Todays article on SB-27....2/23/11

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Nobody mentioned "dredge".

Over the ice, it would be sufficient to truck the necessary boulders and gravel to build it shallow enough for the record speeds that would result. To create a straight course, boulders would require "popping".

Outside of the canal—where it is shallow enough—rafting could be encouraged along both sides. (Where it is deep, a few mooring balls could be installed for spectators).

Sponsored by private donors—in coöperation with the State—think of it as a watery equivalent to the former NHIS.

All the time, money and effort that went into arguing SB27 could've been expended in The Witches Canal venture with all the above rewards to all boaters.

Who could complain?

While there is always great risk with these risk-takers, The Witches Canal could become a Mecca for those seeking extreme speeds without resorting to those other concrete-sided canals where those extreme speeds are sought—with disastrous results to peaceable boaters, the speedsters themselves and even the houses that line those canals.

A single, six-fatality, collision once occurred within such a canal.

Because New Hampshire's peaceable boaters—and our lake's unrepentant speedsters both win—think of this as a "Win-Win" proposal.


This is a difficult question to answer, but here's an admittedly "oblique try".

1) The transport of three liters of Vodka—plus an unknown quantity of beer—was only discovered in the aftermath of a boat collision with one of Winnipesaukee's 253 islands—an island that was tragically encountered directly in the center of Lake Winnipesaukee.

2) While that "transport" was not technically illegal, every experienced Captain is responsible for their boat, passengers and crew—so, viewed in the bright light of Rule 5—how can it be viewed as otherwise than "wrong, unethical, and morally unacceptable".

How'd I do?

Poorly.
First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal.

Secondly regarding the alcohol. In the example you cited above, the persons were allegedly consuming the alcohol that was being transported. That would be the problem. The transportation of the alcohol has nothing to do with anything. It is the consumption.

I will give you the same example I have given before, again with no response from you.
On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice. Between the store and home, I have a horrible accident. I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died. Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car. *GASP* beer cans!?!? He must have been drunk! Blood is drawn to determine how much I had to drink that day.

Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car. The store receipt in my pocket confirms this. The receipt says I bought an 18 pack. 18 full beer cans are found in my car. It is obvious to the investigators that I was not drinking the beer, I was only transporting it from the store to my house.

What did I do wrong? Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?


BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal.

[jrc]

The Mount Washington always has enough booze on board to get everyone well beyond the legal limit. Does anyone believe this is illegal, immoral or unethical?

Maybe a bad example, given the fact that someone did have too many and fall to his death, but that's not really what we are talking about is it.

APS since the carrying of booze is illegal, immoral or unethical in boats no one on any island can drink in their camps. Unless they build a still or a vineyard.

It must be illegal, immoral or unethical in cars and trucks as well given the huge issue with drunk driving. This means that you either don't drink, only drink in bars or are just confused.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by jrc

This means that you either don't drink, only drink in bars or are just confused.

I vote for the latter

[MAXUM]

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

[pm203]

Hutchins and his Winnfabs group should take a vacation to Tripoli .

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by pm203

Hutchins and his Winnfabs group should take a vacation to Tripoli .

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

And now that you are called on it I predict you will say it was only a joke and I should lighten up.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

you would.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

And now that you are called on it I predict you will say it was only a joke and I should lighten up.

Elchase Warren/Clark would stir the pot like this. I didn't think you would. I should add though, that calling for violence against anyone is inappropriate.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

The Mount Washington always has enough booze on board to get everyone well beyond the legal limit. Does anyone believe this is illegal, immoral or unethical? Maybe a bad example, given the fact that someone did have too many and fall to his death, but that's not really what we are talking about is it.

APS since the carrying of booze is illegal, immoral or unethical in boats no one on any island can drink in their camps. Unless they build a still or a vineyard.

It must be illegal, immoral or unethical in cars and trucks as well given the huge issue with drunk driving. This means that you either don't drink, only drink in bars or are just confused.

1) "Head-on" collisions in boating is a rare occurrance. Ejection from boats involved in collisions is not a rare occurrance; therefore, BWI in boating is a far more important consideration than on our roadways.

2) BTW: Your arguments are fine examples of reductio in absurdum. (Found at a thread titled, "1984 Today" )

"The term reductio in absurdum is also often used for arguments where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone will agree it to be false or absurd, or which at least certain persons being argued against will agree is false or absurd. However this is a weak form of reductio, since the final decision to reject the original premise is contingent upon whether the conclusion derived from it really is agreed to be absurd".

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

How else could an SBONH opponent take it? —and why not? They already treat Lake Winnipesaukee's proven cases of Manslaughter like those collisions were "just accidents"! Will somebody from SBONH's Board please tell us that pm203 is not a SBONH member!

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

Like the Isolationism that preceeded WWII, I reject Prohibition: under the Prohibition Amendment, some Americans showed that they will only observe the laws they agree with.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) "Head-on" collisions in boating is a rare occurrance. Ejection from boats involved in collisions is not a rare occurrance; therefore, BWI in boating is a far more important consideration than on our roadways.

I doubt that anyone here will disagree with your opinion that DUI/DWI is bad, no matter what vehicle you are in.

What we are disagreeing with is your constant assertion that carrying alcohol in your vehicle is bad.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Elchase Warren/Clark would stir the pot like this. I didn't think you would.

