Speed limit permanent to be filed!

[Bear Islander]

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Bear Islander I call BS on that one. That case has not been tried yet, and you are not the Judge or the Jury. So leave it out. This latest move shows Winnfabs for what they really are. An Extremist Group, period, the end. Word on the street is they have already drawn up a bill aimed at boats larger than 30 ft, So called Wake makers, definitely aimed at cabin cruisers, no doubt they are going to claim, erosion, fear of big wakes etc.... These people need to be shut down.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? NO! (a famous line from Animal House). Well it ain't over now, that's for sure.

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

PS: Someone started a pro-speed limit thread here:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8243

Please post there as requested by the tread starter.

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Supporters are not excluded from other threads unless you start an "Opposers Thread" to offset the "Supporters Thread". Other threads (like this one) are open to everyone.

OK Don, thanks for the message. Would you be opposed to an "opposers thread"?

[BroadHopper]

It seems like everyone here oppose the SL. Except for Bear Islander.

Don, I don't see the Thanks button.

[Bear Islander]

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

I wasn't aware anyone was in denial over the accident. Can you enlighten some of us that perhaps are a little foggy on the details?

1) What exactly never happened, and who said it would never happen? What happened?


2) What other Speed-Related accidents have occurred? Do you have a running list? With Details?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Talk about denial!

Some people really have their head in the sand about last years accident. In a public SL debate that accident will at the forefront. It is EXACTLY the kind of accident that we were told had never happened, and would never happen. Of course even that was a canard, there have been other speed related accidents and even fatalities in the past.

In what way was that "accident" speed related ... in the sense that the SL, if followed, would have been applicable and prevented the "accident" ?

[Pineedles]

Do you mean that if the speed of the boat was under 25 mph that there would have not been a death? Or do you mean there would not have been a crash? Or, are you saying that last year's posts by some folks, said that a crash like occurred would have nothing to do with speed? I'm confused.

[fatlazyless]

Here in New Hampshire, a 25 year old male can kill 3 people and badly injure a forth and the New Hampshire supreme court can declare him to not be a negligent car driver because "for some unknown reason he strayed across the center line for two seconds on Route 49 in Thornton in June 2006 and struck head-on, two Harley Davidsons with two married couples."

It can be somewhat reasonably argued that three deaths are three times worse than one death.

If and when the NHRBA president's trial goes to court, it will be interesting to watch the legal chess game that plays out between the Belknap county attorney and the defendant. Any verdict is possible now, considering what happened with the Thornton catastrophe?

[Bear Islander]

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, I'm not going there.

I could detail the accidents, speeds etc. but what is the point? You have heard it all before. Anyway I don't have to..... the battle is over.

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

[SIKSUKR]

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Same old liberal crap.Make statements with nothing to back them up.Then when called out refuse to discuss it.Sounds like our current government.

Liberal crap?? Guess it depends on point of view. They remind me of birthers.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The battle was over, yes. But after your post, you must expound upon your thoughts, even if in an instructive manner.

PS: I believe in the Safe and Reasonable speed limit laws in place in some jurisdictions. It is Safe and Prudent, given the conditions. In the accident last year, most of us agree it would "probably" apply. I also think most of the opposers know when it's prudent to go headway speed, and when to be cautious in congested areas, and so on.

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

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

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm glad you agree that a safe and reasonable speed limit law would "probably" apply to last years accident.

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

That is from HB847, the speed limit law in New Hampshire. In my opinion last years accident would "absolutely" have been in violation had the law been in effect.

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

[VtSteve]

It would appear ELCHASE, that you aren't paying attention. Many people have responded to threads this year indicating that the same problems that existed before, exist today. People have pointed out and described specific incidents on the lake, quite a few of them I might add, where they did not feel safe and have had to alter their boating style to protect themselves.

I know it's convenient to focus on what you consider to be fast enough in a boat, opinions vary. But this quote from you is a prime example of not getting it.

Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

It is Broke, and no, people cannot feel safe anytime on the lake. Anybody can go to Winfabs and read their propaganda. But people that share your viewpoint as stated, do not and will not participate in discussions of these problems. I might reiterate an rather inconvenient truth, again. A very select few people on these forums own boats that can do 60 mph, or even 50 mph. What you don't want to admit is that this is not the issue. You can say it is, but that does not make it so. The MP themselves know this, most everyone does. If you have a beef with the people themselves or their boats in particular, state so. Everyone discusses these things pretty freely, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Participate in the Captain Bonehead thread and make us believers. There are obviously many out there that do not share your belief that all is safe and wonderful on the water. Perhaps you should at least show an interest in their stories?

At least give some consideration to what's being said about unsafe boating on the lake as it is today.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

What is your problem? You are so fixated on a speed limit. Please reread what I wrote. What I said was that there is no question in my mind that the speed limit was not relevant that night-25MPH, no way, she should have been at headway.

I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

What is your problem? You are so fixated on a speed limit. Please reread what I wrote. What I said was that there is no question in my mind that the speed limit was not relevant that night-25MPH, no way, she should have been at headway.

I DON'T FEEL SAFER ON THIS LAKE BECAUSE OF A SPEED LIMIT!!

I'm sorry but you either don't understand my point, or you do not understand what the speed limit law says.

The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this....

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

45/25 is only one part of the current law.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry but you either don't understand my point, or you do not understand what the speed limit law says.

The speed limit law is relevant because the current speed limit law says this....

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

45/25 is only one part of the current law.

BI- my response was to Elchase. You and I were saying the same thing, I believe. My point was that the SL could have been 15 MPH and on that night it would have been too fast for the conditions.

[MAXUM]

As I have posted before on this very subject, no law(s) can ever legislate responsibility. I don't believe the speed limit is making the lake any safer than it was before, nor is it stopping those who want to go fast from doing so. After all the lengths I've seen stupidity taken in regards to operation far exceed the amount of laws that could potentially be written to forbid each and every discreet act. Additionally I might add that most of the idiotic behavior I've witnessed had little to do with speed and more to do with throwing any kind of prudent judgment right out the window.

The last thing I think anyone wants to see is a bunch of legislators in Concord that become "ban" happy as exhibited by our neighbors south of the border. Please enough is enough... a simple reckless provision is enough if enforced.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by elchase

So "safe and prudent" could by this logic be the panacea for ending all crime, and if we only had one blanket "safe and prudent for the conditions" law to cover all bad behavior we would not need to outlaw murder, rape, armed robbery, etc. Obviously, anytime there is a collision, a shooting, a gas explosion, a deck collapse, etc, then someone did not perform his/her duty safely or prudently for the conditions. But nobody would suggest we abandon all of our existing laws for a "safe and prudent" standard against any of these, because there are always going to be people who think murder is justified or that 125MPH on a Sunday afternoon is safe and prudent. And all we're going to be able to do is tell the families of the deceased that we are able to charge that guy with violating the "safe and prudent" law.
"Safe and prudent" speed laws are what we had before and clearly were not working..and have been tried in other states and thrown out by the courts as being too vague.
45 and 25 mph are very clear and definitive limits that everyone can remember and obey, and these are the fastest one can go regardless of one's personal degree of prudence or regardless of the conditions.
And as the previous poster explained, we still have the "safe and prudent" clause as a back-up and compromise for when conditions do not allow such speeds.
I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

Well since Elchase refuses to elaborate on the unfounded pieces of data "80% of NH residents want this law" (in the supporter thread) which I have been told was a poll taken. I have to ask:

Where and whom did the poll, and how were the questions worded? Were these people polled a good sampling of boaters or just residents without boating experience? Not to mention it is again difficult to say 80% of the population from a poll because sampling does not constitute a unbiased % of the population. That would be like saying, lets not hold elections, lets just go by this Poll conducted by CNN.....

