make it to this page?

[LIforrelaxin]

So as I read the threads and the always constant back and forth between sides. I always come back to something. The same thing really. The one thing that both sides want. What is that you may ask. That is SAFTY.

Now why does OCD keep saying that he would like to see both sides at a meeting. Because he understands the overwhelming concern here SAFTY.

Look all kinds of laws can be passed speed limits, size restrictions, cahnging the 150' rule to the 1000' rule.... but in the end it comes down to education. Education about safe boating practices. Laws really aren't the solution here folks finding a way to educate new boaters that is the key. Making legislator pass laws that make sense like a safe and prudent speed law..... these are the things we need.

Now some people have comment that the lake felt safer this year. Well here is some food for thought. 1) we have a boating certificate law, so no one comes up and rents a boat on a whim any more. And buddy doesn't come up and take his uncles boat out for a quick spin either. 2) The economy is bad and gas pricies are high, so while us die hards didn't let it get in our way there are plenty of people that didn't use there boats all that much the past couple of years. 3) Instead of running around in thier boats all day people spent much more time at anchor or docked.

Anyway you look at it you can't say the speed limit in and of itself help change the lake. Their are to many other factors.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Again, I have to remind everyone the reason. It is a known fact that WinnFabs is planning on more laws. Specifically horsepower and length limits. When I approach Rep. Pilliod about this he said, 'Speed Limit is a good start, we have to start somewhere'. So he didn't deny it. Many of us have heard the Winnfabs folks talking to NH Lakes Association representative about more restrictive laws. I'm just trying to prevent erosion of our rights to boat on the lake. If it is about safety, then let's pass safety laws, not laws that discriminate class of boaters.

I'm all for the penalty portion of the law. And to put in our DMV records. Let's replace the 45/25 with the reasonable and prudent clause and give it some teeth like the USCG rules. This will effect all class of boaters, not just the 2%. We need to reel in the boneheads and 'cowboys'. Any speed can be unreasonable and unprudent if the condition warrants. Setting 45/25 as an arbitray limit will send the wrong signal that this is the safe speed on this lake. Even when the conditions do not warrant. Just like the 150' limit. There should also be a reasonable and prudent clause. There can be conditions when 150' can be dangerous.

It's going to be a funny few years. The economy sucked, and the weather was bad this year. Both Sunset (cute SN) , and El, said the lake was shear delight this summer. They gave the SL credit. I don't know why, El has repeatedly scoffed at most of the laws on the lake, including the 150' rule.

Now picture this. They both start to get together with the WinnFabs crew, and stir up some debate regarding horsepower and boat size. Ahead of this, they've told everyone that the lake is a beautiful, safe place for everyone now. So what changed? Nothing. Nothing at all. They will wait until the economy and the weather conspire to bring back the boaters. Then, all of a sudden, the SL law is not enough, we need more.

There are only a couple of occupations I know where hypocrisy pays well. Politics, and Lawyers. These threads will serve as a great record, they already have.

[RTTOOL]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Again, I have to remind everyone the reason. It is a known fact that WinnFabs is planning on more laws. Specifically horsepower and length limits. When I approach Rep. Pilliod about this he said, 'Speed Limit is a good start, we have to start somewhere'. So he didn't deny it. Many of us have heard the Winnfabs folks talking to NH Lakes Association representative about more restrictive laws. I'm just trying to prevent erosion of our rights to boat on the lake. If it is about safety, then let's pass safety laws, not laws that discriminate class of boaters.

I'm all for the penalty portion of the law. And to put in our DMV records. Let's replace the 45/25 with the reasonable and prudent clause and give it some teeth like the USCG rules. This will effect all class of boaters, not just the 2%. We need to reel in the boneheads and 'cowboys'. Any speed can be unreasonable and unprudent if the condition warrants. Setting 45/25 as an arbitray limit will send the wrong signal that this is the safe speed on this lake. Even when the conditions do not warrant. Just like the 150' limit. There should also be a reasonable and prudent clause. There can be conditions when 150' can be dangerous.

there is a neighbor of mine that is on winnfab .he said to me when they get speed limit threw they are going after boat that displaces five thousand gallons water. so what dose this mean 32ft boat and larger???????

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

there is a neighbor of mine that is on winnfab .he said to me when they get speed limit threw they are going after boat that displaces five thousand gallons water. so what dose this mean 32ft boat and larger???????