Speaking of stirring the pot Mr. Pineedles......please do not PM me again asking me personal questions about who I might be. I will tell you only that I am a well respected member of the Lakes Region community.

[BroadHopper]

Is the claim that Winfabs represent the vast majority of the property owners on the lake. That is a huge false statement. When the speed limit bill was up for a vote, I presented a petition to Rep. Pilliod signed by over 600 property owners on the lake that opposed the bill. He said, the votes are already in. This petition was only circled among those who live on the Gilford / Alton Broads section of the lake. A small section.

I enjoy using the lake as I see fit within reason. NOBODY is going to tell me otherwise. I seen the lake as a great place to be in the last 60 years. I expect it to be a great place for the rest of my years, my children, and my grandchildren.

I will continue to fight those who come into this area and tell us natives what to do. If this bill is defeated. I will make sure it will come up again and again until there is a compromise.

[fatlazyless]

In case you were wondering, Center Harbor and Meredith are represented by Senator Jeanie Forrester. Moultonborough, Tuftonboro, and Wolfeboro are represented by Senator Jeb Bradley. Alton, Gilford, and Laconia are represented by Senator Jim Forsythe.


Three cheers.....hut-hut-hut.....go out to Senator Forrester and Senator Bradley for supporting the existing 45-30 speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.....


If the speed limits gets replaced with a "reasonable & prudent" speed law, then you can expect to see the big, super-duper go-fast boats like the Outer Limits be relettering the boat names on their transoms with names like "Reasonable & Prudent."

How's about "Slow & Steady" for a new name to grace a 27' Skater powered up by twin 300-hp racing Mercs. Some other new names could be: Reasonable & Prudent, Slow & Steady, Implied Safety, Speed is Safe, and Speed Pays!

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Speaking of stirring the pot Mr. Pineedles......please do not PM me again asking me personal questions about who I might be. I will tell you only that I am a well respected member of the Lakes Region community.

I was curious, that's all Rusty. I PM'd you because I didn't want it made public. Other business owners don't make it a secret what businesses they operate, because I imagine they are proud of their businesses. Sheeze it, what a grouch!

BTW, here is the PM I sent you for everyone to see. Real threat here. Yup.

"Are you the owner of Church's Landing? As well as other accomodations in Meredith?"

[lawn psycho]

Thanks, I know where to never spend my money! What other locations is he the owner? Please tell me I have never partronized his business(es)

I know the marina I bought my boat and the marina where I slip don't mind the money I spend on my menacing bad mo-fo 320 hp, rooster-tail making Four Winns bowrider!

Look at how the SL crowd has to use exaggeration and mistruths when they testify. Every boat with a propeller is a renegade to that pro-SL crowd.

[AllAbourdon]

I'd take fast boats over an over-developed shoreline anyday... but who am i to judge.

I like everything about the lake and the state of NH and the freedom people have to make choices. I like having "live free or die" on our license plate. I just want it to mean something.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Thanks, I know where to never spend my money! What other locations is he the owner? Please tell me I have never partronized his business(es)

I know the marina I bought my boat and the marina where I slip don't mind the money I spend on my menacing bad mo-fo 320 hp, rooster-tail making Four Winns bowrider!

Look at how the SL crowd has to use exaggeration and mistruths when they testify. Every boat with a propeller is a renegade to that pro-SL crowd.

And also those of Alex Ray (both professed speed limit supporters):

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ons#post149710

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I take this to be a somewhat veiled statement that he (or we) should be killed.

And now that you are called on it I predict you will say it was only a joke and I should lighten up.

Of course it was joke. Your reaction is sad, just like your views of the lake. Unlike Winnfarts, I am willing to share the lake with everyone and would never wish anyone any ill-will. What your group is doing is un-American, thus the Tripoli remark.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

I hope not....'cause if I am even foolish enough to attempt to wade through one of his convoluted diatribes it usually entails at least one trip to the liquor cabinet!

Whoa, whoa, whoa everybody....I'm talking about the liquor cabinet in my home here.....

[Colby]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wonderful sounds like APS is looking to re-instate prohibition. What a wild success that was.

Follow the money. How many people own liquor stores in NH? Why every citizen is a part owner in NH. The State owns and profits from liquor sales. ANd I think they tax beer and wine sales in other stores. So do you think they will pass laws that result in LESS PROFIT for the Granite State?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

In the example you cited above, the persons were allegedly consuming the alcohol that was being transported. That would be the problem. The transportation of the alcohol has nothing to do with anything. It is the consumption.

I will give you the same example I have given before, again with no response from you.

On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice. Between the store and home, I have a horrible accident. I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died. Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car. *GASP* beer cans!?!? He must have been drunk! Blood is drawn to determine how much I had to drink that day.

Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car. The store receipt in my pocket confirms this. The receipt says I bought an 18 pack. 18 full beer cans are found in my car. It is obvious to the investigators that I was not drinking the beer, I was only transporting it from the store to my house.

What did I do wrong?

Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?

1) There is much information omitted. These sound like the arguments I used when I was a teenager:

"Your Honor, I couldn't have been going 60-MPH!

I saw the officer when I was accelerating in 2nd gear!!!"

2) "On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice."

You can buy beer cold but my experience has shown that must have one heck of a commute! Make the ice in your cooler slushy with water, and any beverage will cool much faster.

3) "I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died."

You couldn't have drowned!

Just as "45 is a very fast speed on the water", BWI is a much-more serious form of abusing alcohol than DWI.

