What Speed Limit ????????

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I only have the 'Formula' hauler. So everyone will have to put up with one 'red neck sled'.

Same here. F250 with LOUD exhaust tips.. Sorry APS and Sunset. Back window has Performane boating stickers covering the whole thing. Definately a red neck sled.

PS. Laughed at that expression!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Same here. F250 with LOUD exhaust tips.. Sorry APS and Sunset. Back window has Performane boating stickers covering the whole thing. Definately a red neck sled.

PS. Laughed at that expression!

Yeah, it wasn't to hard to figure out which vehicle was yours when we meet last summer!!!!!!!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Yeah, it wasn't to hard to figure out which vehicle was yours when we meet last summer!!!!!!!

was it the truck or the pitbull in the back seat? lol

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

was it the truck or the pitbull in the back seat? lol

Can I bring my Rotweiler? 'Ms Bette Midler'

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I saw a deer get hit tonight on the interstate. There should be a speed limit on these roads.

Better yet, we should have a "safe passage" law on the roads too...since that works so well on the lake. Then the driver would have slowed to 6MPH when he got within 150FT of the deer and probably would have then been able to avoid it. As stupid as this sounds, this the the very logic that your group uses to claim the 150' rule is the cure to all of our troubles. Boaters going 70MPH leave themselves too few microseconds to react to the unforeseen within that 150' "safety zone". It's a good distance at 45 MPH. It's way to small at 70-100MPH.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Safety lanyards are a great thing to have on, and they usually prevent the boat from turning in a circle and hitting ejected occupants.

I can't say my biggest concern is the ejected occupants. I worry more about the innocent bystanders in the debris path ("debris" including the carcasses of the ejected of course). They did not choose to be involved with this as the ejected passengers did.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Four people died early in the season on Lake Winnipesaukee when they drowned after being thrown from small boats into cold water. The tremendous increase in deaths on Lake Winnipesaukee has caused many to wonder if small boats should be allowed on such a large, cold lake.

As SL supporters admit so so often, of course a Speed Limit is not going to prevent all boating deaths, all accidents, or all boneheads from taking the helm...but it is one obvious step in the right direction, and a sensible part of a package of safety laws that make the lake safer for the rest of us.
These idiots were in too-small boats that were swamped by waves...not in a boat that rolled because it was going way too fast while trying to turn or when it hit a wave. They obviously put themselves in great danger by taking to the lake in such tiny boats. But did they put any of the other more cautious boaters on the lake that day involuntarily into harm's way because of their stupidity? Did they put nearby boaters in danger that they would be killed by their speeding boat or flying debris? People who kill themselves by their stupid decisions might deserve what they get. But those of us who chose a slower more careful lifestyle don't deserve to be put at risk because of some cowboy's "need for speed".

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by elchase

These idiots were in too-small boats that were swamped by waves...not in a boat that rolled because it was going way too fast while trying to turn or when it hit a wave. They obviously put themselves in great danger by taking to the lake in such tiny boats. But did they put any of the other more cautious boaters on the lake that day involuntarily into harm's way because of their stupidity?

Yes they did!

They endangered the lives and safety of the people that attempted to rescue them. Those people, Marine Patrol or good samaratans, could have also lost their lives trying to save these people. But because they were not going fast their lives, and the lives and well being of the rescue crews, are not as important to you it seems!

NH remains the safest state in New England in which to boat and among the safest in the United States!

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Originally posted by elchase

Yes they did!

They endangered the lives and safety of the people that attempted to rescue them. Those people, Marine Patrol or good samaratans, could have also lost their lives trying to save these people. But because they were not going fast their lives, and the lives and well being of the rescue crews, are not as important to you it seems!

NH remains the safest state in New England in which to boat and among the safest in the United States!

Airwaves, you stole my thunder! I was going to say exactly the same.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Boaters going 70MPH leave themselves too few microseconds to react to the unforeseen within that 150' "safety zone". It's a good distance at 45 MPH. It's way to small at 70-100MPH.

Herein lies the flaw in your logic:

*Boats at 70MPH are travelling at 103ft/second and will approach a stationary object 150 feet away in 1.5 seconds.
*Boats at 45MPH are travelling at 66ft/second and will approach a stationary object 150 feet away in 2.3 seconds.

We're talking about 0.8 seconds???? I fail to see where this 'safety zone' arguement makes sense? Why can't we agree to focus on safety?

Navigation Rule 6 states that a “safe speed” accounts for visibility, traffic, the boat’s stopping distance and turning ability, weather conditions, water depth and navigational hazards, among other factors.

[Airwaves]

Originally Posted by elchase

People who kill themselves by their stupid decisions might deserve what they get. But those of us who chose a slower more careful lifestyle don't deserve to be put at risk because of some cowboy's "need for speed".

So now it seems that only what you call "high speed boats" are the cause of fatalities and accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and completely discount and ignore the truth of the matter which is that the deaths were in a SLOW boat NOT INVOLVING A COLLISION. As is the case in MOST of the accidents in NH!

How is it that when opponents to this unnecessary "Feel good" law look over your posts and out-of-state and out-of-country links, and point out that in those cases the overriding cause was a drunk boater you say pooh pooh, they were going too fast period, but now when there were boating fatalities on Lake Winnipesaukee NOT INVOLVING SPEED AT ALL! They are dismissed by you as people who are stupid and kill themselves while putting the lives of their would be rescuers in danger is no problem, heh?

As opponents have been pointing out time and time again. Safety is not the issue, the issue is getting a type of boat that a vocal minority objects to, off the lake under the false pretense of safety!

[OCDACTIVE]

airwaves.. You know you can't win.. Just propaganda that has no basis or facts for their arguement.

For example it has been stated that people feel that the lake is safer and that there is less traffic on the lake this year. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct that this is due to the weather and the economy. In every local paper it has stated the entire lakes region tourism has taken a hit. Obviously this will have an effect on boat traffic.. Not due to enacting one feel good law.


looking forward to Jan 2nd!

[Airwaves]

To tell you the truth when I respond to elchase or APS or others it's not an attempt on my part to convert their way of thinking. That is not going to happen.

I just don't want their outragous claims and outright lies to go unanswered because as everyone who posts to this forum knows, legislators do read it.

I also don't like the Supporters/Opponents thread for that same reason. Lies and fabrications can go unchallenged since no one is allowed to cross over and post to clarify or challenge statements.

Case in point APS' latest picture posting on the Supporters thread. That was dug up from debates in the past and it was pointed out by many that the photos were misleading at best since they have no frame of referance and his posting about a tent camp was designed only to fear monger, no tents or camps in any of the photos I might add. I did challenge him about this on that thread but it was deleted because I am an opponent to this unnecessary feel good law.

Same thing with Elchase. He links to out-of-state and out-of-country accidents and implies they are all speed releated, ignoring critical facts one of the biggest being that on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE there are different laws that are protecting us such as MANDATORY BOATER EDUCATION and SAFE PASSAGE.

In addition he discounts the fatalities on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2009 as idiots because they did not involve speed so the lives lost don't count!!!

Lawmakers in Concord need to know the facts, not the exagerations and lies being presented by Elchase and APS!

So no, I am not looking to win an argument with either, but I am hoping to show a legislator or two that if they want to look into their statements they will find that they are being made chumps of!!!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...He links to out-of-state and out-of-country accidents and implies they are all speed releated, ignoring critical facts one of the biggest being that on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE there are different laws that are protecting us such as MANDATORY BOATER EDUCATION and SAFE PASSAGE...

Ya know I just HAD to repost this statement. If ever there were a more succinct statement to prove just how ludicrous the flood of posts has been by one certain member of this forum here it is. He has absolutely no regard for facts whatsoever. The posts are a perfect example for proving our point of fear mongering by the supporters. Any time anyone on here presents facts we get these random posts about accidents in Guam, China, Hoboken and god knows where. It is actually comical and I have been laughing but at the same time worried that legislators might actually use this stuff as ammo to support the law. I would like to think they were more intelligent than that but... I don't know. The numbers overwhelmingly support the case for no SL but why should that matter to anyone?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Ya know I just HAD to repost this statement. If ever there were a more succinct statement to prove just how ludicrous the flood of posts has been by one certain member of this forum here it is. He has absolutely no regard for facts whatsoever. The posts are a perfect example for proving our point of fear mongering by the supporters. Any time anyone on here presents facts we get these random posts about accidents in Guam, China, Hoboken and god knows where. It is actually comical and I have been laughing but at the same time worried that legislators might actually use this stuff as ammo to support the law. I would like to think they were more intelligent than that but... I don't know. The numbers overwhelmingly support the case for no SL but why should that matter to anyone?

Very true Hazel. And let me be so bold and take it one further. These same individual(s) have not hid the fact that their ultimate goal is to ban a specific type of boat and are using the Legislatures ignorance of the lake to pass these feel good laws. They try to use past accidents where Speed had nothing to do with the cause of the accidents. They manipulate the situation to try to link the accidents to speed because of who the person was driving or the type of boat it was, when in each situation SPEED WAS NOT A FACTOR.
Ok I'm off my soapbox. These arguements have been made before but I hope this time the legislators are listening!
Enforcement and Education is the answer

[Rattlesnake Guy]

microsecond(mkr-sknd)
A unit of time equal to one millionth (10^-6) of a second.

1,500,000 microseconds sounds like a long time...

Only 18,100,000,000,000 microseconds until iceout.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

Better yet, we should have a "safe passage" law on the roads too...since that works so well on the lake. Then the driver would have slowed to 6MPH when he got within 150FT of the deer and probably would have then been able to avoid it. As stupid as this sounds, this the the very logic that your group uses to claim the 150' rule is the cure to all of our troubles. Boaters going 70MPH leave themselves too few microseconds to react to the unforeseen within that 150' "safety zone". It's a good distance at 45 MPH. It's way to small at 70-100MPH.

I wince every time I read one of your posts ridiculing the boating laws in the state. Since you also make fun of the Marine Patrol (bolded part), I'll leave it up to the reader where you're coming from on that.

I don't think any boat should be heading towards a stationary object within 150' at 70 mph or 45 mph. At either speed, I view it as a mistake, and hopefully was not intentional. I agree with you that at 70 to 100 mph that's way too close a margin, but I do not agree that at 45 mph it is a Safe distance when closing.

Originally Posted by elchase

I can't say my biggest concern is the ejected occupants. I worry more about the innocent bystanders in the debris path ("debris" including the carcasses of the ejected of course). They did not choose to be involved with this as the ejected passengers did....

It's pretty apparent you're quite selective in whom you care for. You've labeled the dead fishermen "Idiots", probably because they account for fully 100% of the deaths on Winni in 2009. But regardless of your opinion, they were human beings and boaters, and probably had families that thought a lot of them. Everyone makes a mistake or two.

Again, I was speaking to safety, and specifically, Kill Switch Lanyards. I think they are a valuable safety tool on any power boat, regardless of speed. I think most boaters can judge for themselves whether they regard the instant stopping of a boat where the operator is no longer able to man the controls is a good thing or not.

I really think you need to get your own personal priorities in order El before you start denigrating the boating rules, the Marine Patrol, and worst of all, the deceased.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Yes they did! They endangered the lives and safety of the people that attempted to rescue them.

An MP boat and a police boat went out and fished their bodies aboard and drove them to shore. These boats were plenty large enough for the conditions on the lake that day, and the officers did not even need to get wet. If we did not have the SL in effect that day, I'd agree that going out to retrieve these bodies endangered the officers' lives, but only due to the dangers of getting run down and cut in half by a speeding cigarette boat. Since the SL was in effect that day, that risk was eliminated and these guys faced little more risk on the lake than had they stayed ashore. I appreciate and respect what our law enforcers and safety professionals do...more than most. My brother is a cop. But retrieving drown bodies from the lake is part of their job. It is part of the job they chose. That is a whole different thing than taking your kids out in your boat for a day of recreation, thinking you have taken every precaution, proceeding slowly, and getting run over and killed out of the blue by some clown with the "need for speed".