Speed limits are just the beginning of a much larger agenda. Safety has been a rouse as the beginning reason to the movement against not only GFB but cruisers as well.

next measure will be to limit the overall size of the boat.

Give them an inch they take a mile!

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Speed limits are just the beginning of a much larger agenda. Safety has been a rouse as the beginning reason to the movement against not only GFB but cruisers as well. next measure will be to limit the overall size of the boat. Give them an inch they take a mile!

Nice olive branch. And you wonder why none of the supporters are accepting the "invitation"? Give me a break. You can't pretend to be our buddy one post and then insult us two posts later and expect any of us to take the bait.
Have fun at the Winnilaker's convention.

Supporters, don't fall for this rouse (sic). Don't be our "Olympia Snowe". This is just the trick that enabled Pelosi to call the Health Care vote "bipartisan".
The purpose of this meeting is obvious and the desire to have at least one of us attend is even more obvious. Let them meet amongst themselves and come up with their own "scofflaw's compromise solution" and come to Concord saying "Our need-for-speed group has a compromise that solves everyone's issues...eliminate the speed limit and return to the mayhem that saw boaters killing each other year after year". Then see how it flies.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

Nice olive branch. And you wonder why none of the supporters are accepting the "invitation"? Give me a break. You can't pretend to be our buddy one post and then insult us two posts later and expect any of us to take the bait.
Have fun at the Winnilaker's convention.

Supporters, don't fall for this rouse (sic). Don't be our "Olympia Snowe". This is just the trick that enabled Pelosi to call the Health Care vote "bipartisan".
The purpose of this meeting is obvious and the desire to have at least one of us attend is even more obvious. Let them meet amongst themselves and come up with their own "scofflaw's compromise solution" and come to Concord saying "Our need-for-speed group has a compromise that solves everyone's issues...eliminate the speed limit and return to the mayhem that saw boaters killing each other year after year". Then see how it flies.

I think plenty of Supporters know by now what you're all about El, and whatever screen name you had before. You depend on the Us versus Them to survive. The minute a suggestion for a cordial gathering was posted, I knew exactly what tact you'd take. I have given you credit for being intelligent and articulate. But you view this topic as a lifelong occupation (is it?). No room for middle ground, no handshakes, no listening, no common courtesy.

I've found on many forums, particularly those that deal with politics, particularly aggressive posters use Doppels to carry on conversations with themselves, when others have pretty much stopped. For those that actually read the links I posted as a follow up on one of your crash links, they know. Three people tried to do damage control on that one. I must admit, APS let me down by his contribution.

You'll be delighted to know Ed, that I'm monitored much more harshly than yourself. Five posts a day are only possible sometimes. I've had content edited, deleted, or forever lost in the abis. I keep copies, so I do get to read them to figure out if they went over any lines. Absolutely none are as confrontational as yours, and I don't post lies. So perhaps you should thank Don for the privileges he gives you.

But alas, this won't be posted?

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

there is a neighbor of mine that is on winnfab .he said to me when they get speed limit threw they are going after boat that displaces five thousand gallons water. so what dose this mean 32ft boat and larger???????

5000 gallons of water weighs 40,000 pounds..@ 8 pounds/gallon. That's a pretty big boat. Probably not many boats on the lake that weigh/displace that much. A 32 foot "Leadmine" keel sailboat might weigh/displace 15,000 pounds. The 32 foot sailboat I had years ago weighed/displaced 10,800 pounds. 50% of that was the lead keel. NB

EDIT: The rule goes like this. "A floating object will displace an amount of water equal to its own weight."

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Kracken

Does anybody know how many registered boats there are in New Hampshire?

In 2008 there were 96,205 registered boats in NH

Originally posted by Elchase
Quote:

The posting limit on me forces me to multi-quote. Sorry. This is really all just one big thread anyway. All the topics might start out about someone's prop, or the CG statistics, or FISHING, then turn right into the same old SL-bashing tripe...and all the players are the same...so what difference does it make where the answer pops up? As a SL opposer, you probably are allowed infinite unmoderated posting privileges, so if you'd like to quote my reply in the other thread, be my guest.

Whose fault is that? This thread is about the speed limit, the question you answered deals with the economic impact of boating in NH. Stick to the topics and stop being so insulting and maybe you'll get your posting priviledges back. So go other to that thread and tell us how chasing a class of boaters off the lake is going to help the economy.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

there is a neighbor of mine that is on winnfab .he said to me when they get speed limit threw they are going after boat that displaces five thousand gallons water. so what dose this mean 32ft boat and larger???????

Originally Posted by hazelnut

And therein lies the rub. What I have been saying all along. This is the beginning of a very slippery slope. I know that some of you supporters think we are being paranoid but I'm telling you we are not. There are people out there looking to try and shape this lake into "On Golden Pond." Horsepower limits, length limits, two stroke bans, etc. etc. are just around the corner.

Sunset if we do as you suggest, just turn a blind eye and accept this, we are losing the beginning battle in a long war. So perhaps you don't care if HP limits, length limits and two stroke bans etc. are enacted. I don't know your stance. I for one think that this is the beginning of a bad, bad time for Lake Winnipesaukee.

This is not a "sky is falling" mentality. It's reality. I know there are many on your side telling you that it's just not true but it is. I can tell you that BI will at least be honest and tell you that the HP limit is a not too distant reality. Bye bye cruisers. Some will applaud, the same individuals who are applauding the speed limit. It is biased targeting. I think it is a shame. This is not Squam lake. This lake has its own identity. If you want Squam move to squam. Many chose this lake due to its personality. Many are trying to shape it into something it is not nor will ever be.

I seriously and sincerely want some of you to remember the above 2 quotes the next time the SL supporters are accused of "fear mongering". Some opposers warned the lake's region economy would similarly crash and burn. (BTW Hazelnut, I do in fact feel a little ashamed of using you in a multiquote after you taught me how to do it...)

Originally Posted by VtSteve

This summer was a washout as far as weather goes,

When SL supporters tell how civilized the lake seemed last summer, this is one argument we hear from the opposers. Actually half the summer was a washout. August and early September were beautiful.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I will simplify it and remove any definition based wiggle room. I will respectfully again ask any SL supporter if they knowingly break the roadway SL?

Yes or No? It's real easy to answer.

I know of a guy from Long Lake Maine who had a list of automobile moving violations a mile long. He seemed to feel laws in general didn't apply to him. We all know the rest of the story. I hope no one buys his boat, NO PATIENCE, and brings it to Winnipesaukee.

[Airwaves]

In his posting urging SL supporters to boycott an invitation to a meeting with opponents, elchase wrote:

Supporters, don't fall for this rouse (sic). Don't be our "Olympia Snowe". This is just the trick that enabled Pelosi to call the Health Care vote "bipartisan".

It was Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao, Republican of Louisiana that voted for health care in the HOUSE, where Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the HOUSE.

Olympia Snowe is a US Senator and does not vote in the HOUSE!
Snowe voted in favor of the measure out of the Senate Finance Committee but says the vote does not mean she will support it when it goes to the Senate for a full vote.

Like other topics you have posted about on this board re: the speed limit, not quite accurate or relevant!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I seriously and sincerely want some of you to remember the above 2 quotes the next time the SL supporters are accused of "fear mongering". Some opposers warned the lake's region economy would similarly crash and burn. (BTW Hazelnut, I do in fact feel a little ashamed of using you in a multiquote after you taught me how to do it...)
When SL supporters tell how civilized the lake seemed last summer, this is one argument we hear from the opposers. Actually half the summer was a washout. August and early September were beautiful. I know of a guy from Long Lake Maine who had a list of automobile moving violations a mile long. He seemed to feel laws in general didn't apply to him. We all know the rest of the story. I hope no one buys his boat, NO PATIENCE, and brings it to Winnipesaukee.

No worries sunset.


I just want to make one thing very very clear to you. I assumed you had some affiliation to winnfabs. It is clear to me now that you don't. You don't have to take my word for it, by your response I can see you haven't. Talk to one of their members. They are in fact, not on the record mind you, looking to target large cruisers and large horsepower vessels next. Search the forums. Bear Islander, an extremely knowledgeable person on the subject by the way, has confirmed this in prior posts. This is not fear mongering, I swear to you it is not. I understand why you would call it that as I now know you probably did not know the agendas of their membership. Can you see now why some of us with nothing to gain or lose in this battle do not want to concede this one?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

No worries sunset.


I just want to make one thing very very clear to you. I assumed you had some affiliation to winnfabs. It is clear to me now that you don't. You don't have to take my word for it, by your response I can see you haven't. Talk to one of their members. They are in fact, not on the record mind you, looking to target large cruisers and large horsepower vessels next. Search the forums. Bear Islander, an extremely knowledgeable person on the subject by the way, has confirmed this in prior posts. This is not fear mongering, I swear to you it is not. I understand why you would call it that as I now know you probably did not know the agendas of their membership. Can you see now why some of us with nothing to gain or lose in this battle do not want to concede this one?

I havn't thought about it long enough to know what I believe, the part about winnfabs wanting to get rid of big cruisers that is, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the level of public outrage against the cruisers would be feasable to get such a measure passed. You probably know my big issue with the GFBL's has been noise, more so possibly than speed. I think this is one area where the public has indeed been outraged, IMHO. Typically when a big cruiser cruises past where I live, people come out on the dock and say things like "I wonder how many bedrooms it has?" or "I bet it's got a nicer kitchen than the one in our home." Then the kids all jump in the water and ride the big waves with their long wavelength. Any thoughts about erosion are fleeting or non existant. Compare this to when a noisy GFBL goes by...this would be the gist of the conversation: "Those @#$%& noisy boats ruin any semblance of tranquility left on the lake. ", "What did you say, I can't hear a @#$%&* word you're saying?"
I probably will not attend the January meeting with you guys for a number of reasons (see future post...dinner guests are due here soon and my wife wants me to get off the computer and help). I received a very magnanimous and classy PM /invitation from one the SL opponents( I'm being serious, not my sometimes sarcastic self) regarding that meeting and other things. One reason why I would not attend is that I feel passionate enough about the topic before a couple of beers that I would probably not do the cause any good by discussing it after refreshments. I would more likely get together some time in the future for a couple of beers when the SL discussion is forbidden...get to know people's other passions and things we might all have in common(and to perhaps prove that SL supporters don't have horns, a spiked tail, and a spiked pitchfork...I'll take my hat off to prove the part about the horns, you'll have to take my word for it on the spiked tail). Gotta go, duty calls.

[Airwaves]

Sunset on the dock wrote:

I havn't thought about it long enough to know what I believe, the part about winnfabs wanting to get rid of big cruisers that is, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the level of public outrage against the cruisers would be feasable to get such a measure passed. You probably know my big issue with the GFBL's has been noise, more so possibly than speed. I think this is one area where the public has indeed been outraged, IMHO. Typically when a big cruiser cruises past where I live, people come out on the dock and say things like "I wonder how many bedrooms it has?" or "I bet it's got a nicer kitchen than the one in our home." Then the kids all jump in the water and ride the big waves with their long wavelength. Any thoughts about erosion are fleeting or non existant. Compare this to when a noisy GFBL goes by...this would be the gist of the conversation: "Those @#$%& noisy boats ruin any semblance of tranquility left on the lake. ", "What did you say, I can't hear a @#$%&* word you're saying?"

One of the arguments I have read from some SL supporters that I never understood was the one in which they link fast boats with big wakes and erosion. A boat on plain makes a smaller wake than one plowing through the water like a cruiser. I have also heard reports that WinnFabs has another bill ready to go that would limit the size of boats on the lake, I don't know exactly what they are targeting but as someone pointed out very well, that is one of the big reasons that those of us who don't have a boat that can violate the speed limit are fighting so hard. Once that can is opened...

As far as High Performance boats being loud I agree and I think working toward allowing what they call a switchable exhaust in NH might go a long way toward solving that problem, but as I understand it the law prohibits a High Performance boat from having an exhaust that can be quited down. Something we can work on.

Even if you can't make the meeting (neither can I) keep in touch and I'll bet we can come to a meeting of the minds.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Sunset on the dock wrote:

One of the arguments I have read from some SL supporters that I never understood was the one in which they link fast boats with big wakes and erosion. A boat on plain makes a smaller wake than one plowing through the water like a cruiser.

Very Good point airwaves.. anyone with any boating experience knows that the faster you go the less of a wake you throw. I don't know what I was traveling at.. Probably around 45 when this was shot. Please notice the size of the MINIMAL wake.