I had a telephone pole in my front yard sheared-off by a Mazda RX-7's impact—after hitting it sideways! Driving faster is probably safer!

What a great argument for SBONH!

4) "Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car."

Were they in the front seat's footwell? Were they prior "empties" or the 18-pack you spoke of? Besides Erica, who stores "empty beer cans" inside their vehicle?

Somebody else must have dropped them in there.

(Please, SBONH, don't all you "safe boaters" race to support the storage of empty beer cans inside the passenger compartment of your boat!)

5) "Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car."

If your BAC was .03, you were somewhat impaired upon your collision. Why was your BAC omitted from the above account?

6) "BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal".

Texting while driving indicates a "judgment problem"—just as what follows upon taking that first sip of alcohol.

7) "Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?"

Your texting definitely put you off to a bad start! Since you admit that texting is illegal, will you also continue to ignore other NH laws that you don't like?

I'd previously stated, "This isn't an easy question to answer." But ask the question enough times—it won't get ignored!

8) "First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal."

The Witches Canal was merely expanding on a prior suggestion of FLL's: The State could:

• placate the Lake's scariest thrill-seekers,

• expand on viewing-options and locations for any speedsters who don't care to take in the Lake's scenic views at sane speeds,

• to keep over-sized boats from terrorizing any other boaters transiting the Broads,

• to transform a "problem area" into a revenue-creating area—other than sending revenue for new propellers—to Maine.

Are you denying that powerboats will speed-up within the confines of a canal?

BTW: Are you reading that SB27 is described as "A Dead Man Walking" ?

[chipj29]

Please see my responses in red bold below. Yes, I edited out some of your text in an attempt to keep this short.
BTW, in case you didn't know, most of my story is ficticious. I was not texting while driving. I did not crash my car into a telephone pole and almost die.
I did however stop at the store and buy an 18 pack of beer. I made it home safely.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) There is much information omitted. These sound like the arguments I used when I was a teenager:

Are you saying that you doubt my story? Which part did I omit? And what were you doing as a teenager that you had to omit information from your "stories"?
2) "On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice."

You can buy beer cold but my experience has shown that must have one heck of a commute! Make the ice in your cooler slushy with water, and any beverage will cool much faster.
Yes, I realize I can buy cold beer, and yes I have a long commute. But I like my beer ice cold. But what does that have to do with anything?

3) "I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died."

You couldn't have drowned!
Of course I could have. What if my car had hit a telephone pole and slid into a river. But does the manner in which I died really matter?
Just as "45 is a very fast speed on the water", BWI is a much-more serious form of abusing alcohol than DWI.
BWI/BUI has NOTHING to do with you assertion that "45 is a very fast speed on the water". Whether Boating or Driving a car while intoxicated are serious violations of the law, and both can similarly end in tragedy.

I had a telephone pole in my front yard sheared-off by a Mazda RX-7's impact—after hitting it sideways! Driving faster is probably safer!

What a great argument for SBONH!
What does an accident on the road have to do with a group called Safe BOATERS of NH? And where has SBONH ever stated that "driving faster is safer"?

4) "Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car."

Were they in the front seat's footwell? Were they prior "empties" or the 18-pack you spoke of? Besides Erica, who stores "empty beer cans" inside their vehicle?

Somebody else must have dropped them in there.
No, this post is not about Erica. It is solely about transporting alcohol in a vehicle. It has nothing to do with consumption. Remember, in my accident, no empties were found.
(Please, SBONH, don't all you "safe boaters" race to support the storage of empty beer cans inside the passenger compartment of your boat!)
Again, what does this have to do with SBONH? As I stated, there were no empties found IN MY CAR. I was merely transporting alcohol, which you are against.
5) "Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car."

If your BAC was .03, you were somewhat impaired upon your collision. Why was your BAC omitted from the above account?
Um what? Which part of "blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car" did you not understand?
6) "BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal".

Texting while driving indicates a "judgment problem"—just as what follows upon taking that first sip of alcohol.
Again, I was not drinking, I had not had a "sip" of alcohol. My judgement problem being solely that I was texting while driving.
7) "Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?"

Your texting definitely put you off to a bad start! Since you admit that texting is illegal, will you also continue to ignore other NH laws that you don't like?
No, the only law that I broke was texting while driving. How can that possibly imply that I ignored any other laws, nevermind "continue to ignore" any other laws. Which laws do you think that I have ignored in the past, based on the information in my post?
8) "First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal."

The Witches Canal was merely expanding on a prior suggestion of FLL's: The State could:

• placate the Lake's scariest thrill-seekers,

• expand on viewing-options and locations for any speedsters who don't care to take in the Lake's scenic views at sane speeds,

• to keep over-sized boats from terrorizing any other boaters transiting the Broads,

• to transform a "problem area" into a revenue-creating area—other than sending revenue for new propellers—to Maine.
As always, FLLs suggestion is pretty far-fetched and incredibly unlikely. It is not even worthy of a rational discussion.

Are you denying that powerboats will speed-up within the confines of a canal?
When the canal was dredged, was a law put into place to restrict power boats from speeding up? I am sure that a majority of power boaters are law-abiding citizens. However, as always, there are certain "scofflaws" who would ignore any law that might exist about that particular canal.
BTW: Are you reading that SB27 is described as "A Dead Man Walking" ?
No I have not read that.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Yes, I edited out some of your text in an attempt to keep this short...most of my story is fictitious. I was not texting while driving. I did not crash my car into a telephone pole and almost die.