Originally Posted by Ryan

Herein lies the flaw in your logic:*Boats at 70MPH are travelling at 103ft/second and will approach a stationary object 150 feet away in 1.5 seconds. *Boats at 45MPH are travelling at 66ft/second and will approach a stationary object 150 feet away in 2.3 seconds.
We're talking about 0.8 seconds????

Actually, a boat going 70 MPH passes 150 ft in 1.45 seconds. And the difference from the 45 MPH boat is 0.85 seconds. And therein lies the flaw in your logic. You see, the accepted average “perception and reaction time” is around 1.5 seconds for a sober driver in daylight conditions. (see any of the thousands of reliable sources around the internet, such as http://www.firerescue1.com/Columnist...tances-Part-1/) This is the time it takes you or me to see a kid's head pop up 150 feet directly in front of the boat, recognize the need to change course, send a signal from our brain to our hands to brake or steer (oh ya, we don't have brakes)...to steer, and to start effecting that signal. At 70MPH, we are just starting to turn our wheel 0.05 seconds AFTER we hear the thump of the poor kid's head as it is shattered into thousands of pieces of skull and brain. At 45 MPH, we have 0.8 SECONDS to spare. So yes, the 0.8 seconds that you dismiss as being so trivial is actually the very difference between the kid's life and death.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I don't think any boat should be heading towards a stationary object within 150' at 70 mph or 45 mph.

I don't think anyone except the most retarded cowboy would do so intentionally. But it is not the intentional case that usually results in all these deaths. It is usually when the unforeseen happens...the accident. One of those kayaks that you guys say are so impossible to see suddenly is visible in front of you. Or that poor kid is swimming out farther than he should be and pops up from underwater. 150 feet is not a sufficient safety zone for these high speeds.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It's pretty apparent you're quite selective in whom you care for.

And for good reason I think. I believe in a guys right to kill himself if he so chooses. But people who don't want to take these chances should not be "taken along for the ride". As I read in one letter last year, peopel who think roller coasters are too dangerous can choose not to hop aboard. But people who think high speed boating is too dangerous cannot prevent getting themselves run over by some idiot cowboy who is going too fast and loses control. And as all these accidents that you guys poo-poo for being on other lakes and such, boats going too fast and losing control happens ALL THE TIME.
Here's a perfect example. These two guys only killed themselves when they flipped at excessive speed. I'm sorry, but it's really hard to feel sorry for them. But had some innocent boater been cruising along nearby, who knows whether the bodies and debris would have also crashed into them and killed them, and I'd have a really tough time NOT feeling sorry for them. The speeders knew they were taking a risk. They chose to take a risk. But the innocent bystanders chose a safer lifestyle and simply don't deserve this. Luckily, there were no innocent bystanders THIS TIME;
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...cal&id=6347901

[VtSteve]

As you well know. I don't condone Nascar races through the city streets either. I'm not a thrill-seeker, nor do I have the need for speed. I have a 22' cuddy cabin. I love great scenery, the call of the wild, and lakes in general. I don't like pollution, nor extremely loud boats, nor drunken boaters. I think Rule 6 should be memorized and understood by every boater on the planet.

I also believe incidents should be looked at by serious adults that want to learn, and hopefully inform. You are not one of these people El, and never will be. You put the Uugh and Aarg in what were Nice days, make scenic panoramas black and white, and could conceivably turn boating into something your parents made you do that you hated. Heck, you even lie in broad daylight about the weather. Grow some stones and deal with facts. Life is too short to live in a continual lie.

Time to move on guys and discuss adult topics. I can see now where some people are truly a lost cause.

Nice TY Sunset, the Lemming approach is always impressive.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

An MP boat and a police boat went out and fished their bodies aboard and drove them to shore. These boats were plenty large enough for the conditions on the lake that day, and the officers did not even need to get wet. If we did not have the SL in effect that day, I'd agree that going out to retrieve these bodies endangered the officers' lives, but only due to the dangers of getting run down and cut in half by a speeding cigarette boat. Since the SL was in effect that day, that risk was eliminated and these guys faced little more risk on the lake than had they stayed ashore. I appreciate and respect what our law enforcers and safety professionals do...more than most. My brother is a cop. But retrieving drown bodies from the lake is part of their job. It is part of the job they chose. That is a whole different thing than taking your kids out in your boat for a day of recreation, thinking you have taken every precaution, proceeding slowly, and getting run over and killed out of the blue by some clown with the "need for speed".

Actually, a boat going 70 MPH passes 150 ft in 1.45 seconds. And the difference from the 45 MPH boat is 0.85 seconds. And therein lies the flaw in your logic. You see, the accepted average “perception and reaction time” is around 1.5 seconds for a sober driver in daylight conditions. (see any of the thousands of reliable sources around the internet, such as http://www.firerescue1.com/Columnist...tances-Part-1/) This is the time it takes you or me to see a kid's head pop up 150 feet directly in front of the boat, recognize the need to change course, send a signal from our brain to our hands to brake or steer (oh ya, we don't have brakes)...to steer, and to start effecting that signal. At 70MPH, we are just starting to turn our wheel 0.05 seconds AFTER we hear the thump of the poor kid's head as it is shattered into thousands of pieces of skull and brain. At 45 MPH, we have 0.8 SECONDS to spare. So yes, the 0.8 seconds that you dismiss as being so trivial is actually the very difference between the kid's life and death.

I don't think anyone except the most retarded cowboy would do so intentionally. But it is not the intentional case that usually results in all these deaths. It is usually when the unforeseen happens...the accident. One of those kayaks that you guys say are so impossible to see suddenly is visible in front of you. Or that poor kid is swimming out farther than he should be and pops up from underwater. 150 feet is not a sufficient safety zone for these high speeds.

And for good reason I think. I believe in a guys right to kill himself if he so chooses. But people who don't want to take these chances should not be "taken along for the ride". As I read in one letter last year, peopel who think roller coasters are too dangerous can choose not to hop aboard. But people who think high speed boating is too dangerous cannot prevent getting themselves run over by some idiot cowboy who is going too fast and loses control. And as all these accidents that you guys poo-poo for being on other lakes and such, boats going too fast and losing control happens ALL THE TIME.
Here's a perfect example. These two guys only killed themselves when they flipped at excessive speed. I'm sorry, but it's really hard to feel sorry for them. But had some innocent boater been cruising along nearby, who knows whether the bodies and debris would have also crashed into them and killed them, and I'd have a really tough time NOT feeling sorry for them. The speeders knew they were taking a risk. They chose to take a risk. But the innocent bystanders chose a safer lifestyle and simply don't deserve this. Luckily, there were no innocent bystanders THIS TIME;
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...cal&id=6347901

You, sir, truly are a piece of work. I hope all those folks you visit down in Concord truly are reading this thread.

I told you before, you are done getting under my skin; now you are pure entertainment. I will just say your first paragraph was a beauty- like saying "I'm not a racist, I have a XXXXX friend"

Have a great night

p.s I know you love smilies!!

[sunset on the dock]

I'm surely setting myself up for a thrashing here but....what's going on? There's a lot of indignancy and venom being directed to El when he posts his opinions. He cites the limitations of the 150' rule and he's accused of ridiculing the boating laws of NH and the MP. He's criticized for calling people idiots when they put their own lives in jeopardy as well as those who rescue them yet we see on this forum the same name calling all the time when someone is perceived to be taking risks in a kayak or canoe. I think everyone understands that risk takers who pay the ultimate price have families who love them and that we all make mistakes, etc., etc. but we seem to have a self rightious double standard here for posting one's opinions.
Secondly, a reminder that the SL law is about other things in addition to safety. As you know many are concerned for people's right's to a peaceful and meaningful destination for recreation. When the SL was proposed my family thought, finally, now a chance to hold the line on the cowboy mentality which so many people comment on and that we read about so often when the lake is mentioned in the press. Last summer we saw many of the so called GFBL's on the lake, despite all the talk on the forum about bad weather and economy. Yet completely gone, for example, were the "idiots" who scream through the channel at god knows what speed at 11 at night, waking up the kids, totally disturbing the peace. For this I am totally grateful for our new law.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I'm surely setting myself up for a thrashing here but....what's going on?

I think it's simply a matter of tone; people are simply responding in kind.

For example, all of your posts (that I recall) strike me as honest, thoughtful, and respectful, so people (even those with differing opinions) tend to respond in kind.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I think it's simply a matter of tone; people are simply responding in kind.

For example, all of your posts (that I recall) strike me as honest, thoughtful, and respectful, so people (even those with differing opinions) tend to respond in kind.

I couldn't agree more sunset. You have always been clear and gone out of your way to make sure that you are not going after the "poster" but the "posts" themselves. While you disagree with many opponents views, you and BI have done very well at explaining your positions without misdirection or manipulation of the facts. I applaud you for keeping your cool even in many heated situations.

The fact is this law may make you "feel" safer but there are NO STATISTICS to back up this claim. Plain and simple.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I couldn't agree more sunset. You have always been clear and gone out of your way to make sure that you are not going after the "poster"

One thing I didn't make clear the other day is that my little 10 year old guy gets severe motion sickness and may well exhibit projectile vomiting in your v-berth next spring...will that be OK?

Just kidding...we both have cast iron stomachs.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

I'm surely setting myself up for a thrashing here but....what's going on? There's a lot of indignancy and venom being directed to El when he posts his opinions.

Do you support this ludicrous statement of his?

Originally Posted by Elchase

If we did not have the SL in effect that day, I'd agree that going out to retrieve these bodies endangered the officers' lives, but only due to the dangers of getting run down and cut in half by a speeding cigarette boat. Since the SL was in effect that day, that risk was eliminated and these guys faced little more risk on the lake than had they stayed ashore.

The implication that somehow this is the only danger of being the lake is insane. There are many risks of boating, and we can legislate them away. The risk of a speeding boat hitting you is down around the same probability as getting struck by lightening.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Do you support this ludicrous statement of his?

Yes, if for no other reason than he is stating a fact. I agree the SL does indeed address safety problems but for the most part my concerns center around the "other" benefits of a SL (see my post from 07:44 today).

[Kracken]

Trying to debate or even have a civil conversation with him is like trying to teach a mentally challenged seal to drive an automobile.

Forget the olive branch, just hit the ignore button. His insufferable rants, flawed logic and misrepresentation of facts are actually advancing our arguments more than he is helping the supporters. At this rate Sunset, Yosemite, and APS will be placing their orders with Fountain Powerboats and purchasing black cowboy hats by ice out. While I for one would welcome them to the correct side…I still don’t want his help.

Giddie up.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Yes, if for no other reason than he is stating a fact. I agree the SL does indeed address safety problems but for the most part my concerns center around the "other" benefits of a SL (see my post from 07:44 today).

Sunset, you get better and better with each post about what the SL law has done for us folks who like to Kayak, Canoe, and swim on Lake Winni. As I have said in other posts, this year was one of the most enjoyable summers on the Lake that I and my family have had in many years. My friends who also like to swim and boat around the Lake have said the same thing.
I can understand why some people love the speed and sound of these powerful speed boats, but they have a time and place for them and Lake Winni is not one of them. The engines in these boats need to run at a certain RPM for a certain amount of time in order for them to stay healthy. That means if you use them on Lake Winni you will have to run them at a speed that makes it unsafe for other Lake users. GFB’s were designed to be used for racing on the high seas and not for Lakes that are used for recreational boating.
If GFB owners want to cruise around Lake Winni and enjoy what it has to offer then there is nothing wrong with that. But they should stay within the SL at all times so the rest of us folks can enjoy the Lake also.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

I can understand why some people love the speed and sound of these powerful speed boats, but they have a time and place for them and Lake Winni is not one of them. The engines in these boats need to run at a certain RPM for a certain amount of time in order for them to stay healthy. That means if you use them on Lake Winni you will have to run them at a speed that makes it unsafe for other Lake users. GFB’s were designed to be used for racing on the high seas and not for Lakes that are used for recreational boating.

First of all Yosemite good to see you changed your mind and decided to come back. I appreciate your questions on this matter.

First please explain why lake winni is not a place for them? It is the Largest Body of water in NH. Lake Winni has always had boats capable of breaking 45 mph. why suddenly is it not capable of handling these? what has changed?

Supporters keep saying "unsafe". Other supporters have stated that they FEEL safer but there is no stats to prove that. Perhaps you have data to back up this safety claim? So far NO DATA or STATS have been used to prove this.

This is why there is a 2 year test period to collect data to be reviewed at the legislature to decide if a speed limit is needed. So far NO DATA has been collected to prove anything has changed on Lake Winni and it is now in sudden need of a limit.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

First of all Yosemite good to see you changed your mind and decided to come back. I appreciate your questions on this matter.

First please explain why lake winni is not a place for them? It is the Largest Body of water in NH. Lake Winni has always had boats capable of breaking 45 mph. why suddenly is it not capable of handling these? what has changed?

Supporters keep saying "unsafe". Other supporters have stated that they FEEL safer but there is no stats to prove that. Perhaps you have data to back up this safety claim? So far NO DATA or STATS have been used to prove this.

This is why there is a 2 year test period to collect data to be reviewed at the legislature to decide if a speed limit is needed. So far NO DATA has been collected to prove anything has changed on Lake Winni and it is now in sudden need of a limit.

Evidently you don’t do much on Lake Winni other than use your GFB. If you did you might be more aware of how it is to feel unsafe when a GFB is going at top speed and you are in a Kayak within the sight and sound of it. One GFB is bad enough at high speed but when you get more than one of them going side by side just to see which one can go the fastest, then I feel very, very uncomfortable on the Lake.
The only data that I have is that I did not see this happening as much this year on the Lake.

Question: Why is that even when you talk about Pontoon boats you have to know how fast they will go instead of how comfortable they are and how you can have fun by just going slow and enjoying the scenery. I have a friend that has one of these party boats and we have fun cruising around the Lake and have never even talked about how fast they can go. I really don’t think he bought it to see how fast it can go.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Evidently you don’t do much on Lake Winni other than use your GFB. If you did you might be more aware of how it is to feel unsafe when a GFB is going at top speed and you are in a Kayak within the sight and sound of it. One GFB is bad enough at high speed but when you get more than one of them going side by side just to see which one can go the fastest, then I feel very, very uncomfortable on the Lake.

Please elaborate...how close are these Go Fast Boats to you and where on the lake are you when you are uncomfortable and feel unsafe????

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Evidently you don’t do much on Lake Winni other than use your GFB. If you did you might be more aware of how it is to feel unsafe when a GFB is going at top speed and you are in a Kayak within the sight and sound of it. One GFB is bad enough at high speed but when you get more than one of them going side by side just to see which one can go the fastest, then I feel very, very uncomfortable on the Lake.
The only data that I have is that I did not see this happening as much this year on the Lake.
Question: Why is that even when you talk about Pontoon boats you have to know how fast they will go instead of how comfortable they are and how you can have fun by just going slow and enjoying the scenery. I have a friend that has one of these party boats and we have fun cruising around the Lake and have never even talked about how fast they can go. I really don’t think he bought it to see how fast it can go.

Well Yosemite - first off evidently you don't read all my past posts. And what specfically "I do" is not the topic, the merits of the speed limits are. This is where some posters get called out.

But to answer 'peronsal' question. I have been boating on the lake over the past 30 years in everything but a GFB. As you must know, having already read from my past posts concerning my personal activities on the lake and my
"GFB" - A. I just purchased her last year B. Due to engine trouble I was not using her on the lake after June 20th. C. I also have kayaks, a row boat, paddle boat, pontoon boat, and a fishing boat. (not a bass boat that you may label a GFB)

As for discussing how fast my pontoon boat will go: I do not remember the context but it could be that I was explaining that a GFB is not the only type of boat that is capbable of exceeding this "safety threshold" My tri-toon is extremely comfortable. I refer to is as my living room on the water. It also doesn't have near the capacity of engine it is rated for. So if mine is able to go beyond 45, with this living room on the water, how is that hurting the safety of the lake?

Also since data can not be provided by you or any other supporter other then your personal observations on the lake this year, during the second worst economic downturn in United States History since the great depression, wouldn't it be safe to say we should wait to hear from the Marine Patrol what that data is before personal observations are used to control the laws that effect everyone on the lake?

I for one may sway in my opinions on the speed limits if the Professionals i.e. The Marine Patrol, said there is a need and they are in support of it. But at this point they are against it. Mind you the people charged with safety and the overall protection of our already Safe lake.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Evidently you don’t do much on Lake Winni other than use your GFB. If you did you might be more aware of how it is to feel unsafe when a GFB is going at top speed and you are in a Kayak within the sight and sound of it. One GFB is bad enough at high speed but when you get more than one of them going side by side just to see which one can go the fastest, then I feel very, very uncomfortable on the Lake..

Still waiting for my response...

How far away are these boats

Where are you on the lake(I dont mean where you live, I mean what part of the lake are you enjoying when you feel unsafe and uncomfortable from these Go Fast Boats)



Thank you,

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Still waiting for my response...

How far away are these boats

Where are you on the lake(I dont mean where you live, I mean what part of the lake are you enjoying when you feel unsafe and uncomfortable from these Go Fast Boats)



Thank you,

I wasn't far enough away.

I was somewhere between Alton Bay and Center Harbor.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

I wasn't far enough away.

I was somewhere between Alton Bay and Center Harbor.

Thank you for reminding me why I stopped this nonsense debate before..
I am asking you a serious question and all I get in return is a wise ass comment??

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Still waiting for my response...

How far away are these boats

Where are you on the lake(I dont mean where you live, I mean what part of the lake are you enjoying when you feel unsafe and uncomfortable from these Go Fast Boats)



Thank you,

He doesn't respond apparently with facts and data.. just enjoys stirring the pot...... I am still waiting as well.. Like I said you don't get anywhere responding to trouble makers or trolls.... For they are not looking for an actual discussion or debate....

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

He doesn't respond apparently with facts and data.. just enjoys stirring the pot...... I am still waiting as well.. Like I said you don't get anywhere responding to trouble makers or trolls.... For they are not looking for an actual discussion or debate....

OCDATIVE, Please put me on your ignore list.

[onlywinni]

I have some statistics that indicate just how large a body of water Winni is, since many of the SL Supporters try and make it out as a Pond!!!

Lake Winnipesaukee is the largest lake in the state of New Hampshire and the 6th largest lake in the United States that lies within the boundaries of one state..

Area of water surface = 72 square miles

Maximum Depth: 200+ feet (off Rattlesnake Island)

Average Depth: 40-45 feet

Volume: 625 billion gallons

Length: Approximately 28 miles

Width: Approximately 15 miles at widest point

===================

According to some people Winni is the smallest 72 square mile Lake in the world

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Sunset, you get better and better with each post about what the SL law has done for us folks who like to Kayak, Canoe, and swim on Lake Winni. As I have said in other posts, this year was one of the most enjoyable summers on the Lake that I and my family have had in many years. My friends who also like to swim and boat around the Lake have said the same thing.
I can understand why some people love the speed and sound of these powerful speed boats, but they have a time and place for them and Lake Winni is not one of them. The engines in these boats need to run at a certain RPM for a certain amount of time in order for them to stay healthy. That means if you use them on Lake Winni you will have to run them at a speed that makes it unsafe for other Lake users. GFB’s were designed to be used for racing on the high seas and not for Lakes that are used for recreational boating.
If GFB owners want to cruise around Lake Winni and enjoy what it has to offer then there is nothing wrong with that. But they should stay within the SL at all times so the rest of us folks can enjoy the Lake also.

Another good example of a constructive post Sam. The original question was why does one certain member come under "attack" from other members. It is because his posts look nothing like this.

Now on to my rebuttal of the POST not an attack on the POSTER. I think as I have said before that people are mistaking this years so called quiet and calm due to the law. It is unfortunate that we cannot truly assess the effect of the Speed Limit due to the unique nature of this years tourism season. I think that some of the SL Supporters have a false sense of what the lake was this year. For one although there was "less traffic" this year I saw plenty of idiotic behavior out there taking place. The Speed Limit has done nothing to promote safety and that is the concern of many of the opposers.

Sam, I am glad to see you are back posting. The more you and sunset distance yourselves from the other poster the better your messages are conveyed. I may disagree with your stance but you do a good job expressing your position. I will always rebutt your statements on all things Speed Limit but I'm sure we would agree on just about anything else with regard to the lake and how fortunate we all are to be able to use it.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Sunset, you get better and better with each post about what the SL law has done for us folks who like to Kayak, Canoe, and swim on Lake Winni.
I can understand why some people love the speed and sound of these powerful speed boats, but they have a time and place for them and Lake Winni is not one of them. The engines in these boats need to run at a certain RPM for a certain amount of time in order for them to stay healthy. That means if you use them on Lake Winni you will have to run them at a speed that makes it unsafe for other Lake users. GFB’s were designed to be used for racing on the high seas and not for Lakes that are used for recreational boating.
If GFB owners want to cruise around Lake Winni and enjoy what it has to offer then there is nothing wrong with that. But they should stay within the SL at all times so the rest of us folks can enjoy the Lake also.

My Jet Ski is almost silent, but on occasion, I opt to jet ski to breakfast. While the top speed of the jet ski is maybe 10MPH faster than the temporary speed limit, theoretically, you and your family will NEVER lose any sleep while I am travelling through the broads at 50mph. I only make this point because you are clearly singling out one type of boat (7 times) in your post above.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Ryan

My Jet Ski is almost silent, but on occasion, I opt to jet ski to breakfast. While the top speed of the jet ski is maybe 10MPH faster than the temporary speed limit, theoretically, you and your family will NEVER lose any sleep while I am travelling through the broads at 50mph. I only make this point because you are clearly singling out one type of boat (7 times) in your post above.

Someone mention in another post about a pontoon boat that can exceed 50 mph! WOW! Aren't pontoon boats 'the darling of the SL supporters'? IMHO, the pontoon boats that are rented out are the biggest boneheads.

I remember a Hobie Cat that exceeded 50 mph a while ago. I guess we need to outlaw any vessel that exceed 45 mph. Not just GFB boats.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a perfect example. These two guys only killed themselves when they flipped at excessive speed. I'm sorry, but it's really hard to feel sorry for them. But had some innocent boater been cruising along nearby, who knows whether the bodies and debris would have also crashed into them and killed them, and I'd have a really tough time NOT feeling sorry for them. The speeders knew they were taking a risk. They chose to take a risk. But the innocent bystanders chose a safer lifestyle and simply don't deserve this. Luckily, there were no innocent bystanders THIS TIME;
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...cal&id=6347901

Had you taken the time to actually read the article you would see that this happened in a race boat, IN A RACE. In the ocean.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Had you taken the time to actually read the article you would see that this happened in a race boat, IN A RACE. In the ocean.

I used to see a lot of racing (unofficially that is) on Winnipesaukee before last summer. And we've seen race boats (like the one described last summer with a cockpit) on the lake even when there's no race (official that is). I think the point here is that boats racing around at high speeds can and do get into accidents, whether on Winnipesaukee or the ocean. All of this is now less likely on Winnipesaukee with the new speed limit.

Originally Posted by chipj29

this happened in a race boat, IN A RACE.

There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. (oh ya, drinking authorizes them to go fast ) Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

Originally Posted by chipj29

this happened in the ocean.

I don't see how being on the wide open ocean versus a crowded lake makes it less dangerous here than there. Are you saying the physics of salt water made this happen there? Or are you saying that with so many other boats in their path, these boats probably would have already hit someone before reaching these speeds? If it can happen there, it MORE LIKELY can (and often did) happen here. Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I hope all those folks you visit down in Concord truly are reading this thread.

They are. And while you guys are focusing on whether these drivers were drunk or underage, or whether the water was salty or the kayak was out too far, they are focusing on the sheer volume of crashes and deaths resulting from boats going too fast, losing control, and colliding into one another or into shore. While they had been told that high speed boating is safe and that deaths were a rarity...a fluke...they are seeing evidence that proves otherwise. They are recognizing that while each particular case may have some statement or detail ("he was drunk!"???) that can be twisted to excuse the tragedy or make it sound like that accident could not or would not have happened on a no-rules Winnipesaukee, the common theme is that boats going too fast are hard to control, that boaters who think they are in control are suddenly recognizing that they are not, and that it is most often the innocent (passengers or bystanders) who are getting killed...all over the world...in the ocean and on lakes...by teenagers and adults...by drunk pilots and sober pilots. Like me, you guys have a bias and will read this stuff through tinted glasses (as I admittedly do). But our legislators and the rest of our citizenry will come away with the realization that high speed boating is just plain dangerous, no matter where it occurs, and certainly does not belong on our crowded lake again. We gave that a try and it did not work. Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

Here's another perfect example from this summer. An innocent 12 year old girl gets killed. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2386204/posts
And yes, I did read the article and know the guy was drunk...that is not the point. Maybe this drunk would have ignored a speed limit anyway and still killed her. Who's to say? But does that mean we should tell him his speed was ok and legal just because he would not have slowed down anyway? At the end of the day...at the moment of impact...it was his SPEED that killed her. The fact is that when his speeding boat hit her, THAT killed her. As Ryan will confirm, the energy of impact (which is what does the killing in most collisions) is a function of the SQUARE of the speed. Boats going fast are much much ("much squared") more dangerous than boats going slow. So we need to encourage slower and safer boating speeds. We do that with laws...with reasonable speed limits that tell idiots who cannot judge for themselves what top speed is appropriate. And the rest of us, who are not idiots, have to respect these limits as a consequence. Saying to these idiots "there are no hard rules...just decide for yourself" is not appropriate. It does not work. 45 is a fair and reasonable limit for any appropriate boating activity on our lake. And it is a good compromise already. It has been shown to work all over the country and to work here. Why fix what ain't broke?
Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends, but I really think you guys are just offended because you know in your selfish hearts that what I am saying is right and you just don't want to hear it.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. (oh ya, drinking authorizes them to go fast ) Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

I am sorry if this unintentionally offends, but did you happen to get the part about the article you posted that the accident occurred in a RACE. You know, an actual RACE where RACERS RACE their fast boats. A sanctioned race. You know, a race with a start/finish line, officials, safety boats etc et. Nice try on the spin though.

Sorry if this unintentionally offends. There...I feel better saying that.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by elchase

An MP boat and a police boat went out and fished their bodies aboard and drove them to shore. These boats were plenty large enough for the conditions on the lake that day, and the officers did not even need to get wet. If we did not have the SL in effect that day, I'd agree that going out to retrieve these bodies endangered the officers' lives, but only due to the dangers of getting run down and cut in half by a speeding cigarette boat. Since the SL was in effect that day, that risk was eliminated and these guys faced little more risk on the lake than had they stayed ashore

From this post it is OBVIOUS that YOU HAVE NEVER been part of a SAR (Search and rescue) operation! In every case there are dangers to the rescue boat and crew yet you try to dismiss it as if you are walking across the school yard and picking up a piece of paper.

Originally posted by elchase in response to a comment hoping legislators are reading this:

they are focusing on the sheer volume of crashes and deaths resulting from boats going too fast, losing control, and colliding into one another or into shore. While they had been told that high speed boating is safe and that deaths were a rarity...a fluke...they are seeing evidence that proves otherwise.

What "evidence" would that be? Certainly nothing you have presented from NH or Lake Winnipesaukee because the evidence pertaining to NH and Lake Winnipesaukee proves that speed was never a problem and is not a safety issue, however fear mongering certainly is a problem!

As I've pointed out before, because my posts do not support the notion that boats should be able to go as fast on our lake as the particular pilot wants, it tends to create heated reaction from the "fast eight", lead to arguing, and I am therefore limited to 5 posts per day. I am quickly draining today's allotment and wanted to save at least one post for tonight, to respond to today's intervening nonsense. So this will need to be my last until then. You opposers who are allowed to post as many inflammatory and ridiculous posts as you desire will have to carry on without me and wait for my replies until then. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Clue: not all accidents, injuries or fatalities are the result of collisions

Clue: Not all deaths are the result of murders. Not all murderers respect our laws against murder. Our laws against murder do not stop people from committing all crimes. Should we rescind our murder laws too? We have said over and over that nobody believes the speed limit will stop all illegal behavior and prevent all accidents on the lake. But it is a sensible and necessary part of a comprehensive set of laws that together will, AND ALREADY HAVE, make boating safer and more enjoyable for most on the lake.

Originally Posted by Ryan

FYI, I rounded both. Great attempt on spin.

You conveniently rounded 1.45 to 1.50 in your favor and I'm the one spinning?

Originally Posted by Ryan

Sorry these numbers don't support your cause.

But they do support my cause. Even more so. Sorry you still can understand the math. 45MPH allows you approximately 0.8 seconds of extra time to react and avoid the little boy's head. 70MPH is too fast and the kid is dead before you can react. Great attempt on reverse-spin.

Originally Posted by Ryan

If you cannot spot a kayak at 1000ft, you should probably schedule an eye exam

You guys are the ones saying over and over and over again that you can't see kayaks until you are right up on them. You guys are the one's saying they should have flags or be restricted to coves or other lakes. I have no problem seeing and avoiding kayaks, canoes, and kids at my speeds. If you cannot spot a kayak at 1000ft, you should probably SLOW DOWN.

Originally Posted by Ryan

if a child has decided to swim past the marked swim lines ...and suddenly 'pops' his head up to take a breath ... is just plain stupidity that cannot be stopped by any MP or feel good legislation.

Agreed, kids sometimes do stupid things. So rather than just SLOW DOWN, we should run them over to punish them? I have no problem seeing and avoiding even stupid kids, even on the Broads or on any other part of the lake, at the speeds I boat on the lake. I do not depend on the intelligence of kids to avoid killing them. I go fast enough to enjoy the lake, but slow enough to do so safely, no matter what the kayaks and kids are doing.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

The transportation committee ask for the findings to validate supporters and opponents claims.

You can keep saying this, but that will not make it true. The only big change to the Trans Comm has been Jim Ryan, the chairman. The others recall what happened and what they wanted and did not want. Jim Ryan spoke openly to the press about the offense he took to the MP's obvious attempt to "derail the legislative process with this obvious eleventh hour tactic" (his words). The MP rep that was sent to the Transportation hearing was soundly scolded by the committee for trying to undermine their authority. Keep saying they were the ones who asked the MP to do that tainted and silly "survey", but the truth is the truth is the truth.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

There will always be flaws in a study. That is why there is a margin of error.

Margin of error? Margin of error?!! This "survey" had a margin of error of 1000%. It was a bunch of marked police boats sitting in plain site with radar guns that boaters could see from a mile away. It was boats slowing down long before they could be measured. It was announced aforehand in every local newspaper. High speeders were warning each other where and when the "traps" were on the cowboy forums and asking each other to slow down to skew the results. It was conducted by an agency that had already made public their opposition to the legislation. Margin of error?

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Pork barrel at its best!

Do you know what Pork Barrel is?

Originally Posted by Ryan

Great observation. Off Topic?

Attempts to legitimize the "survey" are on topic, but anything that points out one of its many flaws is "Off Topic"? And I'm the one being moderated?

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am sorry if this unintentionally offends, but did you happen to get the part about the article you posted that the accident occurred in a RACE. You know, an actual RACE where RACERS RACE their fast boats.

There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. (oh ya, drinking authorizes them to go fast ) Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

There were different versions of the situation and I just related my OPINION and what I heard.

Skipper, you can try to disown your own post and re-spin it now, but it says what it says and is pretty clear. People can read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. There was a poker race going on. It was a RACE by any definition. It was mayhem on the lake on a crowded summer weekend afternoon. The patrol boats were in chase. They gave up because they were just adding to the danger and their boats can only do 50MPH. To avoid letting you hear them agree to just back off and let the boys have their fun, they switched over to telephone (as you say). It was a very dangerous situation on the lake. We had nothing even remotely like this happen last summer, even during all the sunny days we had in late July and through August. I thank the speed limit and all the related efforts of Winnfabs for that. You can say what you want now, 8 years later.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

blah, blah, blah

Airwaves. Please put me on ignore. Your "Illegal Fishing" debacle was your Waterloo. It exposed you. Everyone thinks of that as soon as they see your screen name. I'm guessing from many of your past posts that you are 14, maybe 15 years old and that your mother is at work and does not know you have figured out how to bypass the parental internet controls she set. I did not take any fish illegally that day and never have. Now please leave me alone and go hang around with kids your own age.

[DEJ]

Good post airwaves and I agree with your PM.

[Airwaves]

Posted by Elchase

Airwaves. Please put me on ignore. Your "Illegal Fishing" debacle was your Waterloo. It exposed you. Everyone thinks of that as soon as they see your screen name. I'm guessing from many of your past posts that you are 14, maybe 15 years old and that your mother is at work and does not know you have figured out how to bypass the parental internet controls she set. I did not take any fish illegally that day and never have. Now please leave me alone and go hang around with kids your own age.

Another case of can't dispute the facts of the post so try to discredit the messanger. El I admitted my mistake in that posting, if you don't accept it then that is your problem.

Let me know when you have some statistics relevant to New Hampshire and Lake Winnipesaukee.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Posted by Elchase

Another case of can't dispute the facts of the post so try to discredit the messanger. El I admitted my mistake in that posting, if you don't accept it then that is your problem.

Let me know when you have some statistics relevant to New Hampshire and Lake Winnipesaukee.

and some people wonder why they draw distain to their comments and posts. Totally uncalled for, insulting and a personal attack... Glad I didn't see the entire thing, I can only imagine..

[Kracken]

OCDACTIVE,

It is much better this way.

If you want to frustrate your self, try teaching your puppy statistical probability, it will be just as fruitful.

[winni83]

I have been lurking for a while reading with some interest various posts. Most of them, while entertaining (e. g. the “restaurant wars”), have little impact on me personally. However, the current debate (that term is a generous description of the exchange of facts, views and opinions in this area) over speed limits prompts me to join and make at least one post.

I am not a “go fast boat” owner and do not intend to be, but I am adamantly in favor of having the current speed limit law cease to exist as of January 1, 2011, pursuant to its terms as enacted by our legislature and signed by our governor.

I have owned lakefront property on Winnipesaukee since 1983. I have 2 boats with engines, one of which is technically capable of exceeding 45 mph on a calm day with a clean hull and light load, three kayaks, one canoe and one rowboat, so that about covers the gamut of watercraft, other than personal water craft.

In all my 25 plus years of boating, swimming or otherwise being in or on the Lake, the only instances in which I have felt threatened by another boat occurred as a direct result of the other boat operator’s violation of the 150 foot rule or other basic navigation and right of way rules and these, quite frankly, often involved personal water craft. In no case was speed in excess of 45 mph involved and for that matter if the speed had been within that required for compliance under the 150 foot rule, then no such speed problem would have existed.

Simply put, the current speed limit law is a solution in search of a problem. Whether there are ulterior motives involved by proponents of the speed limit is a good question. Certain posts have implied that if “go fast boats” don’t like the law, they should leave (e. g. “I can understand why some people love the speed and sound of these powerful speed boats, but they have a time and place for them and Lake Winni is not one of them.”).

