more expert testimony on SB-27

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Rusty

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....

We have been yelling and screaming about this since the very beginning of the speed limit debate and all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING and once again, the supporters are saying it didn't!! Wow, there's a surprise!

The speed limit law was just a law looking for a problem to fix and apparently it didn't fix anything! Wow, another surprise....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

...all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING...

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

Sorry, I know nothing of the kind. The speed limit has most often been called a "tool" that the Marine Patrol can use.

I am unaware speed limits ever been refereed to by supporters as a "panacea" or any word that is even roughly synonymous with panacea. I am not the one over-reaching here.


In any event, you should remember the Governor signed this bill into law only 7 months ago. Do you REALLY think he is going to sign a repeal this soon? Politicians hate the flip-flopper moniker.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.

Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management".


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management".


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions!

thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %

David Barrett the head of the Marine Patrol is opposed to the speed limit yet admits it is being followed. He doesn't say it works 100%. After all very few things work 100%. Below are some quotes from Mr. Barrett from a recent interview in the Concord Monitor.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

Wrong again. There were plenty of boats going over 30 mph at night. That is where the speed limits has had the greatest impact.

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.



The current law was 6 years in coming and involved many public meetings around the lake area and many legislative debates. That does not meet my definition of "rammed through".

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Wrong again. There were plenty of boats going over 30 mph at night. That is where the speed limits has had the greatest impact.

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.



The current law was 6 years in coming and involved many public meetings around the lake area and many legislative debates. That does not meet my definition of "rammed through".

Agreeing to a 2 year study to gather data and then pushing it through a year early is ramming it through IMO.

I'm still waiting for you and other SL supporters to present objective data showing benefits of the speed limit.

Here's a a little tidbit. There are hyrdologic studies that demonstrate slow speeds through shallower depths increase the amount of sediment that is kicked up from the bottom.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Agreeing to a 2 year study to gather data and then pushing it through a year early is ramming it through IMO...

Wrong another time. Speed limit supporters NEVER wanted or agreed to the so called "speed study". In fact they were totally opposed to it.

That was a sham of a last minute move to delay enactment of a the speed limit. Barrett pulled that rabbit out of his hat at almost the last moment to delay the bill. It was never taken seriously by the Marine Patrol that did it as evidenced by the fact the didn't log very pertinent data.

Where do you people get your information? It's almost all wrong.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Wrong another time. Speed limit supporters NEVER wanted or agreed to the so called "speed study". In fact they were totally opposed to it.

That was a sham of a last minute move to delay enactment of a the speed limit. Barrett pulled that rabbit out of his hat at almost the last moment to delay the bill. It was never taken seriously by the Marine Patrol that did it as evidenced by the fact the didn't log very pertinent data.

Where do you people get your information? It's almost all wrong.

So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There were several problems with the study. They would put a boat in a central location to take readings. Most of the boats used were marked boats with huge "MARINE PATROL" lettering on the side. To prevent triangulation error they only recorded the speed of boats headed directly toward the MP boat. The radar had a limited range of about 200 feet.

What kind of moron goes full speed directly at a marked patrol boat? Give me a break, this "test" was laughable. Deliberately designed to return the data it did. Most of the boats were marked but the MP claimed that they also used a few unmarked boats. Unfortunately the kind of boat and whether it was marked or unmarked WAS NOT RECORDED! Useless data.


Why do I have to favor or not favor Barrett? He is a bureaucrat, some of what he does is good and some of it is bull, just like with most bureaucrats.


The speed limit is only is only divisive on forums like this. Any real chance of a repeal died last November when Lynch was re-elected. He signed it into law during his campaign. He can't sign a repeal now, it would be political suicide.

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Just because they did not record the type of boat markings does not render the readings useless.

Suppose that a study was conducted in a manner that you deemed adequate and yielded the same results, would that chage your opinion on the need for a speed limit?

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, It does! If the MP were at all serious about wanting to collect real data the could have, and WOULD HAVE, used unmarked boats.

For me the number one justification for a speed limit was that children's camps were keeping their small boats in on certain days. There were also secondary justifications.

The "speed study" data would mean little or nothing to me no matter how taken or what it contained. It just didn't matter. If many boats were speeding then we needed a speed limit. If small numbers were speeding then hardly anyone would be inconvenienced by a speed limit. Sorry, but it was catch 22 in favor of a speed limit. The study meant nothing no matter what it said.

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

So your answer is what I suspected in that no amount of data would satisfy you.

As far as speed limits based on childrens camps, I think the number of boats on a busy day is a far, far a greater factor than speed. And that's just the facts of life. There are tons of places for camps to have small boats unfestered by motor boats. Do you think a speed limit would change your mind when traveling in the Weirs area on a busy weekend with a kayak?

It's no different then when I avoid traffic areas while on the road. So the bikers ruin the Laconia/Meredith area for me during bike weeks so should that mean they cancel the event for those who don't participate?

Comparing roads to the water is apples and oranges. We set road speed limits on OBJECTIVE data such as traffic volume, accident occurance, population densities, lane widths, number of egress points, sight lines, elevation changes, pavement type, amount of development, and a whole plethera of other criteria. Ever notice in certain areas where the speed limit miraculously changes from 65-55 seemingly for no reason? Now you have your answer..... And if you insist on comparing the water to the road, then do like the NHDOT (and all other States) and complete engineering studies before placing an arbitrary speed limit on the lake. And be careful what you wish for as the data is not likely to be in your favor.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We don't set speed limits on our roads by studying how fast cars are going on them. We set them by road conditions and accident data.