...and...

Originally Posted by pm203

Of course it was joke. Your reaction is sad, just like your views of the lake. Unlike Winnfarts, I am willing to share the lake with everyone and would never wish anyone any ill-will. What your group is doing is un-American, thus the Tripoli remark.

...and...

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Sorry APS. You missed the "Tongue-in-Cheek" subliminal message.

Who was reassured by any of the explanations above?

This is "making stuff up". IMHO

Originally Posted by chipj29

Are you saying that you doubt my story?

You now admit your story was bogus.

Originally Posted by chipj29

Which part of "blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car" did you not understand?

How can you truthfully defend any level of alcohol abuse from a blood test that you now admit was never taken?

Originally Posted by chipj29

Boating or Driving a car while intoxicated are serious violations of the law, and both can similarly end in tragedy.

They are not similar at all: the realities of ejection and drowning within seconds make BWI far more serious. Night-rescue—especially of multiple unconscious victims—is problematical.

Excess speed doesn't improve the chances of survival at night, even when 45-MPH—through the darkness—appears "Reasonable and Prudent" to a Captain.

Originally Posted by chipj29

What if my car had hit a telephone pole and slid into a river. But does the manner in which I died really matter?

1) Boating fatalities (and BWI) nearly always occur on water.

2) Roadway fatalities (and DWI) nearly always occur on land.

3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.

4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.

5) After one sip of alcohol, who would trust any boater's judgment while using their "personal-best" Reason and Prudence.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Who was reassured by any of the explanations above?
This is "making stuff up". IMHO
You now admit your story was bogus.
Yes, of course it is making stuff up. I said that most of my story was ficticious. Obviously you think that I am *GASP* lying. But I am not. I am merely providing an example. I am still trying to get my head around the fact that you believe that having alcohol in ones vehicle should be illegal.

Oh BTW, at the end of this post I will reveal which part of my story was true.

How can you truthfully defend any level of alcohol abuse from a blood test that you now admit was never taken?
Uh what? In the first post I said that blood tests confirmed that I was not drinking. Where was the alcohol abuse? I had alcohol in my car. I never drank any before I crashed.

They are not similar at all: the realities of ejection and drowning within seconds make BWI far more serious. Night-rescue—especially of multiple unconscious victims—is problematical.

Excess speed doesn't improve the chances of survival at night, even when 45-MPH—through the darkness—appears "Reasonable and Prudent" to a Captain.
Again, does the manner in which I died really matter? If I hit a telephone pole in my car at 45 MPH head on, chances of my survival are slim. If I hit a dock at 45 MPH in my boat, my chances of survival are thin.
And does time of day really matter? Either way I will need help from rescue people, and obviously it is harder to work in the dark than it is in the day time. But again, that has nothing to do with my post.

1) Boating fatalities (and BWI) nearly always occur on water.
2) Roadway fatalities (and DWI) nearly always occur on land.
Wow, that is quite an astute observation. But what does that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with the fact that I had alcohol in my car, but was not drinking?
3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.
Now this I can agree with. The root cause of both the Blizzard and Littlefield accidents would certainly appear to be directly related to intoxication. Thank you for making my point.
4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.
Why don't those headlines prompt WinnFLABS to support a "no open containers" law? No, I won't hold my breath either.
5) After one sip of alcohol, who would trust any boater's judgment while using their "personal-best" Reason and Prudence.
One sip of alcohol affects a persons judgement? Oh, OK. I would love to see the facts on that one. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh, and BTW APS, when I said that most of my story was ficticious, I was being sincere. Most of my story really is ficticious.
This is what really happened:

I was driving home from work and stopped at the store and bought some beer. I made it home safely and drank some of the beer that I bought. Then, I read some of your posts on here and I had the sudden urge to drink more.

[gtagrip]

[QUOTE=Acres per Second;151943]

...and...



...and...

3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.

4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.



APS, as Chip mentioned, why hasn't WinniFlabbs pushed for a no open container law on boats. They are such a staunch group in the name of "safety", I would have thought this would be their #2 issue.

I don't think I'm holding my breath either on this one!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

APS, as Chip mentioned, why hasn't WinniFlabbs pushed for a no open container law on boats. They are such a staunch group in the name of "safety", I would have thought this would be their #2 issue.

I don't think I'm holding my breath either on this one!

WinnFABS was not created to champion various boating and safety issues. It has only one purpose, and that is to fight for speed limits.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS was not created to champion various boating and safety issues. It has only one purpose, and that is to fight for speed limits.

There is something to be proud of........ who cares about safety

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

There is something to be proud of........ who cares about safety

Me thinks they speak with forked tongue.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

WinnFABS was not created to champion various boating and safety issues. It has only one purpose, and that is to fight for speed limits.

Here is the first sentence WinnFabs uses to explain their purpose:
"WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations."

Only after this sentence does the words "speed limit" enter their mission statement.

I think you're missing the point. If WinnFabs is really concerned about safety then they would be going after enhanced BUI enforcement long before a speed limit. Of all the points we debate I don't believe anyone doubts that BUI is a common theme in the winni fatalities.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here is the first sentence WinnFabs uses to explain their purpose:
"WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations."

Only after this sentence does the words "speed limit" enter their mission statement.

I think you're missing the point. If WinnFabs is really concerned about safety then they would be going after enhanced BUI enforcement long before a speed limit. Of all the points we debate I don't believe anyone doubts that BUI is a common theme in the winni fatalities.

OK let’s work on changing “ RSA 265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages”. Do we want to add boating to this law? I’m all for it, how about everyone else?

Who wants to step-up to the plate and get a petition going to add boating to this RSA??? Winnfabs got the Speed Limit taken care of so why doesn't someone from the SBONH get this thing going? Or maybe someone from Maine would like to take this challange on.

Below is the RSA for transporting Alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles:



265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages. –
I. The words "liquor'' and "beverage'' as used in this section shall have the same meanings as defined in RSA 175:1.
II. Except as provided in paragraph V, no driver shall transport, carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within the passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages shall be stored and transported in the trunk of the motor vehicle. If the motor vehicle does not have a trunk, such containers shall be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
III. Except as provided in paragraph V, no passenger shall carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within any passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way or in an area principally used for public parking in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages may be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
IV. A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be subject to a fine of $150. In addition, a person who violates paragraph II of this section may have his or her drivers' license, if a resident, or driving privilege, if a nonresident, suspended 60 days for a first offense and up to one year for a second or subsequent offense.
V. This section shall not apply to persons transporting, carrying, possessing, or having any liquor or beverage in a chartered bus, in a taxi, or in a limousine for hire; provided, however, that the driver of any of said vehicles is prohibited from having any liquor or beverage in or about the driver's area.
VI. For the purposes of this section only:
(a) "Passenger area of any motor vehicle'' shall not include any section of a motor vehicle which has been designed or modified for the overnight accommodation of persons or as living quarters.
(b) "Way'' shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park, or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use or any such way which has been used for public travel for 20 years.

[jrc]

Does anyone really believe the drinking problem on boats or cars for that matter, is meaningfully related to having an open container while the boat is moving?

The problem is driving a boat after they drank too much. Some people sit at the sand bar, anchorage, a party, a dock and drink too much, then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't. Some people go to a restaurant or bar and drink too much then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't.

Go after the real problem, not some side issue that make you feel good.

Everyone knows if the MP put 3 or 4 boats at the mouth of Braun Bay on weekends around dusk, and do the same with the town docks in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call, this would make a huge dent in the problem.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

Does anyone really believe the drinking problem on boats or cars for that matter, is meaningfully related to having an open container while the boat is moving?

The problem is driving a boat after they drank too much. Some people sit at the sand bar, anchorage, a party, a dock and drink too much, then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't. Some people go to a restaurant or bar and drink too much then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't.

Go after the real problem, not some side issue that make you feel good.

Everyone knows if the MP put 3 or 4 boats at the mouth of Braun Bay on weekends around dusk, and do the same with the town docks in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call, this would make a huge dent in the problem.

I’m not familiar with the problem at “Braun Bay”, can you enlighten me a little on that. I see people having fun and consuming beverages there but I didn’t know that when they left the Bay to go somewhere else that the captains of these boats were intoxicated beyond the .08 level. Maybe having checkpoints in that area when boats are leaving would be a good idea then.

I am also not familiar with the problems at “the town dock in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call”. Is this something that you have witnessed and know for a fact that a lot of boaters are piloting there boats while over the .08 level?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time, it’s just that I didn’t know that we need up to 12 MP personnel and boats to fix this problem in those areas of the Lake.

[Rusty]

I would like to thank the Laconia City Council for stating that they favored retaining the speed limits....NICE JOB!!!!!!

This article was in yesterday's LDS:

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I would like to thank the Laconia City Council for stating that they favored retaining the speed limits....NICE JOB!!!!!!

This article was in yesterday's LDS:

Why should the Laconia City Council have any influence over the speed limit? I suppose as individuals they are entitled to their personal opinions, but who are they to take a particular side on an issue that has not been voted on by the citzens/taxpayers of Laconia? I personally think that they have overstepped their bounds and if I were a resident of Laconia I would be sending a strong letter to the Council chair and the Mayor to state my feelings on this matter. I may send one anyway.

In addition, if they feel it's ok to state their support, then my organization (the Flying Pig Preservation Society of Gilford) will hereby state its support for SB 27.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Why should the Laconia City Council have any influence over the speed limit? I suppose as individuals they are entitled to their personal opinions, but who are they to take a particular side on an issue that has not been voted on by the citzens/taxpayers of Laconia? I personally think that they have overstepped their bounds and if I were a resident of Laconia I would be sending a strong letter to the Council chair and the Mayor to state my feelings on this matter. I may send one anyway.

In addition, if they feel it's ok to state their support, then my organization (the Flying Pig Preservation Society of Gilford) will hereby state its support for SB 27.

Tell them you are mad as hell and you're not going to take this anymore!

Would Ya let us all know what their response is please!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Tell them you are mad as hell and you're not going to take this anymore!

Would Ya let us all know what their response is please!

I'd be happy to! Thanks for the show of support!

[Dhuberty24]

What ever happend to"live free or die". Whats next you can't operate a boat if know some one who has consumed an adult beverage in the past month. It makes me sick to my stomach to think of what some people want to do to this lake. If you like the peace and tranquility so much why don't you sell your lake house, and buy a house over looking a pond. Then you can make you own rules. meanwhile leave the lake the way it has been for the last hundred years. Sorry for the grammar.