I am not naïve enough to believe that it is only the “supporters” who have an agenda. However, from the side of certain of the “supporters”, the diatribes, misinformation, misleading and inaccurate conclusions and the elevation of an alleged subjective feeling that the Lake is somehow “better”, “nicer”, “safer” or “calmer” to a positive, provable and demonstrable fact is most disturbing and often sinks to the level of pedantic drivel in my opinion.

When and if the legislature considers a proposal to introduce a new bill imposing speed limits on the Lake I certainly expect the House and Senate to consider only positive, provable and demonstrable facts relevant to Lake Winnipesaukee in the analysis. Based on my experience and knowledge, such facts do not exist except in the minds of certain people.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Sorry. Clue: Not all deaths are the result of murders. Not all murderers respect our laws against murder. Our laws against murder do not stop people from committing all crimes. Should we rescind our murder laws too?

Wrong: The difference: Murder was a problem that warranted a law. Murder was NOT something that just made people 'feel unsafe'.

Originally Posted by elchase

You conveniently rounded 1.45 to 1.50 in your favor and I'm the one spinning? But they do support my cause. Even more so. Sorry you still can understand the math. 45MPH allows you approximately 0.8 seconds of extra time to react and avoid the little boy's head. 70MPH is too fast and the kid is dead before you can react. Great attempt on reverse-spin.

Agreed, kids sometimes do stupid things. So rather than just SLOW DOWN, we should run them over to punish them? I have no problem seeing and avoiding even stupid kids, even on the Broads or on any other part of the lake, at the speeds I boat on the lake. I do not depend on the intelligence of kids to avoid killing them. I go fast enough to enjoy the lake, but slow enough to do so safely, no matter what the kayaks and kids are doing.

Wrong: I impartially rounded BOTH numbers regardless of which side it supported and the result was clear. Do you have any idea how quick eight tenths of one second is? I do. And it would not make one bit of difference in any of your 'what if' fear situations. The laws that existed before the temporary speed limit prevented these situations.

Follow up question: When was the last time a child was run over at a high speed on Winni? [/Rhetorical]

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

You can keep saying this, but that will not make it true. The only big change to the Trans Comm has been Jim Ryan, the chairman. The others recall what happened and what they wanted and did not want. Jim Ryan spoke openly to the press about the offense he took to the MP's obvious attempt to "derail the legislative process with this obvious eleventh hour tactic" (his words). The MP rep that was sent to the Transportation hearing was soundly scolded by the committee for trying to undermine their authority. Keep saying they were the ones who asked the MP to do that tainted and silly "survey", but the truth is the truth is the truth.

Interesting. I guess I don't have all copies of the transportation committee minutes regarding the SL. Since you have them to substantiate your claims, can you tell me the date of the minute? I can get it from my daughter's father in law who is on the committee.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Attempts to legitimize the "survey" are on topic, but anything that points out one of its many flaws is "Off Topic"?

MP boats sitting in a channel in 2008 really have nothing to do with the validity of the Speed Survey conducted in 2007.

Whether or not the supporters believe that the Department of Safety and the Marine Patrol willingly lied and tainted the results, the results reveal some very important factual data. Not the least of which is speed is not an issue on the lake.

If you really feel as though the Department of Safety and the Marine Patrol are just flat out liars and probably have NO CLUE about safety on the lake, then feel free to take the other side of the arguement. I'd prefer to have my rules and regulations created and enforced by experts, not those whose feelings are hurt by a loud boat.

Again, I do not own a GBFL.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'd prefer to have my rules and regulations created and enforced by experts, not those whose feelings are hurt by a loud boat.

Again, I do not own a GBFL.

Wow...
"those whose feelings are hurt by a loud boat"? That's the best spin I've seen regarding the noise issue yet, and quite frankly it speaks to why people will fight to keep their new law. The fact that you could trivialize a concern voiced by so many people as to why limits are needed and you feel you can boil the whole issue down to "those whose feelings are hurt by a loud boat" is amazing to me.
As has been previously noted, noise is part and parcel of the whole cowboy scenario so often noted by people on the lake and the media covering it. It has been a concern for those who manage the lake and depend on it for a living and who don't want tourism negatively affected. We have heard from forum members about ski boats who at 7 AM feel they can blast their expensive sound system for everyone in Winter Harbor to hear. We've heard about people who can hear GFBL's several miles inland on the hills overlooking the lake. You've heard from me today about people who can tear through a narrow channel at 11 at night (but 150' from shore) with a deafening roar waking up everyone on the shore. This is more than lack of common courtesy, it's a disturbance of the peace. And it doesn't "hurt anyone's feelings" but rather has galvanized people's support for a SL. Incidents like the one I described earlier have made many HATE, not dislike, certain boats or their drivers. We heard from a SL opposer this summer named SHREDDY who said he liked his bikes loud, liked his cars loud, liked his snow machine loud and liked his boat loud. He said something to the effect that he was proud of his toys and wanted to draw attention to them. He was quickly chastized by another SL opposer because this mentality is what is sometimes responsible for having landowners close their land to snow machines. He seems to have crawled away in shame because I have not seen any more posts from him on the SL threads.
In any case there are few SL opposers on this forum who clearly and sincerely love their boats and who seem to be quite respectful and concerned for how their actions might affect others. Should the SL remain, I will feel a certain sense of regret if not sadness for them, in part because a few mavericks like yourself who don't seem to get it have spoiled things for everyone. Hope I didn't "hurt your feelings".

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Wow...
"those whose feelings are hurt by a loud boat"? That's the best spin I've seen regarding the noise issue yet, and quite frankly it speaks to why people will fight to keep their new law. The fact that you could trivialize a concern voiced by so many people as to why limits are needed and you feel you can boil the whole issue down to "those whose feelings are hurt by a loud boat" is amazing to me.
As has been previously noted, noise is part and parcel of the whole cowboy scenario so often noted by people on the lake and the media covering it. It has been a concern for those who manage the lake and depend on it for a living and who don't want tourism negatively affected. We have heard from forum members about ski boats who at 7 AM feel they can blast their expensive sound system for everyone in Winter Harbor to hear. We've heard about people who can hear GFBL's several miles inland on the hills overlooking the lake. You've heard from me today about people who can tear through a narrow channel at 11 at night (but 150' from shore) with a deafening roar waking up everyone on the shore. This is more than lack of common courtesy, it's a disturbance of the peace. And it doesn't "hurt anyone's feelings" but rather has galvanized people's support for a SL. Incidents like the one I described earlier have made many HATE, not dislike, certain boats or their drivers. We heard from a SL opposer this summer named SHREDDY who said he liked his bikes loud, liked his cars loud, liked his snow machine loud and liked his boat loud. He said something to the effect that he was proud of his toys and wanted to draw attention to them. He was quickly chastized by another SL opposer because this mentality is what is sometimes responsible for having landowners close their land to snow machines. He seems to have crawled away in shame because I have not seen any more posts from him on the SL threads.
In any case there are few SL opposers on this forum who clearly and sincerely love their boats and who seem to be quite respectful and concerned for how their actions might affect others. Should the SL remain, I will feel a certain sense of regret if not sadness for them, in part because a few mavericks like yourself who don't seem to get it have spoiled things for everyone. Hope I didn't "hurt your feelings".

If the problem is noise, then make rules about noise. Don't disguise feel good legislation in the name of safety and pinpoint a type of boat. Also, you cannot trivialize the role of the MP in this process.

Originally Posted by RYAN

I do not own a GFBL

[DEJ]

Ryan, it IS about a particular type of boat!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Ryan

If the problem is noise, then make rules about noise. Don't disguise feel good legislation in the name of safety and pinpoint a type of boat. Also, you cannot trivialize the role of the MP in this process.

Been tried, didn't work, even more difficult to enforce than some of your perceptions of how hard it would be to enforce the SL. " And the law would be ignored by drunks". So now we have a SL. As far as trivializing the MP, many of your SL persuasion have not only trivialized them, but outright bashed them over the past months over issues like the 150' rule and NWZ's. And again, hearing today's description of the poker run a few years ago makes me certain they are not the ones who should be weighing in with their expert opinions about the need for a SL.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Been tried, didn't work, even more difficult to enforce than some of your perceptions of how hard it would be to enforce the SL. So now we have a SL. As far as trivializing the MP, many of your SL persuasion have not only trivialized them, but outright bashed them over the past months over issues like the 150' rule and NWZ's. And again, hearing today's description of the poker run a few years ago makes me certain they are not the ones who should be weighing in with their expert opinions about the need for a SL.

Hey sunset.. just a heads up, I wasn't there (in VA) but pics of this years poker run were shown on winni.com. I haven't found the thread but I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong Rattlesnake Gal posted them) These poker runs (NOT RACES) earn a ton of money for Easter Seals and are not publicized ever as races or they would lose their insurance. Most run safety meetings and have very strict rules for captains regarding drinking and life jackets etc. I would even say most poker runs are 10 x safer due to how well the are run then a busy day on the lake. The reason why the Crowd of boats entered at the same time is in most poker runs the group "runs" together so they go from point to point. Others are set up so (like winni) so all the boats don't arrive in the same port of call all at the same time. Given you will get groups like this one being discussed but it isn't a safety hazard. Usually the MP clears the way for these groups because it is an organized event. They make sure that when "the group" arrives there aren't boats in the way etc. Now I wasn't part of the one in question but it was back from 2003. I don't think too many of us can comment on it as to exactly what happened unless you were actually there.. Just my 2 cents...

As you can see I get reved up when Poker "RUNS" come into question for they are a very successful way to raise money for needy charities and provide for a fun and SAFE time for all its participants. If a few want to treat it as a race then you can't blame the poker run.. I have seen plenty of non go fast boats racing while breaking many laws in the process but no one seems to get on them.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Been tried, didn't work, even more difficult to enforce than some of your perceptions of how hard it would be to enforce the SL. " And the law would be ignored by drunks". So now we have a SL. As far as trivializing the MP, many of your SL persuasion have not only trivialized them, but outright bashed them over the past months over issues like the 150' rule and NWZ's. And again, hearing today's description of the poker run a few years ago makes me certain they are not the ones who should be weighing in with their expert opinions about the need for a SL.

Sunset, why do you say it is hard to enforce? Just curious, I would think it would be easy with the right meters and a calibrated tachometer.

I would support a reasonable sound limit. People are tired of noise. I realize that a performance engine needs to have its exhaust uncorked a bit but straight pipes and the like are too loud. Noise laws are becoming more and more prevalent, on land and on the water.

If you go into any HD dealer, you will see signs about being more reasonable noisewise. Hopefully people are paying attention.

For the record, our boat is 350 Chevy powered with through the prop exhaust. My bike has a few baffles knocked out, loud enough without being obnoxious.

Of course everyone has a different opinion on this, that's cool with me!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. (oh ya, drinking authorizes them to go fast ) Sorry if the tone of this response unintentionally offends.

Once again, let me spell it out for you, and all the legislators who are probably not even reading this. The incident in the link that you provided happened during a race (a sanctioned event, with race-boats, race officials, start/finish lines, etc) in the ocean.
A poker run...is not a sanctioned race.
Bass fisherman participating in a fishing tournament...is not a sanctioned race.
Performance boaters going from Braun Bay to somewhere else...is not a sanctioned race.

You are comparing apples to elephants and coming up amazingly short in your comparison.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Once again, let me spell it out for you, and all the legislators who are probably not even reading this. The incident in the link that you provided happened during a race (a sanctioned event, with race-boats, race officials, start/finish lines, etc) in the ocean.
A poker run...is not a sanctioned race.
Bass fisherman participating in a fishing tournament...is not a sanctioned race.
Performance boaters going from Braun Bay to somewhere else...is not a sanctioned race.

You are comparing apples to elephants and coming up amazingly short in your comparison.

Unfortunately this could happen on Lake Winni if we didn't have a speed limit:

"Not long after the start of the Lake Cumberland Poker Run tragedy struck as a boat flipped, killing one and injuring another.

The name of the boater was being withheld, pending notification of next-of-kin. He and his passenger were thrown from a boat Saturday about 10:30 a.m. and though others came to their aid quickly, the man identified by the other boater as the driver was unresponsive when pulled from the lake.

CPR was performed on the man, who was in his 40s and reportedly had several rooms booked at the Jamestown Resort. An ambulance arrived as the boat brought the driver to shore, and ambulance workers continued to try to resuscitate the man.

Coroner Larry Skaggs confirms the man was declared dead at the Russell County Hospital. The passenger in the boat was treated at the hospital and was conscious and able to answer questions earlier as he was being loaded into the ambulance.

According to the passenger and others who were at the scene, the boat the men were in swerved to avoid another boat during the Poker Run and on hitting that boat's wake, their fast boat "barrel rolled" landing upside down in the water.

Both men were reportedly thrown from the boat and since they were wearing life jackets they were both pulled about boats that came to their aid. The passenger told rescue workers at the scene that their boat was traveling at about 130 miles per hour when the incident occurred.

The poker run was halted after the incident, and was later canceled. The "cards" that decide the winner were drawn by participants back on the dock."

http://www.russellcounty.net/archive..._from=&ucat=3&

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Unfortunately this could happen on Lake Winni if we didn't have a speed limit:

"Not long after the start of the Lake Cumberland Poker Run tragedy struck as a boat flipped, killing one and injuring another.

The name of the boater was being withheld, pending notification of next-of-kin. He and his passenger were thrown from a boat Saturday about 10:30 a.m. and though others came to their aid quickly, the man identified by the other boater as the driver was unresponsive when pulled from the lake.

CPR was performed on the man, who was in his 40s and reportedly had several rooms booked at the Jamestown Resort. An ambulance arrived as the boat brought the driver to shore, and ambulance workers continued to try to resuscitate the man.

Coroner Larry Skaggs confirms the man was declared dead at the Russell County Hospital. The passenger in the boat was treated at the hospital and was conscious and able to answer questions earlier as he was being loaded into the ambulance.

According to the passenger and others who were at the scene, the boat the men were in swerved to avoid another boat during the Poker Run and on hitting that boat's wake, their fast boat "barrel rolled" landing upside down in the water.

Both men were reportedly thrown from the boat and since they were wearing life jackets they were both pulled about boats that came to their aid. The passenger told rescue workers at the scene that their boat was traveling at about 130 miles per hour when the incident occurred.

The poker run was halted after the incident, and was later canceled. The "cards" that decide the winner were drawn by participants back on the dock."

http://www.russellcounty.net/archive..._from=&ucat=3&

Yosemite...

That can happen anywhere people boat, and at speeds less than 45MPH. The reality is accidents like that are rare. There has NEVER been an accident like that on Lake Winnipesaukee.

I dont think you have boated on Lake Cumberland.... but I have! They dont have a 150' rule. Its just like boating on the ocean there! There is no minimum distance requirements between boats....

Woodsy

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Yosemite...

That can happen anywhere people boat, and at speeds less than 45MPH. The reality is accidents like that are rare. There has NEVER been an accident like that on Lake Winnipesaukee.

I dont think you have boated on Lake Cumberland.... but I have! They dont have a 150' rule. Its just like boating on the ocean there! There is no minimum distance requirements between boats....

Woodsy

Let me take this one further.... Supporters always use Lake George with their 45 mph speed limit as a model for Lake Winnipesaukee's. This is actually where the 45 came from................... However did you know they do NOT have a safe passage rule of 150 ft?

Again this is why it is a REPETATIVE law.

[VtSteve]

I remember seeing a video of a real genuine Cigarette boat doing a partial roll, and ejecting the driver, at around 30 mph or so. Obviously not experienced or smart, he had no idea how to drive or turn a stepped hull boat, nor was he wearing a safety lanyard. The boat kept going and turning, and ran up on a breakwater. Proving nothing of course, except you need to be in control of your vessel at all times, and some training helps.

Many poker runs around the country have become pretty strict on their rules and regulations, including having the proper safety equipment. Those that don't adhere to the rules are thrown out. This trend is sweeping the nation, and will become far more prevalent before long.

In between the fringes of out of control cowboys that ruin things for everyone, and the knee-jerk reactionaries that throw silly laws at everything, there exists a much larger group of people that feel safety and common sense should be the norm. There will always be thrill-seekers that push the envelope too much, just as there will always be silly legislation that doesn't work.

Just as the cowboys need to be reigned in and have their keys taken away, the same holds true for legislators and their supporters that need to have their pens and mouthpieces taken away.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Unfortunately this could happen on Lake Winni if we didn't have a speed limit:

And unfortunately, sometimes This Happens on lakes that already have speed limits.

Speed and Safety are not synonymous. Speed is also not an issue on Winni.
The solution is education and enforcement.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Ryan

And unfortunately, sometimes This Happens on lakes that already have speed limits.

Speed and Safety are not synonymous . Speed is also not an issue on Winni.
The solution is education and enforcement.

Fixed it for Ya:

Speed and Safety are not synonymous, but speed and race are . Speed is also not an issue on Winni. thanks to the SL law.
The solution is education and enforcement of the SL.

[Airwaves]

Posted by YS

Speed is also not an issue on Winni. thanks to the SL law.

Since you are claiming that speed is not an issue on Winnipesaukee BECAUSE OF THE SPEED LIMIT LAW then you wouldn't mind posting the last dozen or so speed releated incidents on Lake Winnipesaukee that you base you statement on, right?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by elchase

You can keep saying this, but that will not make it true. The only big change to the Trans Comm has been Jim Ryan, the chairman. The others recall what happened and what they wanted and did not want. Jim Ryan spoke openly to the press about the offense he took to the MP's obvious attempt to "derail the legislative process with this obvious eleventh hour tactic" (his words). The MP rep that was sent to the Transportation hearing was soundly scolded by the committee for trying to undermine their authority. Keep saying they were the ones who asked the MP to do that tainted and silly "survey", but the truth is the truth is the truth. Margin of error? Margin of error?!! This "survey" had a margin of error of 1000%. It was a bunch of marked police boats sitting in plain site with radar guns that boaters could see from a mile away. It was boats slowing down long before they could be measured.[/B]

Hey ElChase...

You referring to that CORRUPT Politician Jim Ryan? You know the guy who at last update was sitting in jail?? The one that STOLE from campaign funds? Convicted FELON Jim Ryan? The same Jim Ryan that was rumored to have taken BRIBES??? I wonder if he took money from WinnFABS or their supporters?? Might be worth a look into his cooked books....

Seriously, if the MP study had come out and shown speed was an issue, WINNFABS would have been shouting from the rooftops! Certainly, a more serious scientific study was warranted they said... Thus the 2 year speed limit with a sunset clause was compromised upon!

Here we are 1 year into the "compromise" and the SL supporters are clamoring to make the law permanent! But why? SL supporters say its working however.... We know of few if any speeding tickets issued, and even less knowledge if any tickets were successfully prosecuted (fine paid/DMV notified of violation)

Lets wait for the results....

Woodsy

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Woodsy

Here we are 1 year into the "compromise" and the SL supporters are clamoring to make the law permanent!

Actually we were 64 DAYS into the boating season when State Representative James Pilliod, R-Belmont announced in the Laconia Daily Sun on August 3, 2009 that he was filing a bill to make the law permanent.

Of those 64 boating season days (counted from June 1) only 14 were what I consider boating days...days with no rain and at least 70 degrees! (according to the NWS)

So the speed limit supporters let the "compromise" work for 14 days and decided they wanted to change the rules, again!

[Kracken]

WOW

So that’s what it means to be taken out to the woodshed.

Nice posts Woodsy.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by elchase

An MP boat and a police boat went out and fished their bodies aboard and drove them to shore. These boats were plenty large enough for the conditions on the lake that day, and the officers did not even need to get wet. If we did not have the SL in effect that day, I'd agree that going out to retrieve these bodies endangered the officers' lives, but only due to the dangers of getting run down and cut in half by a speeding cigarette boat. Since the SL was in effect that day, that risk was eliminated and these guys faced little more risk on the lake than had they stayed ashore. ...

Help me understand this: When the Speed Limit trials by Rattlesnake and Bear Islands showed no speeding problems on Winnie the SL supporters claimed the results were faulty because boaters saw the MP boats and didn't speed. Supporters claim that is a common experience when there is an MP presence. (No mention about concurring results from unmarked SL measuring sites during that trial.)

In the explanation quoted above, you credit the SL law with making it SAFE for the MARKED MP and police boats to perform a rescue. Your statement sounds like loaded propaganda to me.

BTW, in other posts, over the 45 mph limit does not automatically mean 75 mph or 95 mph or over 100mph. It could be 50 or 55 mph or any other speed above 45 (both reasonable and unreasonable for prevailing conditions).

disclaimer: I have no financial interest in boats or the industry. My boat can not exceed 40 mph (43mph max is stated in the manual). I do NOT like LOUD motor sounds on the lake but some people do and I respect those following the loudness and sound laws.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

Help me understand this: When the Speed Limit trials by Rattlesnake and Bear Islands showed no speeding problems on Winnie the SL supporters claimed the results were faulty because boaters saw the MP boats and didn't speed. Supporters claim that is a common experience when there is an MP presence. (No mention about concurring results from unmarked SL measuring sites during that trial.)....

There were NO concurring results from unmarked MP boats. The Marine Patrol claim that they did use unmarked boats in the speed test, however they failed to record which tests were done with marked boats and which were done with unmarked boats. So a piece of information that would go a long way to validating the data was never recorded.

Just one more indication that nobody ever took the study seriously. The study, none the less, did what it was intended to do. It delayed the SL by one year.

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

the Speed Limit trials by Rattlesnake and Bear Islands showed no speeding problems on Winnie ...you credit the SL law with making it SAFE for the MARKED MP and police boats to perform a rescue.

Skip,
Here's a post of yours from the archives from back before we had a speed limit. Were the MP officers chasing this Donzi Poker Race around the lake at high speeds more or less safe than the ones retrieving the bodies? Had these MP officers been out there fishing these guys out of the lake when this poker race came flying by, which risk (pulling in the bodies or dodging the Donzis) would have been more endangering? And you guys are saying it is ME who doesn't care about our safety officials?;
Forum Archive
I am a radio nut - What I heard about Poker Run
Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 at 12:13 a.m.
In Response To: Marine Patrol can't keep up with Donzi's (Don Zee)
Well folks, I have to get my 2 cents in here. I would have loved to join the Donzi Poker Run, but I have a Four Winns (and couldn't find Donzi decals big enough to cover all the Four Winns logos on my boat ).
Anyway, I have been called a radio nut. I prefer enthusiast. Ham radio, Broadcast Radio, Public Service radio, Short Wave, Medium Wave and all that. At the Lake I often monitor the Marine Patrol Radio Frequencies (at least the 2 known to me). In addition to VHF Marine Channel 16 which is not the same as the Marine Patrol 800 MHz radio system.
What I did NOT hear on the Marine Patrol Radio was information supporting Woodsy. What I DID hear supported the reports of Sue and Don Zee. The Marine Patrol did NOT talk too much about the Donzi Poker Run on their radio system, rather they encouraged officers to TELEPHONE headquarters for information (in effect, making it so that people like me can't monitor those conversations). In my opinion, the MP officers on patrol did not know about the poker run. I believe they did try to chase some of the Donzi boats and gave up.
Now, I did not witness these events. What I know comes from various sources, including the Marine patrol 2-way radio (and I assume the MP officers report situations accurately). I need to review the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) before I reveal exactly what I heard on my radios. I think monitored Public Service communications can be repeated but I forget. The law may say I must keep what I hear on those channels to myself - so, I won't specify exactly what I heard. But what I did NOT hear (no law says I can't tell you what I did NOT hear - boy that's convoluted) was anything contradicting Don Zee or Sue. Read between those lines. I think Don and Sue are right.
As for MP finding and stopping anyone when they really want to... I'm not sure I buy that. Radar and radios are not enough. Radar does not read hull numbers. Ship radar doesn't follow boats around or over islands. Of course Radar could have changed a lot since I got my FCC Ship Radar Endorsement on my (FCC Commercial Radio) license (to test, install, maintain and repair Radar equipment).
Sorry to ramble but I had to get this out of my system. Plus, I wish there were a Poker Run I could get in on. I think my family would love it.
AL, Radio Operator of the Sea Que (CQ)

Sorry if the tone of this response is unintentionally offensive.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The study, none the less, did what it was intended to do. It delayed the SL by one year.