I have no problem with a supporter and opposer threads where people feel "safe" to discuss their own thoughts without opposition. What I have an issue with is people making remarks that go unquestioned that others can then go back and contitute as "fact".

The old saying " I read it on the internet / paper so it must be true " comes to mind.

I also invite elchase to answer the questions posed by myself and other posters that have been posed since the intial posts.

Is this a case of "Ring and Run"?

[Kracken]

Ocdactive,

There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts.

Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone…

There is a presence I’ve not felt since….

I think somebody is BACK

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Ocdactive,

There are no discussions allowed there. Certain people’s facts are The Facts.

Something is just not adding up. There is a certain tone…

There is a presence I’ve not felt since….

I think somebody is BACK

LMAO!! very funny..

I understand no discussions no debates, however it shouldn't give your free rain to just post any piece of data and not state where it is from or how it was derived.. Otherwise anyone could turn and start making up %'s and posting them in the opposers thread as well.

Later on someone could go back and think they are accurate or others (not going to name names) could go and use many different pieces of different threads to try to prove a point.

I am just looking for checks and balances.

If you want to make your own thoughts and opinions known and state them there I am all for that and I believe that is what the ideology was for their inception. However if you go there to start pushing an agenda and making statements from others, data, facts, or supposed truths from others then you should be able to be called out on them.

I think that if we can not question these so called facts then the moderator should have anything not "opinions" or "personal experiences" removed from those threads.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I am just looking for checks and balances.

The checks and balances are all the other threads in this sub-forum that are open to you.

How about if you opponents post the facts, figures and observations that support your position instead of just attacking the supporters?

I'm not seeing much productive discussion about the topic. This is not what I had in mind when I reopened it.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by elchase

I just do not understand why one would need to go faster than 45mph in a boat on this lake. Is the thrill of high speed addicting to some degree? Aren't there other ways to satisfy that addiction without diminishing the rights of others to share and enjoy the people's lake in peace?
It cannot be denied that there were many many people who were either scared to use the lake or scared when they used it under the previous laws and conditions. Now EVERYONE can use the lake whenever they want and feel safe doing so. And even those who like speed can go up to 45 mph within the law...a pretty fast speed in a boat.
What's the problem? Why fix what ain't broke?

Speed is a Relative Term.

45mph in your boat maybe fast.

45mph in my boat is just a tad over cruise speed and the superior hull design makes it seem as you are only going 25mph.

Yes Speed is Addictive!!!!

I agree 100% with Safe Boating for everyone on the lake and I have done so for the last 10+ years. I am fanatical over the 150 rule and would never do a high speed blast in one of the bays or with boat traffic in the area.


HOWEVER, Speed Limit or No Speed Limit if I am in the Broads all alone and I feel it is safe to do so 50mph to 60+mph will occur often...


Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around?

[OCDACTIVE]

Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....

I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits:

"Have you ever been in a performance boat??"

It is apples and oranges.

Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys.

I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident.....

I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe.

If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat.

It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it.

On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc.

Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner.

It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Onlywinni you hit the nail on the head.....

I again have to ask those who are in favor of the limits:

"Have you ever been in a performance boat??"

It is apples and oranges.

Also, those of us who have a passion (and of course every group has exceptions to the rule) but for the majority of us the last thing we want to do is upset anyone or put ourselves in a bad light. Not to mention screw up our dream toys.

I have waited over 15 years to be able to get this boat, I want to use it, I want to use is Safely, I want others to enjoy it, and by all means I don't want to ever put a knick on it no matter have an accident.....

I am phanatical about the 150 foot rule as well as playing it safe.

If in doubt "Stop". That goes for anyone at anytime driving a powerboat.

It always comes back to the question is it that you don't like speed? or you just don't like those individuals who do like speed? It is really an upsetting and discriminating if you think about it.