[Rusty]

At the January 24, 2011 Laconia City Council Meeting they had a discussion with Laconia State Representatives regarding the State budget .

For some reason they got on the topic of the SB-27 speed limit Bill. Too bad that there wasn’t someone there who knew a little about the Bill. IMHO they were all clueless. It really is funny to read so I thought I would post it.

The following State Representatives were present for this discussion:
Alida Millham, Don Flanders, Robert Luther, Frank Tilton and Harry Accornero. Also in attendance State Senator Jim Forsythe, County Commissioner Philpot and County Administrator Debra Shackett.

Here it is:

"Councilor Hamel asked if there is a Bill in the process to change the speed limits on the lakes to “what is reasonable”. Senator Forsythe stated this is his most e-mailed topic; this is called SB-27 and is based on a Coast Guard law and enumerates factors such as weather and keeps the 150/50 foot rule. Councilor Hamel noted that this is being brought forward by Senator D’Alessandro, who is not even from a waterfront community and doesn’t understand the issues with this. Senator Forsythe did not comment. Representative Flanders noted that some time ago there was a conversation relative to Lake Winnipesaukee being part of Coast Guard jurisdiction and it was determined it is not; this is a Coast Guard rule and is designed for the ocean and everything connected to it not Lake Winnipesaukee. The speed limit law has worked for Lake Winnipesaukee and should not be changed."

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

At the January 24, 2011 Laconia City Council Meeting they had a discussion with Laconia State Representatives regarding the State budget .

For some reason they got on the topic of the SB-27 speed limit Bill. Too bad that there wasn’t someone there who knew a little about the Bill. IMHO they were all clueless. It really is funny to read so I thought I would post it.

The following State Representatives were present for this discussion:
Alida Millham, Don Flanders, Robert Luther, Frank Tilton and Harry Accornero. Also in attendance State Senator Jim Forsythe, County Commissioner Philpot and County Administrator Debra Shackett.

Here it is:

"Councilor Hamel asked if there is a Bill in the process to change the speed limits on the lakes to “what is reasonable”. Senator Forsythe stated this is his most e-mailed topic; this is called SB-27 and is based on a Coast Guard law and enumerates factors such as weather and keeps the 150/50 foot rule. Councilor Hamel noted that this is being brought forward by Senator D’Alessandro, who is not even from a waterfront community and doesn’t understand the issues with this. Senator Forsythe did not comment. Representative Flanders noted that some time ago there was a conversation relative to Lake Winnipesaukee being part of Coast Guard jurisdiction and it was determined it is not; this is a Coast Guard rule and is designed for the ocean and everything connected to it not Lake Winnipesaukee. The speed limit law has worked for Lake Winnipesaukee and should not be changed."

Right - "Not even from a waterfront community".... I suppose it was all OK though when WINNFABS was in Nashua asking people to sign the petition. Oh, that's right, Nashua has the Nashua River. I suppose the fact that Councilor Hamel resides in a community that borders the lake makes him a defacto expert on the subject? Furthermore, remember Ms. Martha "Full-of-it" Clark, the esteemed Senator from Portsmouth? She's also about 1-hour from Winnipesaukee (and was also clueless I might add). She spearheaded the effort to kill the sunset provision rather than let Marine Patrol (the "experts" on boating) finish their 2-year study to see if there really was a problem (which of course, there wasn't). Clark and her ilk had to make sure that they made the law permanent at the behest of her elitist friends before the 2-year study was completed. Why? Because the facts DO NOT LIE - there was NO PROBLEM!!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I’m not familiar with the problem at “Braun Bay”, can you enlighten me a little on that. I see people having fun and consuming beverages there but I didn’t know that when they left the Bay to go somewhere else that the captains of these boats were intoxicated beyond the .08 level. Maybe having checkpoints in that area when boats are leaving would be a good idea then.

I am also not familiar with the problems at “the town dock in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call”. Is this something that you have witnessed and know for a fact that a lot of boaters are piloting there boats while over the .08 level?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time, it’s just that I didn’t know that we need up to 12 MP personnel and boats to fix this problem in those areas of the Lake.

You're kidding right?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrc

You're kidding right?

I sent your original post to Daivd Barrett (Director of the Division of Safety Services) to see what he thinks about the problem in those areas. I referenced the speed limit law and said that a lot of people who use the Lake want to fix the BUI problem. I’ll let you know if I receive a response from him.

I’m all for fixing the BUI problem on the Lake and maybe this will help.

I sent this section of your post (along with a few comments of my own):

“The problem is driving a boat after they drank too much. Some people sit at the sand bar, anchorage, a party, a dock and drink too much, then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't. Some people go to a restaurant or bar and drink too much then they drive the boat home when they shouldn't.

Go after the real problem, not some side issue that make you feel good.

Everyone knows if the MP put 3 or 4 boats at the mouth of Braun Bay on weekends around dusk, and do the same with the town docks in Meredith and Wolfeboro after last call, this would make a huge dent in the problem.”

[jrc]

While it can't hurt to send my email to Director Barrett, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know about people drinking then driving their boats on the lake.


My point was more about the "open container" law, you suggested. Imagine two hypothetical scenarios: a man, let's call him Smallmeadow, has too much to drink at a lakeside bar and on the way home in his boat he runs over another boat killing someone; a women let's call her Snowstorm, has too much to drink at a lakeside bar and on the way home runs into an island killing a passenger. Now does it really matter if they had open containers on board? How many hypothetical scenarios can you relate where an open container may have contributed to a fatal accident on the lake?