If I may interject this. Been done this way almost forever.

http://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/30/a...ed-limits-set/

Since speed limits do not have a measurable influence on actual speeds, it makes sense to set speed limits so as not to make lawbreakers out of a large fraction of motorists. Speed limits that are set too low makes law enforcement more difficult and leads to a disrespect for speed limits.

Shown here is a speed distribution on a rural road. Notice that the distribution is quite narrow, meaning that most motorists drive at nearly the same speed. You will see that changing the speed limit by just 5 mph will make a big change in the number of violators.

So the 85th percentile rule is simply a recognition that speed limits are set for the purposes of enforcement. And since law enforcement only has the resources to cite the most egregious violations, the speed limit is established at or near the 85th percentile, making only about 15% of free-flowing motorists violators.

You may also notice that motorists who go a few mph over the speed limit are not cited. That occurs for two reasons. The first is the lack of law enforcement resources. But where the system really falls down is at the judicial level. Traffic court judges routinely give a 10-12 mph leeway on speeding tickets out of a false belief that radar is inaccurate. So even if some motorists do base their speeds on the speed limit, they routinely go about 10 mph over and almost never get a ticket.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So now the data is not pertinent? I have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis. Please enlighten me as to why you believe the MP data was flawed.

Just above you quoted Barrett in a favorable way? Were you for the MP before you were against it?

It's the legislative process that was rammed through when a study is put in place and then squashed. WinnFabs voice, although small in actual numbers, we able to use perception to their favor. I bet WinnFabs doesn't even (or care) how many of the petition signers were boaters on the lake, do you?

If there is really such an overwhelming support for the SL then why does it remain so devisive?

I have found that arguing with a statistician is a lot like wrestling with a pig, after a few hours you begin to realize the pig likes it.

[Bear Islander]

Hey guys,

Instead of picking apart every minor comment I have posted, and then scouring the Internet for hours to try and find an expert opinion that differs from mine, why don't we talk about SB-27.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hey guys,

Instead of picking apart every minor comment I have posted, and then scouring the Internet for hours to try and find an expert opinion that differs from mine, why don't we talk about SB-27.

*COUGH, COUGH* Where in my posts do you see my scouring the internet? WinnFabs site is germaine.

The editorial above uses this argument against SB-27[...The proposed change to the law would replace hard and fast numbers with the words "reasonable and prudent...]

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening

Here is something that I don’t understand: Why are the supporters of SB-27 asking people on this forum for data that supports a 45/30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee?

We didn’t sign the bill that has imposed the speed limit. I think most of us have told you why we think that a speed limit is necessary (and you won’t accept that) and evidently Governor Lynch thinks there should be one also.

So Mr. lawn psycho, why don’t you write the Governor and ask him to show you data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. When you get his response it would be nice if you shared that with all of us.

Tell him that "Rusty" gave you an assignment, he knows who I am.

One other thing lawn psycho: Because you “have just a wee bit of experience in data analysis”, what are the odds that Governor Lynch will supply you with the hard data that you are looking for?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

*COUGH, COUGH* Where in my posts do you see my scouring the internet? WinnFabs site is germaine.

The editorial above uses this argument against SB-27[...The proposed change to the law would replace hard and fast numbers with the words "reasonable and prudent...]

And I simply ask you to show me data that supports a "hard and fast" 45 MPH limit. I've been patiently waiting for an answer but as of yet I hear silence. The silence is deafening

I have answered that question many times. Look back at the old speed limit threads and you can read all about it.

However if you look back at post 35 you will see a quote from the Marine Patrol Director.

"Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed."


That one piece of DATA is all you should need.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.

I personally barefoot ski at around 53 mph. Since the speed limit passed, I still do. My neighbors and others says if the MP ever pick me up for speeding there will be one hell of a demonstration at the court house. I didn't see that coming, but if it happens I have no control. Everyone loves to see me ski.

There was a social meeting last summer about restarting the Winnipesaukee Water Ski races. Mainly because the teenagers around the lake are bored and getting into all kinds of mischief. During the racing years many teenagers were busy practicing for the races. Very little mischief going on. After talking with Dunleavy, it won't be practical with the speed limits. Everyone would have to fill out forms in advanced to practice. Causing a huge paper shuffle at MP headquarters.

Bet the SL supporters didn't see that coming. They just don't give a damn!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!

Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in.

When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

I'm not missing anything. The logic is quite simple to follow. The SL proponents argument is that a speed limit is the catch-all for what they infer are inherent problems with existing laws. So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.
We didn't hear that in the testimony supporting the SL law did we?

Regarding my objectivity, I don't see many others willing to hear both sides and looking for data. I've stated many times I would support a SL if someone could show me objective data that the SL does anything of value. So, I would disagree with you.... Lack of evidence plus my own personal experiences on the lake is how I've based my decision.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.

All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.

So where do you draw the line? My boat is pushing 5000+ pounds with a 320 HP V-8 and does a whisper over 45 MPH on a good day. So what is too big? Too fast?

BI has mentioned HP limits. Apparently what was good for him prior to owning lake front property is not good enough for others to enjoy.

Look at the progression. 150 ft rule, rafting restrictions, mandatory education, now a SL. So what's next? Time to push back!!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So where do you draw the line? My boat is pushing 5000+ pounds with a 320 HP V-8 and does a whisper over 45 MPH on a good day. So what is too big? Too fast?

BI has mentioned HP limits. Apparently what was good for him prior to owning lake front property is not good enough for others to enjoy.

Look at the progression. 150 ft rule, rafting restrictions, mandatory education, now a SL. So what's next? Time to push back!!

Thanks lawn psycho! I do understand your frustration.