On numerous occassions I have read that the answer is for those of us who enjoy going over 45 mph that we should go somewhere else: another smaller lake, the ocean, etc.

Why should I, someone who boats safely and has lived on the lake for 30 years in one way or another, have to sell, pack my family up, and go elsewhere to use my toy in a safe manner.

It's just a shame that those who don't understand continue to pass judgement and make false assumptions that effect those who are not part of the problem but part of the solution.

Yes, I have been in a performance boat. I have operated a performance boat. Many years ago I worked on an offshore race boat. The company I own was involved with the the power boat races held on Winni years ago. I LOVE speed. My hope is that some time next year I will be able to go MACH 4. Sorry if this doesn't match the stereotype you have in your mind.

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, I have been in a performance boat. I have operated a performance boat. Many years ago I worked on an offshore race boat. The company I own was involved with the the power boat races held on Winni years ago. I LOVE speed. My hope is that some time next year I will be able to go MACH 4. Sorry if this doesn't match the stereotype you have in your mind.

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

Yes we know but for reasons that had little to do with speed.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I also believe in a speed limit on Winnipesaukee.

Do you believe in a compromised limit though. I could deal with what Woodsy stated a 65/35 type limit. Although to be fair Woodsy said 30 at night I disagree and think it should be a strict 35. I think one of the best posts I've seen in all of this was his post stating how many boats on the lake can actually go over 65 in the first place. Not many in case your keeping score.

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by onlywinni

Doing 60+ in one of the crowded bays is inconsiderate and stupid, but I would like to know who is being harmed by me doing 65 in the Broads when no one is around?

Answer: The NH State Legislator is being harmed. You're defying them, and they can't stand that. Besides, sometime in the far distant future, maybe even 100 years from now, an accident might occur that could be blamed on speed, and if they could just prevent that one accident from happening, then their time on this planet will be justified.

That's the true dream of all nanny's.

Now please, put your bright yellow head cap back on and sit down and read a nice book today. DON'T venture out into the real world where some harm, somewhere, might come to you. Our nanny legislators will use any harm as an excuse to put forth additional laws -- "for the children's sake".

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

Answer: The NH State Legislator is being harmed. You're defying them, and they can't stand that. Besides, sometime in the far distant future, maybe even 100 years from now, an accident might occur that could be blamed on speed, and if they could just prevent that one accident from happening, then their time on this planet will be justified.

That's the true dream of all nanny's.

Now please, put your bright yellow head cap back on and sit down and read a nice book today. DON'T venture out into the real world where some harm, somewhere, might come to you. Our nanny legislators will use any harm as an excuse to put forth additional laws -- "for the children's sake".

.....

Well they must be really mad, because Friday I saw several go fast boats in the broads traveling in the 60-70mph range(one looked alot like me). There was not another boat within 1500' feet when I saw them doing it, but I am sure some type of horror or emotional scarring occurred!!!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

The issue I have is that a safe and prudent speed that night would have been well under the speed limit that currently exists.

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

Absolutely BI, I might only add that somewhere between staying still and under 25 mph would be the ideal in that situation. If you Had to be on the lake that night, headway speed and more than one lookout would be the safe way to go.

People have been cited in traffic accidents for doing 50 mph or so on an interstate in a snow storm. Too fast for conditions. It's been used in many courts in boating accidents as well, successfully.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Reasonable and prudent" IS the speed limit that currently exists!!!!! Therefore even if the boat was going less than 25 mph it would STILL have been in violation.

Yup and would have been since 1981 ....


270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.


http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/...0/270-29-a.htm


However all of this skirts the question as to how this incident speaks to relevance of the 25 MPH limit. It doesn't. "Reasonable and prudent" was an attempt by those opposed the HB162 to stop a set MPH limit. It was rejected as such and only included in HB847 as an adjunct to the 25 MPH limit. As such it's redundant with the RSA above.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

May very well be BI, and I do understand and respect your statement. But even in your post, you reference "last year's fatal accident". It involved a single cruiser-type vessel, not a go fast boat. It also, from all indications so far, did not involve a very high rate of speed. If the SL had been in place at that point in time, I defy anyone to "seriously" state that the accident would not have occurred. Same with the other "infamous accident", also at a fairly slow speed.

I know, and I'm pretty sure you know, that the outcome would have been a very positive thing had both sides really focused on the problems, not the solutions. I really would like to see an organization that had everyone under one umbrella. It would have served the public well. But in this economy, and what I feel will be much higher boat prices in the future, all of this may very well be a moot argument.

As LI on the other thread pointed out, some middle ground should be found. Some think that people like myself are part of the small minority of GFBL people. I know my boat can at times do 55 or so, but it's not that fast, nor loud at all. I have a standard Alpha drive with UW exhaust. It's a cuddy cabin for crying out loud. It's a typical mischaracterization, but an organized one. Say it enough, and it will stick. There are very few (from what I've seen) GFBL boaters on these threads. What, maybe a dozen max?

A major point of those opposing the law was to try and get people fixated on the problems. The majority of proponents wanted you to focus your attention on one particular group of people, and ignore the rest. It's an argument of perception, an argument where a minority is singled out as being the root cause of all evil, facts be dammed. It's an argument that was successfully refuted south of NE, where it was clearly shown that proponents of a SL law targeted an area that was, in fact already a NW zone. Members of a certain Yacht club, were also shown on camera speeding through this NWZ in their YC boats, and operating too close to other boaters at the same time.

But that's neither here nor there. Even if the SL law is maintained, permanent or otherwise, something has to be done about safety. I don;t think anyone seriously expects proponents of the SL law to even be in the same room when a safety discussion occurs. They rarely (if ever) participate in any discussions concerning the infamous Captain Bonehead. A very interesting aspect of this discussion I might add. To the point where some SL proponents think there is peace and harmony on the lake now, whereas others have experienced the same old situations as in the past.

Hint: If things are admitted to be bad now, with decreased boat traffic, then what have they accomplished? Perhaps the recent spat of better weather will cause APS to update his thread that shows details of the numbers of boats, seemingly updated on the hour.

[BroadHopper]

The defunct group did more than what WINFABS could ever do in the name of SAFETY. The group encourage MP to put out 150' bouys outside of pubic docks to make it visible what 150' really is.
They also sponsor the No Wake Zone between Eagle Island and Governor's Island. One member even put out No Wake signs in the Weirs Channel!
One of the rules they were going to sponsor was to make the area between Cattle landing and Bear Island a no wake on weekends. There were other rules and regulations to spoinsor and I am not going to elaborate.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

Bear Islander. I have read all of your posts and lets just agree to disagree on the speed limit issue.

However.
1. the fat lady has sung for 2 years. Currently they go away at the end of 2010 so it may be premature to say "they are here to stay"

2. Please do not use the tragic accident, which is still pending, as a pawn either for or against the speed limit debate. Let it play out on its own and we will then see the "proven" causes

3. I will not disagree with you on the compromise you propose. I don't like it but I can go along with it. Unfortunately I think it would be again used by some (not saying you) as a tool to try to put the limits on the entire lake.

Carry on.

[HUH]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The fat lady has already sung. Limits are here to stay.

There may have been an outside chance for the opponents before last years fatal accident. Now there is none.

If you guys are smart you will look for a compromise like an exception for the broads. If you go back to "No Limits" you have already lost!

What fatal accident involving excessive speed are you referring to.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by HUH

What fatal accident involving excessive speed are you referring to.

Must be the Diamond Island accident. I'm not aware of any other fatal boat accident last year.

The speed of the accident, though excessive, will likely have a limited affect on the decision to keep the speed limit. It is the affiliation of the operator in that accident with performance boating that will probably convince NH legislators to allow the speed limit to stay. Politically speaking, that was a pretty big blunder.