The problem is not drinking, it's drunks behind the wheel.

[nhhick]

I think its time people start reviewing their safe boating books that they had to read to get their license. There is no legal limit on drinking while driving a boat, its the point of imparment as detimined by MP. You can blow a .04 and still get a DWI. The only no tolerance activity in this state is snowmobileing. As far as a speed limit, there are more dangerous things going on on the lake than that, like not knowing navigational markers. I watched someone last summer cut 2 black tops because he thought those and our mouring field markers were chanel markers, his words not me guessing. he did hit a rock and damaged his lower unit, and if he was just a little farther in he would have hit a bigger rock that would have surely injured his passengers. That to me is more dangerous than someone doing 60 across the broads. Education and experience should be the focus, not more restrictions that are going to be laughed at by those who need to feed their egoes.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by nhhick

...I think its time people start reviewing their safe boating books that they had to read to get their license. There is no legal limit on drinking while driving a boat, its the point of imparment as detimined by MP. You can blow a .04 and still get a DWI. The only no tolerance activity in this state is snowmobileing...

That is incorrect. The same statute that pertains to motor vehicles also pertains to boating (as well as snowmobiling & ATVs). A blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more is presumed intoxication. If you are under 21 that concentration falls to .02%.

Please review the applicable statutes under Chapter 265-A to get the correct information.

While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Skip

That is incorrect. The same statute that pertains to motor vehicles also pertains to boating (as well as snowmobiling & ATVs). A blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more is presumed intoxication. If you are under 21 that concentration falls to .02%.

Please review the applicable statutes under Chapter 265-A to get the correct information.

While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

Thanks Skip,

I'm glad you beat me to the punch because I could not have said it as nicely as you did. IMHO it's folks like "nhhick" that need to be educated in the boating laws of NH.

[nhhick]

I stand corrected, I do not have time or patience enough to look up RSAs therefor go by what our local law enforcment agencies tell me. Last summer I got my commercial boating license, after having my private for 10 years, and all of marine patrols material covers alcohol consumption repeatadly and that is where I got my information, one video from MP always came back to alcohol and/or PFDs. We also had a Q&A with a fish & game afficer at a club meeting winter and he made it very clear there was a zero tolerance on snowmobiles. The RSA make me happy in many ways, I enjoy a cold one with an order of wings and good friends while im out on the trails and it makes a solid case on the lake instead of just MPs judgement. maybe a little more education is due for all. continued education is required for many licenses, maybe others should need to be kept up as well with the way laws are changing these days.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Skip

While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

As I have posted before, I was jailed and found guilty of DUI twice, even though my breathalyzer was 0%. I am profound hard of hearing. I can't speak well and I can't walk a straight line. The LEOs had reason to believe I was under the influence. Both LEOs failed to appear an appeals court and I was found innocent, my records were cleaned. It was the humiliation, the hiring of a lawyer and the suspension of my license that did not make it fair. So it is possible to be wrongfully accused of DUI.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Skip

A blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more is presumed intoxication. If you are under 21 that concentration falls to .02%.
While it is theoretically possible to be charged with operating while intoxicated with a BAC of less than .08%, convictions are extremely difficult. However, there is no difference under this statute whether you are operating a boat, ATV, snowmobile or motor vehicle.

While trying to remember how many died in an inland Poker Run a few years ago, I stumbled on this Mastercraft forum post which followed the description of a collision that took the lives of FIVE boaters.

"Not to judge or throw stones, but while I agree that it doesn't make you a threat, I believe that consuming an amount of alcohol that provides you with the desired effect (a nice buzz) does impair your abilities to some extent, regardless of whether you think it does or not.

It might not make you a threat, but it does lessen your abilities to pilot your boat. Not to mention the fact that for many people, maybe not you, the ability to know when to say "when" diminishes when alcohol starts to be consumed.

I just don't trust myself to be able to operate my boat to the highest ability under the influence, so I never drink when I'm driving the boat. And trust me, I love a beer a lot more than the next guy. I just save it for the after ski activities.

While I think it's a knee jerk reaction to assume "drunk" anytime you hear boat accident, I understand that statistics indicate that alcohol is a factor in a very high percentage of boating accidents, particularly as compared to other motor vehicles. So I can at least understand why people feel the way they do. Plus, if you've ever seen the damage that drunks can do, it hits even closer to home.

With a significant percentage of Winnipesaukee boaters dismissing the presence of alcohol aboard boats, the above writer has just echoed my assertion that whatever is "Reasonable" and "Prudent" will change with every sip of alcohol.

[TiltonBB]

We have enough laws. Let's continue to live by the state motto and stop creating needless "feel good" laws.

As has been said so many times before: Enforcement of all of the existing boating laws (and getting rid of one needless law) will result in a safer lake for everyone. That remains true today.

Let's not waste time and effort adding excessive regulation and stress to peoples lives.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

OK let’s work on changing “ RSA 265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages”. Do we want to add boating to this law? I’m all for it, how about everyone else?

Who wants to step-up to the plate and get a petition going to add boating to this RSA??? Winnfabs got the Speed Limit taken care of so why doesn't someone from the SBONH get this thing going? Or maybe someone from Maine would like to take this challange on.