AND, it did something it was not intended to do. It slowed boaters down because they knew their speeds MIGHT BE under watch. Just like last summer's speed limit did.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by elchase

Skip,
Here's a post of yours from the archives from back before we had a speed limit. Were the MP officers chasing this Donzi Poker Race around the lake at high speeds more or less safe than the ones retrieving the bodies? Had these MP officers been out there fishing these guys out of the lake when this poker race came flying by, which risk (pulling in the bodies or dodging the Donzis) would have been more endangering? And you guys are saying it is ME who doesn't care about our safety officials?;
Forum Archive
I am a radio nut - What I heard about Poker Run
Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 at 12:13 a.m.
In Response To: Marine Patrol can't keep up with Donzi's (Don Zee)

You might want to give me another nickname so forum readers don't confuse ME with my good friend SKIP .

You quoted a message by me from 8 years ago. The 2001 thread started with a post claiming:

Originally Posted by Don Zee from the archives

Around 1 PM the Donzis invaded Wolfborough town docks (to get their card or ticket game piece). This prompted complaints to Marine Patrol about the swarm of boats bumping other boats, crowding the dock and violating safe passage. As the MP approached the docks the Donzis, having gotten their game pieces, headed to their next destination. From Marine Patrol point of view, the Donzis saw MP coming and took off (violating safe passage in the process).

Marine Patrol took off after them in hot pursuit. Would you believe The Donzi Boats did not stop for Marine Patrol. Marine Patrol had to break off pursuit because the Donzis were too fast for MP to catch. Easier to bag those family boaters. ...

This is very different from the Donzi group heading FOR marked MP and police boats. Just the opposite in the referenced archive thread. In a CHASE situation the MP were BEHIND the Donzi boats. The initial complaint was about crowding, boats bumping boats at the dock (AT HEADWAY or SLOW SPEEDS) after that, they left the area in violation of the 150' SAFE PASSAGE rules. Again, not the same as boats speeding toward marked rescue vessels and jeopardizing MP safety.

There were different versions of the situation and I just related my OPINION and what I heard. Importantly, the Marine Patrol used cell phones so that casual eavesdroppers (like me) could NOT hear everything that was really happening. The MP fleet has also changed a bit in the last 7 years.

Another poster in that thread suggests:

Originally Posted by Ann On Um Us, from the archives

... The Poker Runners may not have even heard the MP siren over the noise of their loud boats. They might not have looked astern to check for boat traffic and seen the blue lights chasing them. Some of them, not all of the contestants. Serious posters are not passing general judgement on Donzi boat owners. I can see how mis communications come to play here. ...

Boats don't break laws, people do.

So, the scenario from my 2001 post was not GFBLs heading toward MP boats or placing them in jeopardy. I'm sure that the MP officers know how to keep themselves safe. Whatever the situation really was, in a chase or a rescue, a LAW (including a speed limit) would not alter the degree of safety of the MP in either case.

Originally Posted by elchase

Sorry if the tone of this response is unintentionally offensive.

No offense taken. You have absolutely every right to be wrong

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by elchase

Skip,
Here's a post of yours from the archives from back before we had a speed limit. Were the MP officers chasing this Donzi Poker Race around the lake at high speeds more or less safe than the ones retrieving the bodies? Had these MP officers been out there fishing these guys out of the lake when this poker race came flying by, which risk (pulling in the bodies or dodging the Donzis) would have been more endangering? And you guys are saying it is ME who doesn't care about our safety officials?;
Forum Archive
I am a radio nut - What I heard about Poker Run
Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ)
Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 at 12:13 a.m.
In Response To: Marine Patrol can't keep up with Donzi's (Don Zee)
Well folks, I have to get my 2 cents in here. I would have loved to join the Donzi Poker Run, but I have a Four Winns (and couldn't find Donzi decals big enough to cover all the Four Winns logos on my boat ).
Anyway, I have been called a radio nut. I prefer enthusiast. Ham radio, Broadcast Radio, Public Service radio, Short Wave, Medium Wave and all that. At the Lake I often monitor the Marine Patrol Radio Frequencies (at least the 2 known to me). In addition to VHF Marine Channel 16 which is not the same as the Marine Patrol 800 MHz radio system.
What I did NOT hear on the Marine Patrol Radio was information supporting Woodsy. What I DID hear supported the reports of Sue and Don Zee. The Marine Patrol did NOT talk too much about the Donzi Poker Run on their radio system, rather they encouraged officers to TELEPHONE headquarters for information (in effect, making it so that people like me can't monitor those conversations). In my opinion, the MP officers on patrol did not know about the poker run. I believe they did try to chase some of the Donzi boats and gave up.
Now, I did not witness these events. What I know comes from various sources, including the Marine patrol 2-way radio (and I assume the MP officers report situations accurately). I need to review the ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) before I reveal exactly what I heard on my radios. I think monitored Public Service communications can be repeated but I forget. The law may say I must keep what I hear on those channels to myself - so, I won't specify exactly what I heard. But what I did NOT hear (no law says I can't tell you what I did NOT hear - boy that's convoluted) was anything contradicting Don Zee or Sue. Read between those lines. I think Don and Sue are right.
As for MP finding and stopping anyone when they really want to... I'm not sure I buy that. Radar and radios are not enough. Radar does not read hull numbers. Ship radar doesn't follow boats around or over islands. Of course Radar could have changed a lot since I got my FCC Ship Radar Endorsement on my (FCC Commercial Radio) license (to test, install, maintain and repair Radar equipment).
Sorry to ramble but I had to get this out of my system. Plus, I wish there were a Poker Run I could get in on. I think my family would love it.
AL, Radio Operator of the Sea Que (CQ)

And these are the guys (MP) who think we don't need a speed limit? Oh well, I'll pretty much leave the safety debate to those SL supporters who do a better job discussing the safety aspect; I'll concentrate on the noise/confusion/boats screaming by you only 150' away at those ungodly speeds. Glad I wasn't out on the lake that day described above. We sometimes joke that our family boating picnics on the lake would be more peaceful if we held them on the median strip of Rt. 93..

[fatlazyless]

I can recall seeing the MP off to one side, sitting in one spot, in their www.protectorboats.com patrol boat observing Buoy-3, south Bear Island passage traffic in August 2008.

The geography of that passage pretty much requires boats to slow down, plus the protector patrol boats are easy to id from a distance as the MP. Whether marked or unmarked, their silhouette is unique on the lake. Believe the MP has three protectors; two marked and one unmarked, all 28' aluminum center consoles w/ twin Merc 150's two-strokes w/ rubber-kevlar, air-filled floatation bumpers surrounding the hull and tee-tops........a police boat.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I can recall seeing the MP off to one side, sitting in one spot, in their www.protectorboats.com patrol boat observing Buoy-3, south Bear Island passage traffic in August 2008.

The geography of that passage pretty much requires boats to slow down, plus the protector patrol boats are easy to id from a distance as the MP. Whether marked or unmarked, their silhouette is unique on the lake. Believe the MP has three protectors; two marked and one unmarked, all 28' aluminum center consoles w/ twin Merc 150's two-strokes w/ rubber-kevlar, air-filled floatation bumpers surrounding the hull and tee-tops........a police boat.

Great observation. Off Topic?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Great observation. Off Topic?

Why is it Off Topic?

The MP placed their boats in narrow passages where boats had to slow down to pass them. So obviously the recorded speeds were useless data. Sorry but this entire "Speed Study" was a farce and a waste of time and money. Except of course that it achieved its purpose.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why is it Off Topic?

The MP placed their boats in narrow passages where boats had to slow down to pass them. So obviously the recorded speeds were useless data. Sorry but this entire "Speed Study" was a farce and a waste of time and money. Except of course that it achieved its purpose.

...because the Speed Survey ended in September of 2007?

Personally, I NEVER heard of any sort of speed survey being conducted on the lake.
I never even had an opinion on speed limits until I began to regularly read the forum roughly 2 years ago.
I don't own a GBFL.
I don't believe the speed limit and safety are synonymous.

[DEJ]

[QUOTE=Bear Islander;112509]Why is it Off Topic?

The MP placed their boats in narrow passages where boats had to slow down to pass them. So obviously the recorded speeds were useless data. Sorry but this entire "Speed Study" was a farce and a waste of time and money. [QUOTE]

Not quite true BI. There were numerous non posted areas where MP stationed their boats and recorded speeds. Those speeds were included in the final report but not broken out according to you, I take your word on that. Over 3,800 readings were taken and about 3 or 4 boats were over 60 mph. Also a mix of marked and unmarked boats were used by MP in an effort to gather this data in a way that most people would understand was not biased one way or the other. Those are the facts, not all speed data was gathered in narrow passages like you think. Please stop the spin. Thanks.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Why is it Off Topic?

The MP placed their boats in narrow passages where boats had to slow down to pass them. So obviously the recorded speeds were useless data. Sorry but this entire "Speed Study" was a farce and a waste of time and money. Except of course that it achieved its purpose.

Maybe that's why the MP did that, because they knew the SL law was going to be useless from a "safety" aspect.

BI, what tiem and money, you have always said the SL enforcement "wouldn't cost anything".

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There were NO concurring results from unmarked MP boats. The Marine Patrol claim that they did use unmarked boats in the speed test, however they failed to record which tests were done with marked boats and which were done with unmarked boats. So a piece of information that would go a long way to validating the data was never recorded.

Just one more indication that nobody ever took the study seriously. The study, none the less, did what it was intended to do. It delayed the SL by one year.

The transportation committee ask for the findings to validate supporters and opponents claims. As neither sides can support their claims as pertaining to Lake Winnipesaukee. The marine patrol being on the lake far more hours than any of us boaters, (except maybe elchase as he claim he spends more than a thousand hours every year on the lake) have said speed limits were unnecessary and rightly proved. Yes, both sides, can pick apart and approve or disapprove the study. There will always be flaws in a study. That is why there is a margin of error. have anyone seen 'perfect legislation?' If legislation is perfect, we wouldn't have legislation!

The delay was sought the make both side 'feel good' about the law. Politically speaking. As the law is one of the biggest 'hot potato' NH have seen. After the two year test period, the transportation committee and the Dept of Safety will have a valid report to present to legislature to prove that we need or do not need the SL law. Right now there is no substantiated valid claim to either side!

Sorry to burst the opponents bubble on this, but most of the representatives are sitting on the fence to see the clear picture. The reason why 162 was defeated was the 'not in my backyard' syndrome as it effected all bodies of water. You can see the seacoast representatives voted against it. The latest reincarnation is Winnipesaukee only. So the representatives voted just to get it out of the way. I.E. 'not in my backyard'. That's politics folks. Pork barrel at its best!

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Actually, a boat going 70 MPH passes 150 ft in 1.45 seconds. And the difference from the 45 MPH boat is 0.85 seconds. And therein lies the flaw in your logic.

