What Speed Limit ????????

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by RTTOOL

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

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

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

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

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

R2B

[Airwaves]

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

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

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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

No worries sunset.


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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

No worries sunset.


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

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

[Airwaves]

Sunset on the dock wrote:

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

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

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Sunset on the dock wrote:

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

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

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

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


This next part is not directed at you Sunset:

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

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

[NoBozo]

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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

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

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

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

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


This next part is not directed at you Sunset:

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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

I have an idea for a catchier name for my organization:

Ridicliousfabs, borrowed from my kids made up word. I will tell you it's the cutest thing when my twins will get my attention and say "Daddy, daddy look it's one of those Ridiclious boats." I used to try and correct them but it never really worked. They know the word Ridiculous but they still call those boats "ridiclious boats," the word just kind of stuck.

I'd love to see Silent Choice be made legal on the lake. I think it would go a LONG way to making the lake quieter, contrary to what some people think.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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

Well you are right.. Silent choice or captains call (same thing for HP engines) can only be used under 2000 rpms. In other words ideling through channels, docks etc. But as far as going by your area on plain this wouldn't work. you would blow your engine. APS says there is a type that can be used all the time but I called a few friends who builds boats and engines. They said there isn't a switchable exhaust to do that. There are mufflers that can be switch manually but it would be the same as what I have on mine now. It would be the difference between straight hull exhaust and what is legal now. So unfortunately there isn't anything really to help your situation other then perhaps this summer I can pick you up and maybe you will suddenly learn to like them?? I know I know.. Big Stretch there.. but offer is still on the table.

here are my mufflers.. Cost me a fortune but I am legal and NO powerloss.

[ApS]

Because of the noise made by a politically-well-connected boat salesman, tailpipe-exhaust noise measurement on the lake was changed two years ago.

If Captain's Choice were to be allowed, the previous decibel level would have to be restored and the tailpipe-exhaust noise measurement returned to "drive-bys" measurement.

(Measuring noise at the dock has spawned a cottage industry to cheat on compliance with the tailpipe-exhaust noise standard).

The trouble with "drive-bys" is that boat speeds have gotten so fast, that "drive-by" measure for tailpipe-exhaust noise itself has been gradually disallowed by many law enforcement agencies—as a danger to themselves!

|
|


...and those LEOs are in the Flatlands, where they won't ever hear The Loon—which, among other sounds, can echo and reecho softly among New Hampshire's lakes and mountains.
|
|

[BroadHopper]

Seems like everyone has an agenda or two about boat owners on the lake. Boneheads, big cruisers, noise, speed, restrictive laws, erosion of shore front, erosion of rights, etc. etc. etc.

And the speed limit law at one time was a 'catch all' or 'just a start' hench, 'feel good'? The begining of a never ending bunch of 'feel good' laws?

The one thing that we are all concerned about is safety! And the worst offender of safe boating are the boneheads! Why not tackle that and nick the problem in the bud! Education and Enforcement are the foundation of boating safety.

By now, everyone should have taken the NH boater's course. One of the reason why the lake is safe despite the increase number of boaters. The biggest 'loophole' are the renters, who can rent without taking the course. A questionaire does not take the place of a course. Most insurance companies give a discount to those who have taken the USCG or Power Squadron course. I would highly reccomend that this should be mandatory requirement for driving a boat in NH. Save money too!

Enforcement? Well I'm sure everyone will agree that the NHMP does a heck of a job with what little manpower they have. A couple of years ago, Lt. Dunleavy mention at any one day, at the most, he would have 90 full time MP working. That number protect a 1,000 bodies of water and 10,000 miles of rivers and stream. A monumental task to be had. I hate to be the guy who has to assign which body of water and river or stream will be patrolled in any given day. And find out there is a fatal on unprotected water!

With the budget contstraint and economy today, I'm sure the marine patrol is working 'overtime and with more stress' than in the past. Just because we pay our boat registration does not mean the money goes to the marine patrol. All monies collected in the state goes into a general fund and the legislature determine who gets what. Marine Patrol has a low priority in this state.

What can we do?? Other than being 'good doobies' and stay out of trouble, we should be able to reccomend safe reasonable laws that won't tax the marine patrol. Give them laws 'with teeth' that will stand up in court. Not sure if putting up a 'Neighborhood watch' on the lake is doable, but we shouldn't have to take that approach.