how does speed limits restrict the size of a wake? on thats right.. it doesn't. If anything it would increase erosion.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I havn't thought about it long enough to know what I believe, the part about winnfabs wanting to get rid of big cruisers that is, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the level of public outrage against the cruisers would be feasable to get such a measure passed. You probably know my big issue with the GFBL's has been noise, more so possibly than speed. I think this is one area where the public has indeed been outraged, IMHO. Typically when a big cruiser cruises past where I live, people come out on the dock and say things like "I wonder how many bedrooms it has?" or "I bet it's got a nicer kitchen than the one in our home." Then the kids all jump in the water and ride the big waves with their long wavelength. Any thoughts about erosion are fleeting or non existant. Compare this to when a noisy GFBL goes by...this would be the gist of the conversation: "Those @#$%& noisy boats ruin any semblance of tranquility left on the lake. ", "What did you say, I can't hear a @#$%&* word you're saying?"
I probably will not attend the January meeting with you guys for a number of reasons (see future post...dinner guests are due here soon and my wife wants me to get off the computer and help). I received a very magnanimous and classy PM /invitation from one the SL opponents( I'm being serious, not my sometimes sarcastic self) regarding that meeting and other things. One reason why I would not attend is that I feel passionate enough about the topic before a couple of beers that I would probably not do the cause any good by discussing it after refreshments. I would more likely get together some time in the future for a couple of beers when the SL discussion is forbidden...get to know people's other passions and things we might all have in common(and to perhaps prove that SL supporters don't have horns, a spiked tail, and a spiked pitchfork...I'll take my hat off to prove the part about the horns, you'll have to take my word for it on the spiked tail). Gotta go, duty calls.

Sorry to hear you won't be able to make it. Seriously would be good to finally meet you in person.

So if noise is your greatest dislike of GFB would you help have switchable exhaust be allowed in the lakes region. I would have absolutely no problem making my boat more quiet. I don't need it loud in congested areas and frankly I too would like to hold conversations etc and not wake up my son from his nap (by the way I am within legal standards). But it is a shame that there are items out there that can be installed to make it quieter and we are not allowed to use them. I realize it becomes an issue of "enforcement" but so isn't the speed limits.. why let a few ruin it for everyone else? Those who are going to break the noise standards are going to break them regardless of whether there are laws or not. Why not allow the law abiding boater to install switchable exhaust.. Then the speed limits will not be needed and you get your quieter lake.. your thoughts sunset? (notice I said "sunset" APS LOL..we know where you stand already)

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Sorry to hear you won't be able to make it. Seriously would be good to finally meet you in person.

So if noise is your greatest dislike of GFB would you help have switchable exhaust be allowed in the lakes region. I would have absolutely no problem making my boat more quiet. I don't need it loud in congested areas and frankly I too would like to hold conversations etc and not wake up my son from his nap (by the way I am within legal standards). But it is a shame that there are items out there that can be installed to make it quieter and we are not allowed to use them. I realize it becomes an issue of "enforcement" but so isn't the speed limits.. why let a few ruin it for everyone else? Those who are going to break the noise standards are going to break them regardless of whether there are laws or not. Why not allow the law abiding boater to install switchable exhaust.. Then the speed limits will not be needed and you get your quieter lake.. your thoughts sunset? (notice I said "sunset" APS LOL..we know where you stand already)

I'm all for anything that makes the lake quieter; my concern is that of course were leaving it up to the individual as to when and where it's reasonable and prudent to use said switch. I live in an area where people tear by at high speeds and so far as I can see no boat going at these very fast speeds is able to be all that quiet. We've also heard from GFBL owners that these systems negatively impact performance. I do think the noise is half the problem regarding the lake's cowboy reputation.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I havn't thought about it long enough to know what I believe, the part about winnfabs wanting to get rid of big cruisers that is, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the level of public outrage against the cruisers would be feasable to get such a measure passed. You probably know my big issue with the GFBL's has been noise, more so possibly than speed. I think this is one area where the public has indeed been outraged, IMHO. Typically when a big cruiser cruises past where I live, people come out on the dock and say things like "I wonder how many bedrooms it has?" or "I bet it's got a nicer kitchen than the one in our home." Then the kids all jump in the water and ride the big waves with their long wavelength. Any thoughts about erosion are fleeting or non existant. Compare this to when a noisy GFBL goes by...this would be the gist of the conversation: "Those @#$%& noisy boats ruin any semblance of tranquility left on the lake. ", "What did you say, I can't hear a @#$%&* word you're saying?"
I probably will not attend the January meeting with you guys for a number of reasons (see future post...dinner guests are due here soon and my wife wants me to get off the computer and help). I received a very magnanimous and classy PM /invitation from one the SL opponents( I'm being serious, not my sometimes sarcastic self) regarding that meeting and other things. One reason why I would not attend is that I feel passionate enough about the topic before a couple of beers that I would probably not do the cause any good by discussing it after refreshments. I would more likely get together some time in the future for a couple of beers when the SL discussion is forbidden...get to know people's other passions and things we might all have in common(and to perhaps prove that SL supporters don't have horns, a spiked tail, and a spiked pitchfork...I'll take my hat off to prove the part about the horns, you'll have to take my word for it on the spiked tail). Gotta go, duty calls.