FYI, I rounded both. The result is offsetting. It's 0.81 seconds of difference, you overbid. Hardly 'milliseconds' between the two, so again, your logic fails. Sorry these numbers don't support your cause. Great attempt on spin.

Originally Posted by elchase

This is the time it takes you or me to see a kid's head pop up 150 feet directly in front of the boat, recognize the need to change course, send a signal from our brain to our hands to brake or steer (oh ya, we don't have brakes)...to steer, and to start effecting that signal. At 70MPH, we are just starting to turn our wheel 0.05 seconds AFTER we hear the thump of the poor kid's head as it is shattered into thousands of pieces of skull and brain. At 45 MPH, we have 0.8 SECONDS to spare. So yes, the 0.8 seconds that you dismiss as being so trivial is actually the very difference between the kid's life and death.

One of those kayaks that you guys say are so impossible to see suddenly is visible in front of you. Or that poor kid is swimming out farther than he should be and pops up from underwater. 150 feet is not a sufficient safety zone for these high speeds.

In clear conditions, at any rate of speed, I can see a piece of wood floating in the lake at 1000ft and take evasive actions accordingly. If you cannot spot a kayak at 1000ft, you should probably schedule an eye exam (maybe we can make an eye test law!!!!!)

In clear conditions, at any rate of speed, if a child has decided to swim past the marked swim lines underwater 1.27 miles to the Broads or any other high traffic (notice I didn't say speed) area and suddenly 'pops' his head up to take a breath before continuing through the broads and finally Alton Bay, is just plain stupidity that cannot be stopped by any MP or feel good legislation. I would probably refer this case to DSS. But again, what if, what it, what if! The fear mongering never stops!

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by elchase

Actually, a boat going 70 MPH passes 150 ft in 1.45 seconds. And the difference from the 45 MPH boat is 0.85 seconds. And therein lies the flaw in your logic. You see, the accepted average “perception and reaction time” is around 1.5 seconds for a sober driver in daylight conditions. (see any of the thousands of reliable sources around the internet, such as http://www.firerescue1.com/Columnist...tances-Part-1/) This is the time it takes you or me to see a kid's head pop up 150 feet directly in front of the boat, recognize the need to change course, send a signal from our brain to our hands to brake or steer (oh ya, we don't have brakes)...to steer, and to start effecting that signal. At 70MPH, we are just starting to turn our wheel 0.05 seconds AFTER we hear the thump of the poor kid's head as it is shattered into thousands of pieces of skull and brain. At 45 MPH, we have 0.8 SECONDS to spare. So yes, the 0.8 seconds that you dismiss as being so trivial is actually the very difference between the kid's life and death.

Well no one else is going to point out how wrong you are then I will. I assume that you pulled the bolded text from whatever link you found and referenced. But if 1.5s was average human reaction time, we would see many more accidents in everyday life than we do.

Simple reaction time is the time required for an observer to respond to the presence of a stimulus. For example, a subject might be asked to press a button as soon as a light or sound appears. Mean RT is approximately 180-200 msec milliseconds to detect visual stimulus, and approximately 140-160 milliseconds to detect an auditory stimulus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time

Do not believe physics, try it for yourself http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/...time/stats.php
There is a link at the top of the page that will bring you to the test, you have to perform it 5 times before your score will be posted. Click Reaction Time in the first sentence.

If your reaction time is what you stated above, it is very clear why it is so hard to have a debate with you.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

El I admitted my mistake in that posting, if you don't accept it then that is your problem.

Is this your version of an apology? Give me a straightforward "I'm sorry" apology for accusing me of being a poacher and I will be very gracious and never mention it again. But I have yet to see anything even remotely resembling an apology from you, so have nothing to accept. You can even do it in a PM if you are too embarrassed to post it.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Let me know when you have some statistics relevant to New Hampshire and Lake Winnipesaukee.

1) A statistically reliable randomly conducted telephone poll showed NH citizens favoring a 45/25 MPH speed limit outnumber NH citizens opposing a 45/25 speed limit by a 9 to 1 margin with a +/-3% margin of error. These are the people who elected our legislators and will be voting again next fall.
2) There were 0 (zero) accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer that could even be alleged to have been high-speed related.
3) With a speed limit in place and the MP monitoring boat speeds last summer, only 1 (one) boat was caught exceeding 45 MPH.
How are those for statistics?

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

and some people wonder why they draw distain to their comments and posts.

I am not one of those who wonder. I know. I tell it like it is and some people cannot deal with that. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Wrong: The difference: ... Murder was NOT something that just made people 'feel unsafe'.

Sure it was. I never personally knew anyone that was murdered before Hartman. All the murders I heard of were anecdotal and second-hand. I had no personal experiences that caused a fear of murder and a support for laws against it. My recognition that murder laws are warranted fall completely from fear...from murders that happened in other states...some years ago. We do not need to be victims in an accident or participants in a near miss to recognize the need for safety laws.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Do you have any idea how quick eight tenths of one second is?

Yes, it's just over half the human reaction time. 2.3 seconds gives you 50% more reaction time that you need to make a change in course and avoid the kid. 1.45 seconds is not enough. Sometimes you just need to punt. this is one of those times for you. Just let it go. You blew it by opening this can. Walk away.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Glad I wasn't out on the lake that day described above.

It was actually much much worse that this one post indicated. Look at the other posts about that event in the archives. It was incredible that day. But typical of the Poker Races that used to occur weekend after weekend in those days before the SL.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I can get it from my daughter's father in law who is on the committee.

Please do. Why ask me to do your research if you have your own sources? I'll hold my breath for you to come back and tell us what you find. I am also holding my breath for that documentary you guys were making last summer and for Hazelnut's apology for saying I lied about your PM.

Originally Posted by chipj29

Once again, let me spell it out for you, and all the legislators who are probably not even reading this. The incident in the link that you provided happened during a race

Once again, let me spell it out to you; There used to be races almost every weekend on our lake before the Speed Limit discouraged them. Numerous Poker Races with boats operating just like in this race were held on the lake each summer (see Forum Archive "A horde invades quiet waters" Posted By: 3gW Sunday, July 27, 2003 at 9:24 p.m.), and first thing Saturday and Sunday mornings you'd see and hear the bass boats all racing each other from the tourney starting points to the best fishing spots across the lake. In the afternoons, you'd see all the performance boaters, many looking and sounding just like these "race boats", racing each other from Braun Bay across the lake to get the best docks at the Naswa for an afternoon of boozing before getting back behind the helm. How did the lack of sanctioning of our races or the absence of MP oversight make them safer? This argument is not going too well for you either. You've got to know when to fold'em (K. Rogers).

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Hey ELCHASE...

And then there were nine.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You referring to that CORRUPT Politician Jim Ryan? You know the guy who at last update was sitting in jail?? The one that STOLE from campaign funds? Convicted FELON Jim Ryan? The same Jim Ryan that was rumored to have taken BRIBES???

Yes, what a dog he was. A real scumbag. Makes me proud to be a Republican. I was never too impressed with the way he handled HB847 anyway. They clearly had the votes to pass the bill into a permanent law. Caving to the high-speed side with the 2-year provision was a mistake in my opinion. Had he been stronger, we would not be having this discussion today. The SL would already be permanent.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Seriously, if the MP study had come out and shown speed was an issue, WINNFABS would have been shouting from the rooftops!

Of course they would have. If the anti-SL MP had conducted their "survey" and been unable to craft it in a way that slowed everyone down, and had to come back and say "As hard as we tried, we could not slow boaters down enough to say speeding is not a problem", of course Winnfabs would have been using that. I don't expect they are so stupid that they would have missed that opportunity.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Certainly, a more serious scientific study was warranted they said.

No, the opposers said that. Winnfabs pushed the original bill that was to be permanent. The 2-yr provision was put into the bill against their objections. The two year provision was crafted by the Marine Trades lobbyist who likely (and ingeniously I might add) saw that it created a legislative nightmare...an unavoidable gap in a law they intended to reconsider and renew without interruption before the two years were up. Reconfirming the law THIS SESSION corrects that mistake and ensures that a law that is working is not unintentionally interrupted. Imagine the uproar if the law gapped through the 2011 summer and another death occurred? Everyone would ask how we let that legislative loophole give window to behavior that our legislators had already overwhelmingly agreed did not belong on the lake.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

We know of few if any speeding tickets issued

Exactly. Boaters slowed down as we predicted they would, because most people obey our laws. The Speed limit worked

Originally Posted by Ryan

This Happens on lakes that already have speed limits.

Yes, and unfortunately we cannot guarantee that it will never happen again on Winnipesaukee even with our speed limit. There will still be occasional offenders, including several from your group, who ignore the law. But the speed limit is part of a package of safety laws that together make boating safer and more enjoyable for the most boaters. Certainly, accidents like this are LESS LIKELY on a speed limit lake than on a NO RULES lake.

Originally Posted by jmen24

Simple reaction time is the time required for an observer to respond to the presence of a stimulus. For example, a subject might be asked to press a button as soon as a light or sound appears. Mean RT is approximately 180-200 msec milliseconds to detect visual stimulus, and approximately 140-160 milliseconds to detect an auditory stimulus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_time.

Oh ya, I see that hit when I Google it too. Right after 26 hits and just before the next 50+ hits that all that say 1.5 seconds is the accepted standard reaction time. How does information get posted on wickipedia anyway? As I told Hazelnut when she challenged my grammar, if you look hard enough you can usually find something on the internet that supports any wrong information.


And again, I do not own a GBFL.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by elchase

Oh ya, I see that hit when I Google it too. Right after 26 hits and just before the next 50+ hits that all that say 1.5 seconds is the accepted standard reaction time. How does information get posted on wickipedia anyway? As I told Hazelnut when she challenged my grammar, if you look hard enough you can usually find something on the internet that supports any wrong information.

El, thank you for responding. I added the bold.

Did you take the test? Try it without you hand on your mouse.

El, it is also called a Citation, try it some time, this is the source of the quote or information that has been presented, this citation allows the reader to follow your information trail. That way they (the reader) can comprehend whether or not you made the information up.

Do you pilot your boat with your hand on or off the throttle? I have only ridden in a car with one person that hovered their left foot over the brake pedal while driving a car. I know I do not keep my foot over the brake while driving my vehicle. But I did always have a hand on the throttle of our boat while underway, I even keep my hands on my paddle while canoeing.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

Please do. Why ask me to do your research if you have your own sources? I'll hold my breath for you to come back and tell us what you find.

Done the research already. I have copies of all the minutes of the transportation committee regarding SL. Including the closed sessions and the public sessions. I don't see a note that Ryan blasted the marine patrol about their findings. Can you point to me your source to this claim? I'm getting tired of your spin.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I don't think any boat should be heading towards a stationary object within 150' at 70 mph or 45 mph..."

Somebody enlighten the Marine Patrol!

The MPs failed to capture 2009 Winnipesaukee speeders using their ¼-mile-range radar—from a dock!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Can I bring my Rotweiler? 'Ms Bette Midler'

actually my little guy is harmless. my 2 year old rides him and he gets beat up by cats.. but you have to be careful of the stereotype of those breeds.. we could be labeled "cowboys" for having that particular type although they are perfect family dogs... wow where have I heard this before in relation to...........................

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

actually my little guy is harmless. my 2 year old rides him and he gets beat up by cats.. but you have to be careful of the stereotype of those breeds.. we could be labeled "cowboys" for having that particular type although they are perfect family dogs... wow where have I heard this before in relation to...........................

Bette is an old grandmother who let my grandkids paint her nails! LOL! And Duke the Siamese will 'kick' Bette out of her bed so he can sleep there!

My neigbor's toy poodle is viscous! Already bitten a number of folks and has a warning from the local constable. We name the poodle 'Ms Winnfabs' LOL!