Any lawyer will tell you that an arbitrary speed limit like the 45/25 is debatable in court. It can be argue that the excessive speed is reasonable and prudent. That term is vague and can be interpreted in many ways. That is why I am all for adding the USCG rules to replace the 45/25 clause. To give the marine patrol teeth and make it stand up in court. This will effect all boaters, not the 2% GFBL crowd. I'm all for the rest of the bill, the heavy fine, and putting the offense on your driver's record.

How about it folks? Can't we just knock heads and come up with a great compromise and help each other out and reel in the boneheads and cowboys? That is what democracy is about. We can do it!

[DoTheMath]

ok, seriously - I can take it anymore... I've kept pretty much to myself on this 'til now but, El is totally off the reservation! Now he or she is working on "conspiracy theories"!? Really!? How incredibly narrow-minded and neurotic can one person be!? Get out and see the world El, talk to people, see what life is all about - it's a big wonderful world out there - I've seen a lot of it, I know! Talk about manipulating the system and slinging propaganda - in all honesty El, just GIVE IT UP and go away!

I look at everyone else on this forum, hazelnut, OCD, BH, airwaves, sunset, sam, BI, et al... all of us have our opinions on the SL, noise ordinance, etc and yet we all have one thing in common. We all are passionate about the lake, we care about the lake and the people we share it with and we all want to keep it safe and enjoyable for generations to come! Somehow, everyone else has managed to acknowledge each-others differences and yet realized that is what makes us all individuals. Imagine how boring the world would be if we all believed in the same thing, drove the same car, ate the same foods, watched the same tv show... How mundane would life be!? (that was not a rhetorical question, btw...).

Honestly - at the end of the day, I don't care if you support a speed limit or not, I might not agree with you but I certainly don't dislike people over something as simple as an opinion. I love traveling and meeting new people, enjoying new cultures and traditions, it's what makes my life rich! I have made - and still have - some great friends, just by taking a chance on getting to know someone. If I don't like you, I'll just walk away - I'm certainly not going to "get into it" with someone over a difference of opinion - really!! Case-in-point, I have never met or directly spoken to OCD on this forum, but I offered to help him in the spring with his boat. Yeah, that means taking a day - or two, or whatever - and driving to wherever, giving up time that I might be doing something else with, to help someone I never met! Imagine that!? Is that insane of me to do that, what if he is a lunatic and kidnaps me and holds me for ransom!? I guess I'll take my chances - huhl!? Wait, he is a "cult member" too, I am just starting to put all this together now... oh my, what HAVE I gotten myself into!? (for those of you that need clarification, that was me being pretty sarcastic about the whole topic).

In any event, I'm still in for the initial meeting, and I hope everyone that is genuinely interested in meeting some GOOD, sane and rational people look to show up as well. I don't even care if we discuss the SL, just to avoid the first meeting from becoming possibly "contentious", or any other issues people might think to be a concern.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Well you are right.. Silent choice or captains call (same thing for HP engines) can only be used under 2000 rpms. In other words ideling through channels, docks etc. But as far as going by your area on plain this wouldn't work. you would blow your engine. APS says there is a type that can be used all the time but I called a few friends who builds boats and engines. They said there isn't a switchable exhaust to do that. There are mufflers that can be switch manually but it would be the same as what I have on mine now. It would be the difference between straight hull exhaust and what is legal now. So unfortunately there isn't anything really to help your situation other then perhaps this summer I can pick you up and maybe you will suddenly learn to like them?? I know I know.. Big Stretch there.. but offer is still on the table.

here are my mufflers.. Cost me a fortune but I am legal and NO powerloss.

Yeah I'd definitely meet you for breakfast at the town docks, especially if it's OK to bring my little 10 year old guy...would like to see your new and improved boat. But no trying to convert the little guy to your GFBL persuasion . If he converted to GFBL we would be even more upset than if he married outside of his religion, race, political party or other generally accepted marriage partner (just kidding here, we're pretty open minded). We even worry that there may be GFBL teachers in his school that could be subtly trying to recruit him to be a GFBL. I guess we would also have to be careful not to get caught speeding...I can see the headlines in the Laconia Daily Sun now: "Avid Speed Limit and Winnfabs Supporter in GFBL that Gets Pulled Over For Speeding".