You know I thought the same thing as you, about the whole all of us getting together and having a few beers and the conversation getting all heated. Then I thought differently about it. I really think we are like minded people, most of us, and I wish you'd reconsider. Most of the guys I know on here are family guys with young children, like myself. We are the last people in the world you'd ever have to worry about getting into any altercation with, no matter what the subject matter. I look at this discussion like I would politics and religion. I have been in many heated debates with friends and I can tell you that I am passionate but not to the point that I would make it personal. I think we could have some laughs. I respect your position on not wanting to come but I really wish you would reconsider.

As for your point about Cruisers and the wakes and GFBL noisy boats I was laughing out loud when I read it, and not in the mocking sense at all. I was laughing because it struck me as so funny how differently we see things. It's all good though because it's what makes the world go around. It would be a pretty boring world if we all liked the same things. I was also laughing because the scenario you described is the exact (180 degrees in fact) opposite of what happens at my house, to a point. While I agree with you that I do not like super loud boats I do actually enjoy the ones that have through hull that aren't "straight pipes." Anyway, when the cruisers come by I stand on my dock and throw my arms up in disgust because 10 seconds later my boats are thrashing around at the dock slamming all around and the water splashes up on to the patio and knocks stuff over causing havoc. My (6 year old) twin boys will stand there with me and say "Daddy that boat is ridiclious" (spelling error intentional) they made up their own word.
So you can see why I was laughing. We have such different perspectives on these things. I have absolutely ZERO patience for the big cruisers. Their wakes destroy everything in their paths. I am just waiting for the day a dock post snaps at my house because of the 7 foot swells left behind.


This next part is not directed at you Sunset:

The cruiser issue is one of those things that I just don't get. But going back to an earlier post I made, to each their own. Just because I don't understand why people have these things on a lake and just because these boats sometimes offend me (the whole huge waves wrecking my boats and dock) doesn't mean I am going to go on a crusade against them, as some have done here. I actually tolerate them because I know someone else is getting some enjoyment from it. Even though they cause me problems, I can actually put aside my feelings for someone other than me. It is not easy trust me. Sometimes I want to get in my boat and chase them down and scream bloody murder at them.

As I said about the GFBL boats earlier the Cruisers are part of the personality of the lake. People who visit love to look at them and are in awe of them just like the GFBL's. Some people have forgotten why they came to this lake.

[NoBozo]

I'm ready to come up to the Convention in January. A couple of my associates are interested in going as well. They don't have any interest in boats or speed limits but their enthusiasm can't be denied. What can I say to them? How can I tell them not to come? .......... NB ("The Inocent")

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

You know I thought the same thing as you, about the whole all of us getting together and having a few beers and the conversation getting all heated. Then I thought differently about it. I really think we are like minded people, most of us, and I wish you'd reconsider. Most of the guys I know on here are family guys with young children, like myself. We are the last people in the world you'd ever have to worry about getting into any altercation with, no matter what the subject matter. I look at this discussion like I would politics and religion. I have been in many heated debates with friends and I can tell you that I am passionate but not to the point that I would make it personal. I think we could have some laughs. I respect your position on not wanting to come but I really wish you would reconsider.

As for your point about Cruisers and the wakes and GFBL noisy boats I was laughing out loud when I read it, and not in the mocking sense at all. I was laughing because it struck me as so funny how differently we see things. It's all good though because it's what makes the world go around. It would be a pretty boring world if we all liked the same things. I was also laughing because the scenario you described is the exact (180 degrees in fact) opposite of what happens at my house, to a point. While I agree with you that I do not like super loud boats I do actually enjoy the ones that have through hull that aren't "straight pipes." Anyway, when the cruisers come by I stand on my dock and throw my arms up in disgust because 10 seconds later my boats are thrashing around at the dock slamming all around and the water splashes up on to the patio and knocks stuff over causing havoc. My (6 year old) twin boys will stand there with me and say "Daddy that boat is ridiclious" (spelling error intentional) they made up their own word.
So you can see why I was laughing. We have such different perspectives on these things. I have absolutely ZERO patience for the big cruisers. Their wakes destroy everything in their paths. I am just waiting for the day a dock post snaps at my house because of the 7 foot swells left behind.