Below is the RSA for transporting Alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles:



265-A:44 Transporting Alcoholic Beverages. –
I. The words "liquor'' and "beverage'' as used in this section shall have the same meanings as defined in RSA 175:1.
II. Except as provided in paragraph V, no driver shall transport, carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within the passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages shall be stored and transported in the trunk of the motor vehicle. If the motor vehicle does not have a trunk, such containers shall be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
III. Except as provided in paragraph V, no passenger shall carry, possess, or have any liquor or beverage within any passenger area of any motor vehicle upon any way or in an area principally used for public parking in this state except in the original container and with the seal unbroken. Securely capped partially filled containers of liquor or beverages may be stored and transported in that compartment or area of the vehicle which is the least accessible to the driver.
IV. A person who violates this section shall be guilty of a violation and shall be subject to a fine of $150. In addition, a person who violates paragraph II of this section may have his or her drivers' license, if a resident, or driving privilege, if a nonresident, suspended 60 days for a first offense and up to one year for a second or subsequent offense.
V. This section shall not apply to persons transporting, carrying, possessing, or having any liquor or beverage in a chartered bus, in a taxi, or in a limousine for hire; provided, however, that the driver of any of said vehicles is prohibited from having any liquor or beverage in or about the driver's area.
VI. For the purposes of this section only:
(a) "Passenger area of any motor vehicle'' shall not include any section of a motor vehicle which has been designed or modified for the overnight accommodation of persons or as living quarters.
(b) "Way'' shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park, or parkway, or any private way laid out under authority of statute, or any such way provided and maintained by a public institution to which state funds are appropriated for public use or any such way which has been used for public travel for 20 years.

Hey Rusty, I don't see NH asking my residence when I spend literally thousands of dollars per year in at the lake with boating, eating out, and overnight stays. I also have significant ties to NH and will be a resident again so go bark up another tree.

I'm too busy fighting a stupid law to spend time adding a new one

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here is the first sentence WinnFabs uses to explain their purpose:
"WinnFABS was formed by a group of citizens who love Lake Winnipesaukee and who want to ensure safe family boating and preserve the beauty and serenity of the lake for present and future generations."

Only after this sentence does the words "speed limit" enter their mission statement.

I think you're missing the point. If WinnFabs is really concerned about safety then they would be going after enhanced BUI enforcement long before a speed limit. Of all the points we debate I don't believe anyone doubts that BUI is a common theme in the winni fatalities.

You must have missed this sentence in "About WinnFABS"

The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of Boating Speed Limit bills which provide for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH.

WinnFABS was created for one purpose. It raised funds telling people the money was for that one purpose. To expend that money elsewhere would be wrong.

It is not for you to determine what the alliance's goals should be. You are free to start your own organization and have whatever goals you wish.

Some people try to build, while other only try to tear down.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You must have missed this sentence in "About WinnFABS"

The motivation behind the forming of our alliance was the introduction into the New Hampshire state legislature of Boating Speed Limit bills which provide for a daytime speed limit of 45 MPH and a nighttime speed limit of 25 MPH.

WinnFABS was created for one purpose. It raised funds telling people the money was for that one purpose. To expend that money elsewhere would be wrong.

It is not for you to determine what the alliance's goals should be. You are free to start your own organization and have whatever goals you wish.

Some people try to build, while other only try to tear down.

BI, if the concern is safety and accidents and the compelling data shows that alcohol is the primary concern it just demonstrates that WinnFabs has motives beyond curtailing the speed of boats IMO. Some of us are intelligent enough to have LONG-TERM thinking.

Every time Warren Hutchins continues his diarrea of the mouth, he talks about the size and quantity of boats. That's going beyond safety and don't try and say otherwise.

[Pineedles]

WinnFabs' motives for promoting the speed limits were selfish. They wanted Winnipesaukee to be like it was in the 19th Century, before there were any motorized boating. They illustrated imagianary encounters with small children in Kayaks and canoes. They think that all motorized boating is bad. The only boats THEY think should be on the lake are non-motorized. Progress moves on, despite their wishes. Bear Islander thinks horsepower should be limited on the lake, and yet he has no problem shooting off into space on a rocketship which could endanger thousands of lives if something goes wrong! Ask him. He won't deny it! Talk about, do as I say, not as I do!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...and...



...and...

Who was reassured by any of the explanations above?

This is "making stuff up". IMHO


You now admit your story was bogus.


How can you truthfully defend any level of alcohol abuse from a blood test that you now admit was never taken?


They are not similar at all: the realities of ejection and drowning within seconds make BWI far more serious. Night-rescue—especially of multiple unconscious victims—is problematical.

Excess speed doesn't improve the chances of survival at night, even when 45-MPH—through the darkness—appears "Reasonable and Prudent" to a Captain.


1) Boating fatalities (and BWI) nearly always occur on water.

2) Roadway fatalities (and DWI) nearly always occur on land.

3) Intoxicated boaters appear as a huge factor in New Hampshire's blaring headlines of manslaughters—even when the defendants are "gotten-off" on those charges.

4) Those headlines should prompt SBONH to support a "no open containers" law for boat Captains—but we're not holding our breaths.

5) After one sip of alcohol, who would trust any boater's judgment while using their "personal-best" Reason and Prudence.

APS, you might want to set your sights on space travel now. It appears that someone is working on a beer that can be consumed in space. Imagine...an open container on Virgin Galactic? The horror!!


http://www.delish.com/food/recalls-r...beer?GT1=47001