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Yeah I'd definitely meet you for breakfast at the town docks, especially if it's OK to bring my little 10 year old guy...would like to see your new and improved boat. But no trying to convert the little guy to your GFBL persuasion . If he converted to GFBL we would be even more upset than if he married outside of his religion, race, political party or other generally accepted marriage partner. We even worry that there may be GFBL teachers in his school that could be subtly trying to recruit him to be a GFBL. I guess we would also have to be careful not to get caught speeding...I can see the headlines in the Laconia Daily Sun now: "Avid Speed Limit and Winnfabs Supporter in GFBL that Gets Pulled Over For Speeding".

LMAO!!! I seriously just spit coffee on the screen.. sounds like a plan.. But only if I can bring my little guy along as well!

[sunset on the dock]

TOP TEN REASONS WHY IT MAY BE BETTER FOR SUNSET NOT TO ATTEND THE JANUARY MEETING AND WHY YOU MAY WELL BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT ME:

10) I'm passionate enough about the speed limit without 3 beers in my system.

9)Yes I could show up and not drink but run risk of making myself and all SL supporters look like dorks.

8) I tend to think of 45/25 as being the compromise...that won't go over very well or make me many friends at the meeting.

7) I find El's posts to be entertaining, especially when he picks up one of the grenades tossed in his direction and throws it back even before it has exploded.

6) I feel more of us should have come to EL's defense regarding issues like the illegal fishing thread and the rude comment about his religion and wayward priests.

5) You remember Sarah Palin's comment about Obama "pallin' around with terrorists". What if my picture were taken and I'm the only SL supporter in the group and the picture got published in the Union Leader...how could I face my friends and family?

4) When everybody is talking horsepower stats and such I may feel a little inadequate talking about my 15 HP 4 cycle Honda outboard.

3)While my wife never forbids anything, she did insist that I update the will before attending.

2)What if some of you guys make fun of my Volvo wagon sitting next to all the pick-up trucks?

1) We named our Labrador Retriever "WINNFABS"...Winny for short(OK I just made that one up because I couldn't come up with another reason).

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

LMAO!!! I seriously just spit coffee on the screen.. sounds like a plan.. But only if I can bring my little guy along as well!

Nice looking kid but that pensive look on his face seems to be saying "Daddy, will you please take me out in a canoe?"

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Nice looking kid but that pensive look on his face seems to be saying "Daddy, will you please take me out in a canoe?"

He actually was just getting over a fever... Loves going in "daddy's boat" was one of the only places I could put him to keep him happy... No problem there.. he got to play in his "fort" (the V berth) and I got to clean the vinyl.. I think its a fact that all kids love the cabin of boats more then anything else.

[tis]

Actually, sunset, I think he is saying: "Daddy go faster." which according to my Mother I always used to say. And my brother wanted to go slower.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by tis

Actually, sunset, I think he is saying: "Daddy go faster." which according to my Mother I always used to say. And my brother wanted to go slower.

Normally I'd agree..... however I took the picture.. so he would have been saying... "Daddy who is the lucky guy driving the boat??"

[Seeker]

Keep it up and i may have to attend as well. Sounds like a good time. I'll leave my p/u home and bring my GFBL car.

[ApS]

That appears to be a new life jacket.

Did you read the warning label inside? (Or better, the "disclaimer"?)

Opponents of a 45-DAY limit won't be happy to see the exact threshold speed at which many of these NEW kids' life jackets are NOT recommended!

"Child PFD" image below:

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

That appears to be a new life jacket.

Did you read the warning label inside? (Or better, the "disclaimer"?)

Opponents of a 45-DAY limit won't be happy to see the exact threshold speed at which many of these NEW kids' life jackets are NOT recommended!

I do agree with you APS. You have to be very careful that the disclaimer is read. Many of these child and adult life jackets for that matter are not made for anytype of speed, only to keep you bouyant in case of emergencies. As you would not wear a standard orange vest to go wake boarding (or at least I would not consider that safe) I wouldn't rely on a ski vest in a poker run. There are specific designs to fit the activity.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Sunset,
You might as well go to the meeting as you will be photo shopped into the summit group photo anyway. If you go in person, they won't have to get creative with who's picture they paste into the photo.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Sunset,
You might as well go to the meeting as you will be photo shopped into the summit group photo anyway. If you go in person, they won't have to get creative with who's picture they paste into the photo.

LOL.. You know this can easily go down a VERY FUNNY path from here.....

[hazelnut]

Not gonna lie to you I'm pretty good with Photoshop and final cut pro. I could easily make it look like sunset is our spokesman!

