What Speed Limit ????????

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Ryan

This is not an attack on your grammar, but these questions lack question marks or any resemblance to a question.

You got me there...fixed it. And I ought to be able handle an attack on my grammar...I wouldn't hesitate to attack someone else's.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

You got me there...fixed it. And I ought to be able handle an attack on my grammar...I wouldn't hesitate to attack someone else's.

PULL OVER!!! This is the grammar police!!!


Nice work on the multi quoting. I'm glad you figured it out. Now for some guidelines. Don't be going all Acres Per Second on us and using 625 quotes per post. It gives me a headache.

[Pineedles]

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

I'm in for a meeting.

Originally Posted by Ryan

This is not an attack on your grammar, but ...

"It's not about the money, but..."; "Don't get me wrong, I love him like a brother, but...."; "This is not an attack on your grammar, but ..." - Famous insincerities. This was nothing less than another attack by the grammar police. Now "you're" grammar better never stray or you get what you deserve.

Originally Posted by Ryan

We have speed limits on roads that are a result of years and years of facts and studies.

Maybe in some cases. But in most cases they were just routinely assigned according to the highway type. If what you say was the case, then it would be a HUGE coincidence that almost all interstates have the same two or three limits (55, 65, and 70), and almost all parkways have the same 45MPH limit. If what you say was the case, one highway would have a 54MPH limit, another would have a 63MPH limit, and another might have an 88MPH limit...each based on those years and years of facts and studies that determined just what the exact right speed limit was right for each stretch of each highway. Do you really think that they did studies on all of NH's highways and determined that almost all of them deserved the exact same 65MPH speed limits for almost all portions of each? The 65 limit on 93 was assigned with the same degree of specificity that 45/25 was chosen in HB-847...65 is the speed that "works" on almost all highways and 45/25 is the speed that "works" on hundreds and hundreds of lakes around the country. It lets the other boaters feel safe while allowing for any appropriate activity. It is a pretty fast speed in a boat, yet slow enough to allow for mutual enjoyment of the lake by all boaters. It is a good COMPROMISE.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Speed limits were intially put in place as a means of conservation and not safety (please see my earlier post).

Just because you cite your own earlier post does not make it so. Original speed limits were most certainly established for safety purposes. The temporary reduction to the nation-wide 55 max limit in the 70's was a fuel conservation measure.

Originally Posted by Ryan

there are no facts to show that speeding is a problem on any of NH lakes.

Common sense and all those thousands of people attending hearings and writing letters was all the "facts" that were needed to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that speeding was a problem. Speeding is not a problem on Winnipesaukee anymore. Let's keep it this way.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I would definately be willing for all of us to get together but so far not too many people saying they would be willing.... Any supporters willing to meet the opposers?

Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Any chance the NH legislature could put a ban on multi quoting. It is killing this website.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

Sir, I have been reading your posts as I had decided I was not going to put you on ignore. Instead, I decided to effectively ignore you- I was letting you get under my skin (my bad, I know better, lesson learned).

I will say that this quote of yours is a new low- SL opponents are criminals and scofflaws, legbreakers? You think that if you met with your so called gang of 8, a police presence would be necessary? Really? I am sorry you feel that way. What a terrible way to go through life.

I will ask any SL supporter that feels someone who breaks the 45/25 is a criminal and scofflaw to please honestly tell me you obey every roadway SL. If you do not, do you consider yourself a criminal and scofflaw?

Have a good night.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

Sounds like a "hallway party" invitation to me. Seems to me that there will be plenty of opportunity for how-do-you-do's at the hearings. And police will be there too.

How did you know that one/some of us are Law enforcement officers?????

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Now "you're" grammar better never stray or you get what you deserve.

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by elchase

Maybe in some cases. But in most cases they were just routinely assigned according to the highway type. If what you say was the case, then it would be a HUGE coincidence that almost all interstates have the same two or three limits (55, 65, and 70), and almost all parkways have the same 45MPH limit. If what you say was the case, one highway would have a 54MPH limit, another would have a 63MPH limit, and another might have an 88MPH limit...each based on those years and years of facts and studies that determined just what the exact right speed limit was right for each stretch of each highway. Do you really think that they did studies on all of NH's highways and determined that almost all of them deserved the exact same 65MPH speed limits for almost all portions of each? The 65 limit on 93 was assigned with the same degree of specificity that 45/25 was chosen in HB-847...65 is the speed that "works" on almost all highways and 45/25 is the speed that "works" on hundreds and hundreds of lakes around the country. It lets the other boaters feel safe while allowing for any appropriate activity. It is a pretty fast speed in a boat, yet slow enough to allow for mutual enjoyment of the lake by all boaters. It is a good COMPROMISE.

This makes absolutely no sense, but if this logic were to prevail, wouldn't certain parts of the lake be subject to a higher speed limit than the more 'thickly settled' neighborhoods?

Originally Posted by elchase

Just because you cite your own earlier post does not make it so. Original speed limits were most certainly established for safety purposes. The temporary reduction to the nation-wide 55 max limit in the 70's was a fuel conservation measure.

Read it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Originally Posted by elchase

Common sense and all those thousands of people attending hearings and writing letters was all the "facts" that were needed to see beyond a shadow of a doubt that speeding was a problem. Speeding is not a problem on Winnipesaukee anymore. Let's keep it this way.

We obviously come to an impasse when it comes to the definition of a fact. I tend to use the commonly accepted version, which excludes things such as feelings, perceptions, opinions and the like.

The law is not working. How do I know it is not working, this past summer there were still boats violating no wake zones, violating the 150' rule regularly, failing to maintain a proper lookout, BUI, boating without a certificate and finally speeding, day and night. The list goes on and on.

It is a solution to a non existant problem. How do I know it was not a problem, because there was a study that showed that during a six month period, 0.075% of the boats were able to achieve a speed greater than 60MPH. There were also ZERO 'high speed' accidents before the SL and ZERO 'high speed' accidents after. While some argue this is the result of the speed limit, I will continue to contend that speed is, and was never an issue.

For the record, I do not own a GFBL.

I'll repost this for you to read again. How can you argue with the Director of the Division of Safety Services? He appears to have some credibility and knowledge of the issue, no?

GILFORD, NH – New Hampshire has the lowest rate of recreational boating fatalities in New England, according to US Coast Guard statistics, and is among seven states that have the lowest rates in the country. ...David T. Barrett, Director of the Division of Safety Services, said the low fatality rates reflect a combination of factors, such as mandatory boater education, aggressive patrol and a cooperative spirit and partnership between the marine trades and water-related tourist businesses.

[Kracken]

I would like to commend OCD for his offer to set up a meeting. I for one would be willing to attend. I would hope APS, BI, TB and Sunset would attend as well. As for Mr. Chase, In spite of the fact you have insulted every person that disagrees with your point of view, I would like to meet you in person. I would hope that you really don’t believe your personal safety would be at risk but I can assure you the “cowboys and scofflaws” wish you no harm. I would expect a meeting to be cordial and it would be difficult to figure out who had the opposing views.

I have met some of the speed limit opponents and I can tell you they are good people. I would be astonished to find out that even one member that supports the limits are not as well.

Come on...If Nixon can go to China.....

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

This back and forth is not coming closer to a compromise yet. I think OCD suggested a meeting? I will say this, it is entertainment (sometimes boring entertainment, but entertainment none the less) as we transition to winter topics, but that's about it.

This horse has been beaten and he has been beaten severely and I believe unfortunately he will not survive.