So what's the timetable for the bill now?

fatlazyless · 03-09-2006, 12:33 PM

The problem with 'reasonable & prudent' when applying it to a boat speed limit is that different boaters will have different opinions as to what is 'reasonable & prudent.'

In a newspaper article from last summer, the driver of **** a 47' Fountain powered by three 620hp engines, capable of about 100mph, said that going 50-60mph at night is "perfectly reasonable" with the proper running lights and eye glasses. He made a point of differentiating from going these speeds out on the broads and not in the bays.

In addition to the safety factor, what about the noise factor of going these speeds?

Concord Monitor June 22, 2005 - Here, speed knows no limits

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...0050622/REPOSI...

Drummer Boy · 03-09-2006, 12:41 PM

The Laconia Daily Sun is reporting this morning that this bill is on life support

Woodsy · 03-09-2006, 01:01 PM

I will wait to see what happens. As with the House of Representatives, anything is possible!

FLL, your link doesn't seem to work?

There is also a new noise bill in the works that allows for what is essentially instantaneous dockside testing... that will cut down on the noise offenders.

Woodsy

fatlazyless · 03-09-2006, 01:42 PM

Sorry about that, but posting a link using my ten year old web-tv box is a hit-or-miss. Makes me feel just like I'm cruisn' under that Birch Island bridge on a full moon night and then back home. "Where's the bottom and which way from here........gosh, is this a big lake?"

codeman671 · 03-09-2006, 02:33 PM

I received a response via a relative in the Marine industry from Marth Fuller-Clark that she is going to support the bill. If anyone wants a copy of her response PM me. Hopefully she is on the minority side of the vote!!!

Airwaves · 03-09-2006, 05:56 PM

So did the Senate Transporation and Interstate Cooperation Committee take a vote to either recommend or not recommend this bill?

If so anyone know if they voted yea or nay?

fatlazyless · 03-09-2006, 07:06 PM

Here's what Senator Martha Fuller Clark said to me.

Dear fatlazyless,

Thankyou for contacting me with your concerns regarding HB 162. After much thought and consideration, I believe that it is important to protect all citizens and visitors who are using the New Hampshire Lakes. The best way is to pass a specific speed limit for day and night time speed limits. For this particular reason I am going to vote in favor of HB 162. For the bill puts in place a clear and definable safety regulation with regard to how fast boats may or may not travel on lakes.

Sincerely,

Senator Martha Fuller Clark

Skip · 03-09-2006, 07:14 PM

Here's what Martha said to me.

Dear Skip,

Thankyou for contacting me with your concerns regarding HB 162. After much thought and consideration, I believe that it is important to protect all citizens and visitors who are using the New Hampshire Lakes. The best way is to pass a specific speed limit for day and night time speed limits. For this particular reason I am going to vote in favor of HB 162. For the bill puts in place a clear and definable safety regulation with regard to how fast boats may or may not travel on lakes.

However, for a $100 "re-elect Martha" contribution, I could be convinced to raise the proposed limits to 35/55.

A $250 "donation" could convince me to raise the daytime limit to 70 Mph.

And a reasonable and prudent $500 donation could convine me to be "reasonable & prudent" also!

Anyway, you know where to send the money!

Sincerely,

Martha

fatlazyless · 03-09-2006, 09:54 PM

Gee whiz Skipper, that Martha needs to raise her prices at least up to the 500.....750......1000 dollar range where the Republicans all live. But the Democrats were always the party for the little guy. Either way, everyone....the politicians, the voters, the GF-BLs, and even the kayakers are all a little guilty. Everyone is at least a little guilty, one way or another.

So on one side, it's "50-60 mph at night is perfectly reasonable and proper" and on the other side it's "we need a clear & definable speed limit." Is there a middle compromise possible here? Probably not!

Cal · 03-09-2006, 10:21 PM

And here all this time I though NJ had the best politicians money could buy

codeman671 · 03-09-2006, 10:48 PM

It looks like the same response to everyone, we got an exact copy.

Airwaves · 03-09-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Original post by codeman671 It looks like the same response to everyone, we got an exact copy.

We're all dealing with politicians, only the smart ones have more than two form letters!

ITD · 03-09-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...100....250....500......dollars, thats cheap!
.......at least up to the 500.....750......1000 dollar range where the Republicans all live. But the Democrats were always the party for the little guy......

Ah Less, I love the way you sneak the little political jabs in there but I think you have your info. wrong. Take a look www.opensecrets.org and check out who the little guy gave more to on the last Presidential election. It's opposite of what you think and I'm willing to bet the same thing is happening around the lake.