[OCDACTIVE]

well it looks like we have a good group so far:

Ocd
Gtagrip
DotheMath
Broadhopper
Hazelnut
Nobozo
Pineedles
Sunset (might have to be photoshopped in )

Am I missing anyone?

Just trying to get a solid estimate so I can start looking at venues.. Still leaning towards meredith... Frankly Church Landing Bar isn't bad.. I was there and it can handle a big group or small.. Plus it doesn't have loud music playing etc.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

well it looks like we have a good group so far:

Ocd
Gtagrip
DotheMath
Broadhopper
Hazelnut
Nobozo
Pineedles
Sunset (might have to be photoshopped in )

Am I missing anyone?

Just trying to get a solid estimate so I can start looking at venues.. Still leaning towards meredith... Frankly Church Landing Bar isn't bad.. I was there and it can handle a big group or small.. Plus it doesn't have loud music playing etc.

I should be there.

I will leave the Diesel Truck at home and take my quiet car if that will make some people happier

Here's a couple of guys killed when they tried to turn too sharply for the speed they were going in their "speed boat";
http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10608158

[BroadHopper]

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

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a couple of guys killed when they tried to turn too sharply for the speed they were going in their "speed boat";
http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10608158

The 20 footer they took out to fish has a top speed of 60MPH. Authorities said life jackets would have helped the men survive.

More interesting, Nebraska has an average of 5 deaths per year on it's lakes and have no pending legislation that links speed to safety.

Compare that to the safety record of NH.

[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!

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a couple of guys killed when they tried to turn too sharply for the speed they were going in their "speed boat";
http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10608158

With all do respect...that article proves nothing. We dont know:

-what kind of boat
-the conditions
-the speed

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The 20 footer they took out to fish has a top speed of 60MPH. Authorities said life jackets would have helped the men survive.

More interesting, Nebraska has an average of 5 deaths per year on it's lakes and have no pending legislation that links speed to safety.

Compare that to the safety record of NH.

Not trying to bash or downplay anyone's info but I was just wondering (since we don't know how fast they were going) if the accident could've still happened at 45mph, depending on the boat and how fast and tight they tried to turn?

I also find myself wondering if that 5 deaths per year average is just boating related deaths or does it include deaths not related to boating (like drowning because someone didn't know how to swim or having a heart attack while swimming)?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Not trying to bash or downplay anyone's info but I was just wondering (since we don't know how fast they were going) if the accident could've still happened at 45mph, depending on the boat and how fast and tight they tried to turn?

I also find myself wondering if that 5 deaths per year average is just boating related deaths or does it include deaths not related to boating (like drowning because someone didn't know how to swim or having a heart attack while swimming)?

With all due respect, why do facts matter?

(Please note, this is not directed at you WB)

Look at the destruction to this poor boat when another boat "going at high speed slammed into it, went over it, and kept on going". The guy in this boat was killed but the driver of the boat that hit him is ok. Doesn't that always seem to be the story? This accident sounds just like one of the ones we had on Winnipesaukee a few years back and the one they had on Long Lake in ME last year. But then, I guess a lot of them sound exactly the same;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...43708319448551

[NoBozo]

I got a problem with the VOLVO WAGON. NB

[VtSteve]

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



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

PFD's can aid in the rescue efforts of people being thrown from boats, and even occasionally save them from drowning.

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.

There is a bill before Congress requesting Federal aid for providing slow-speed lifejackets to those that boat in cold waters on large lakes.

[Ryan]

This makes so much sense

”The important thing for boaters to remember is they’re the captain of their vessel. They’re responsible to operate it safely.” Andrew Munoz, spokesman for the Lake Mead National Recreation Area.

[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

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

well it looks like we have a good group so far:

Ocd
Gtagrip
DotheMath
Broadhopper
Hazelnut
Nobozo
Pineedles
Sunset (might have to be photoshopped in )

Am I missing anyone?

Just trying to get a solid estimate so I can start looking at venues.. Still leaning towards meredith... Frankly Church Landing Bar isn't bad.. I was there and it can handle a big group or small.. Plus it doesn't have loud music playing etc.

I just got invited to skiing at Jay Peak that weekend, I should still be able to make it as long as I am not skiing to fast and crash into a slower moving skier/snowboarder.

[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".

[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...........................

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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.

[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.

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!!

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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????

[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.

[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 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!

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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".

[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..