This next part is not directed at you Sunset:

The cruiser issue is one of those things that I just don't get. But going back to an earlier post I made, to each their own. Just because I don't understand why people have these things on a lake and just because these boats sometimes offend me (the whole huge waves wrecking my boats and dock) doesn't mean I am going to go on a crusade against them, as some have done here. I actually tolerate them because I know someone else is getting some enjoyment from it. Even though they cause me problems, I can actually put aside my feelings for someone other than me. It is not easy trust me. Sometimes I want to get in my boat and chase them down and scream bloody murder at them.

As I said about the GFBL boats earlier the Cruisers are part of the personality of the lake. People who visit love to look at them and are in awe of them just like the GFBL's. Some people have forgotten why they came to this lake.

Now this could turn into a scary scenario such that next year at this time Hazelnut is the head of a new organization called Cruiserfabs and I'm taunting him saying he's just trying to rid the lake of boats he doesn't like.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

there is a neighbor of mine that is on winnfab .he said to me when they get speed limit threw they are going after boat that displaces five thousand gallons water. so what dose this mean 32ft boat and larger???????

I believe the Winnfab target, once they get the SL wrapped up, will be boats displacing 5,000 pounds of water, not 5,000 gallons of water.

They do not want to come out and say boats weighing 5,000 pounds. They are smoking this new restriction with displacement of water. We all know if it is floating, it has displaced water equal to the weight.

For a reference, most boats of 28 feet in length weigh over 5,000 pounds!

Again folks, Winnfab's is not about safety. They are about exclusion. They use safety as smoke because it sells in Manchester where they have their surveys taken.

R2B

[gtagrip]

I too voted in the poll against the speed limit and I too live in NH.

[DEJ]

I think about 4 or 5 have admitted to going over the limit, is that many? And even BI was honest and admitted he did, does that make him a scofflaw?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by DEJ

I think about 4 or 5 have admitted to going over the limit, is that many? And even BI was honest and admitted he did, does that make him a scofflaw?

Of course it doesn't make BI a scofflaw, he supports the speed limit.

[DoTheMath]

For the meeting, I'm in for the 2nd, I can make that happen... I'm in St. Maarten and St. Barths for the week of Jan 17th - 24th, that is my only exception right now.

Aside of that, let's get a list going - who's gonna show and who's gonna stay "hidden" behind the keyboard!? There will be no limits as to who can come and what they can say - with one simple exception. There will not be any personal attacks allowed during the discussion - period! Yes, that's right - I just appointed myself the "personal attack police" for this meeting! We can debate the topic at hand - the speed limit, pro's - con's - good - bad - etc... We NEED to keep it productive and positive, there is no room for variation and wavering on that, agreed!?!? Know now - and I am sure we all agree - attacks get personal, you WILL be asked to leave, a "zero-tolerance" policy if you will. I'm not driving up there, taking a day away from my family and whatever else I might be doing to listen to bickering and petty BS grade-school-level name calling. I can log in here and get more than enough of that and not have to leave my house. Let's remember, it shouldn't be a "for vs. against the SL" thing, it should be a "how do we reach a compromise, and what is it" thing!

Remember, we are all adults (chronologically anyway) so let's act that way... I am willing to bet that before the whole SL topic became an issue, we would have ALL been able to sit down, have a beer and share stories about the lake - good and bad - and get along. I for one, would love to hear more about BI's stories of trekking around the globe, or heading into space, it's like the Discovery Channel, but in real life HD!

So - list 'em folks - location can still be TBD for now, but the general lakes region should be the locale - Meredith, Laconia, etc...

DoTheMath - I'm in.

hazelnut - you're in, you're always good for a road trip up!

Who else...?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

For the meeting, I'm in for the 2nd, I can make that happen... I'm in St. Maarten and St. Barths for the week of Jan 17th - 24th, that is my only exception right now.

Aside of that, let's get a list going - who's gonna show and who's gonna stay "hidden" behind the keyboard!? There will be no limits as to who can come and what they can say - with one simple exception. There will not be any personal attacks allowed during the discussion - period! Yes, that's right - I just appointed myself the "personal attack police" for this meeting! We can debate the topic at hand - the speed limit, pro's - con's - good - bad - etc... We NEED to keep it productive and positive, there is no room for variation and wavering on that, agreed!?!? Know now - and I am sure we all agree - attacks get personal, you WILL be asked to leave, a "zero-tolerance" policy if you will. I'm not driving up there, taking a day away from my family and whatever else I might be doing to listen to bickering and petty BS grade-school-level name calling. I can log in here and get more than enough of that and not have to leave my house. Let's remember, it shouldn't be a "for vs. against the SL" thing, it should be a "how do we reach a compromise, and what is it" thing!

Remember, we are all adults (chronologically anyway) so let's act that way... I am willing to bet that before the whole SL topic became an issue, we would have ALL been able to sit down, have a beer and share stories about the lake - good and bad - and get along. I for one, would love to hear more about BI's stories of trekking around the globe, or heading into space, it's like the Discovery Channel, but in real life HD!

So - list 'em folks - location can still be TBD for now, but the general lakes region should be the locale - Meredith, Laconia, etc...

DoTheMath - I'm in.

hazelnut - you're in, you're always good for a road trip up!

Who else...?

Thank you DTM.... I am up for any discussion.. But that doesn't have to be the only reason for getting together either.

No matter what side of the coin we are on in this debate one thing that makes us all alike is our love for the lake. If we didn't care we wouldn't be bantering about it and joining a forum just to discuss it and how it is run. I think whether we agree or not we all want what is best for the lakes region.

That being said, I bet we all would have a great time together. Even if we don't agree on speed limits we all obviously enjoy conversing about them because we have been doing it for years. Lets put the names with faces. This way people may not be so quick to engage in personal attacks and such because you actually know who it is you are talking to.

While we all feel passionate about the speed limits we are all more passionate about the lake. So lets get together and see what happens. No personal attacks on people just a good time to get to know each other.

I don't think we are going to come away with the Geneva Convention but at least it is the first step to working together.

I'm in

DTM

Broadhopper

Who else? Can we get Sunset and BI???

[gtagrip]

I will also attend.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

I will also attend.

I am in. Hopefully we will be able to sled to the meet and greet!

[OCDACTIVE]

looks like we already have a good group of people looking to meet and maybe get something accomplished:

OCD
Vita
Gtagrip
Dothemath
Broadhopper.

I hope Don may join us?? Anyone want to reach out to him? or maybe he will see this?

so far 5 opposers? Any supporters want to throw their hat in?

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Thank you DTM.... I am up for any discussion.. But that doesn't have to be the only reason for getting together either.

No matter what side of the coin we are on in this debate one thing that makes us all alike is our love for the lake. If we didn't care we wouldn't be bantering about it and joining a forum just to discuss it and how it is run. I think whether we agree or not we all want what is best for the lakes region.

That being said, I bet we all would have a great time together. Even if we don't agree on speed limits we all obviously enjoy conversing about them because we have been doing it for years. Lets put the names with faces. This way people may not be so quick to engage in personal attacks and such because you actually know who it is you are talking to.

While we all feel passionate about the speed limits we are all more passionate about the lake. So lets get together and see what happens. No personal attacks on people just a good time to get to know each other.

I don't think we are going to come away with the Geneva Convention but at least it is the first step to working together.

I'm in

DTM

Broadhopper

Who else? Can we get Sunset and BI???

OCD - you are correct, I was going for that, just wasn't explicit enough - but I totally agree!

And let's remember this is a public forum - we all KNOW it's being said in a tongue-and-cheek manner, but let's refrain from the jokes about metal detectors, LTC's etc... Again - adults here, let's act like 'em.

So, we have a good number of opposer's ready to meet - let's get some supporters to sign up!? Bueller - anyone - Bueller!? Come one - come all - let's get a good, robust, dynamic group together and have a good "lake conversation" - about the lake and ALL that it encompasses. Aside of hazelnut (cuz we grew up together) I haven't met any of the rest of you. Probably have seen you around the lake, gas docks, restaurants, etc - but just didn't know it. It's been mentioned 100x, the common denominator here is... we all want a SAFE AND ENJOYABLE lake! So, how do we get there...?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

Please tell me exactly how many of these were citizens of NH, how many times each voted under different names and from different computers, how they were RANDOMLY SELECTED, and how you can be sure of all this. Otherwise, these are not "polls" just because you call them "polls". They are recruitment sheets.

Um, you must have misunderstood me. I was stating clearly that there are more than eight of us here on this site that are opposed to speed limits. It is a "poll" because that is what it is called on this forum. Who the people are, and where they are from makes no difference to me, since I am referring only to this site. I didn't realize that polls on an internet forum had to be from randomly selected individuals.

The facts are the facts. The fact that I am stating is that there are more than eight people who post on this site that are opposed to speed limits.