03-09-2006, 12:33 PM	#1
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,764 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,016 Times in 740 Posts	...different strokes for different folks! The problem with 'reasonable & prudent' when applying it to a boat speed limit is that different boaters will have different opinions as to what is 'reasonable & prudent.' In a newspaper article from last summer, the driver of **** a 47' Fountain powered by three 620hp engines, capable of about 100mph, said that going 50-60mph at night is "perfectly reasonable" with the proper running lights and eye glasses. He made a point of differentiating from going these speeds out on the broads and not in the bays. In addition to the safety factor, what about the noise factor of going these speeds? Concord Monitor June 22, 2005 - Here, speed knows no limits http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...0050622/REPOSI...

03-09-2006, 12:41 PM	#2
Drummer Boy Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 40 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	it's on life support The Laconia Daily Sun is reporting this morning that this bill is on life support

03-09-2006, 01:01 PM	#3
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,966 Thanks: 80 Thanked 980 Times in 440 Posts	I will wait to see what happens. As with the House of Representatives, anything is possible! FLL, your link doesn't seem to work? There is also a new noise bill in the works that allows for what is essentially instantaneous dockside testing... that will cut down on the noise offenders. Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

03-09-2006, 01:42 PM	#4
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,764 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,016 Times in 740 Posts	...trying to post a link! Sorry about that, but posting a link using my ten year old web-tv box is a hit-or-miss. Makes me feel just like I'm cruisn' under that Birch Island bridge on a full moon night and then back home. "Where's the bottom and which way from here........gosh, is this a big lake?"

03-09-2006, 07:06 PM	#7
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,764 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,016 Times in 740 Posts	....."a clear and definable safety regulation" Here's what Senator Martha Fuller Clark said to me. Dear fatlazyless, Thankyou for contacting me with your concerns regarding HB 162. After much thought and consideration, I believe that it is important to protect all citizens and visitors who are using the New Hampshire Lakes. The best way is to pass a specific speed limit for day and night time speed limits. For this particular reason I am going to vote in favor of HB 162. For the bill puts in place a clear and definable safety regulation with regard to how fast boats may or may not travel on lakes. Sincerely, Senator Martha Fuller Clark Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-09-2006 at 07:17 PM. Reason: typo

03-09-2006, 02:33 PM	#5
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,501 Thanks: 221 Thanked 816 Times in 489 Posts	I received a response via a relative in the Marine industry from Marth Fuller-Clark that she is going to support the bill. If anyone wants a copy of her response PM me. Hopefully she is on the minority side of the vote!!!

03-09-2006, 05:56 PM	#6
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	So did the Senate Transporation and Interstate Cooperation Committee take a vote to either recommend or not recommend this bill? If so anyone know if they voted yea or nay?

03-09-2006, 07:14 PM	#8
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Wow, here's the response I received.... Here's what Martha said to me. Dear Skip, Thankyou for contacting me with your concerns regarding HB 162. After much thought and consideration, I believe that it is important to protect all citizens and visitors who are using the New Hampshire Lakes. The best way is to pass a specific speed limit for day and night time speed limits. For this particular reason I am going to vote in favor of HB 162. For the bill puts in place a clear and definable safety regulation with regard to how fast boats may or may not travel on lakes. However, for a $100 "re-elect Martha" contribution, I could be convinced to raise the proposed limits to 35/55. A $250 "donation" could convince me to raise the daytime limit to 70 Mph. And a reasonable and prudent $500 donation could convine me to be "reasonable & prudent" also! Anyway, you know where to send the money! Sincerely, Martha

03-09-2006, 09:54 PM	#9
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,764 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,016 Times in 740 Posts	...100....250....500......dollars, thats cheap! Gee whiz Skipper, that Martha needs to raise her prices at least up to the 500.....750......1000 dollar range where the Republicans all live. But the Democrats were always the party for the little guy. Either way, everyone....the politicians, the voters, the GF-BLs, and even the kayakers are all a little guilty. Everyone is at least a little guilty, one way or another. So on one side, it's "50-60 mph at night is perfectly reasonable and proper" and on the other side it's "we need a clear & definable speed limit." Is there a middle compromise possible here? Probably not!

03-09-2006, 10:21 PM	#10
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	And here all this time I though NJ had the best politicians money could buy __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

03-09-2006, 10:48 PM	#11
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,501 Thanks: 221 Thanked 816 Times in 489 Posts	It looks like the same response to everyone, we got an exact copy.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode