SB27 Coming to Vote Expected to Pass

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by chipj29

...There is no doubt in my mind that any future legislation pertaining to speed limits will be a very difficult fight for the speed limit opponents.

Face it gang, stats don’t matter. There are more supporters than there are opponents, and as long as they continue to tell their stories of feeling safer, then the opponents don’t have a chance....

I think its going to always be a battle because WinnFlabs gets free benefit of the doubt. To those who don't own boats the idea of speed on a lake is not something they understand. My S-I-L was a classic example when the SL discussion came up. After a ride on the boat her comment was how in the world did they justify 45 MPH and "that's not that fast at all".

I suspect a SL will likely always remain but not 45 MPH. It's just too slow for a lake this size.

Alas, this is politics so perception trumps reality. I personally don't see this as a dead issue, not even close.

As I said before, I think WinnFlabs made a huge tactical error in not supporting SB-27 as that would have been very hard to get people to change the limits afterwards. Now everything is fair game

[Rusty]

The author of the LDS article summed it up pretty much by the below statement:

Since 2006, when the first speed limit bill was introduced, the cause has drawn a large, broad and diverse constituency, especially but not exclusively in the Lakes Region while the opposition appears confined to a relatively small but articulate group of powerboating enthusiasts.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

The author of the LDS article summed it up pretty much by the below statement:

Since 2006, when the first speed limit bill was introduced, the cause has drawn a large, broad and diverse constituency, especially but not exclusively in the Lakes Region while the opposition appears confined to a relatively small but articulate group of powerboating enthusiasts.

Rusty, you missed the word "relatively". Anyday WinnFabs wants to debate facts please contact me and we'll arrange it. My only request is it be recorded on video. I've yet to have anyone willing to take me up on the offer I'll even agree to allow them to have note cards and I'll be allowed no prompts. I'll warn you that I'm no rookie and have no shortage of data to back me up.....

I did not spend my last political points on the SL as rafting is what I'm after. My BIL who is a litigating attorney (and lives in NH) also sees many faults in the rafting restrictions on the lake

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Rusty, you missed the word "relatively". Anyday WinnFabs wants to debate facts please contact me and we'll arrange it. My only request is it be recorded on video. I've yet to have anyone willing to take me up on the offer I'll even agree to allow them to have note cards and I'll be allowed no prompts. I'll warn you that I'm no rookie and have no shortage of data to back me up.....

I did not spend my last political points on the SL as rafting is what I'm after. My BIL who is a litigating attorney (and lives in NH) also sees many faults in the rafting restrictions on the lake

I'm sure you are the best of the best when it comes to debating.

As you said in another post about us forum members: "I have more years of education than many people on this board combined. Not arrogance, fact."

If we ever meet I will be sure to Genuflect.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I'm sure you are the best of the best when it comes to debating.

As you said in another post about us forum members: "I have more years of education than many people on this board combined. Not arrogance, fact."

If we ever meet I will be sure to Genuflect.

I'm just waiting for the invitation.

[Bear Islander]

Why on earth would WinnFABS want to debate this issue with LS when...

1. This issue is dead! The current speed limit is as good as chiseled in stone.

2. He has not shown WinnFABS even the common courtesy of using their right name.

3. His posts demonstrate he doesn't understand why about 90% of citizens support speed limits.

4. His last name is Phycho.

[lawn psycho]

BI, SB-27 is dead. The SL issue remains.

I'll tell you why WinnFlabs won't debate:
1. Lack of any meaningful data
2. Deceit can not be translated during a debate
3. I do understand why many people support a SL. I also understand 90% of the state doesn't even own boats.
4. I find psycho to be an endearing term in respect to my lawn. I can hear my little green friends talking to me right now and they are telling me that it's true, a BEAR does sheot in the woods

[Bear Islander]

The citizens of New Hampshire do not all own boats. However they DO own Lake Winnipesaukee.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

However they DO own Lake Winnipesaukee.

You said it, not me

Edit: How are people able to travel to the Broads on Lake Winni without the use of a boat?

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

You said it, not me

Edit: How are people able to travel to the Broads on Lake Winni without the use of a boat?

The most affordable boat for getting onto the Big Lake is most definately a second hand or used kayak. By searching through the New Hampshire classified ads, it is possible to find a nice, usable 14 to 16' long distance kayak for about $250 to 500. Beginner kayaks, which run about nine feet long can be found for as low as 100-dollars. By virtue of not needing a trailer, engine, gasoline or boater's insurance, it makes a kayak the least expensive way to get out onto the water.

Another major plus for kayaks is they are FUN to paddle and paddling a kayak provides a lot of exercise. Kayaks give you a feeling of being close to the water which is something you do not get in big, fast boats.

So, here's a question for Lawn Psycho. How does kayaking safety relate to the current battle between the SBoNH and WinnFabs with regard to increasing the speed limit from 45-mph up to 55-mph?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The most affordable boat for getting onto the Big Lake is most definately a kayak. By searching through the New Hampshire classified ads, it is possible to find a nice, usable 14 to 16' long distance kayak for about $250 to 500. By virtue of not needing a trailer, engine, gasoline or boater's insurance, it makes a kayak the least expensive way to get out onto the water.

Another major feature is that paddling a kayak provides a lot of exercise.

So, here's a question for Lawn Pscho. How does kayaking safety relate to the current battle between the SBoNH and WinnFabs with regard to increasing the speed limit from 45-mph up to 55-mph?

I have a kayak. I also know that many days having a kayak on the broads is a dumb idea when the wind wips up. For that same reason there's days I keep my 22 ft long, 8.5 ft wide bowrider off the water as well.

Kayaks and the SL are not related.

Having any craft out on the lake absent of some form of insurance is risky my opinion. If you have any assets of value then I recommend you talk to your insurance guy about an umbrella policy. I'm not one to throw money away for insurance but when you are on the water with some craft costing $100s of thousands of dollars if you cause an issue you could be up the river without a paddle (sorry, I couldn't resist)

[fatlazyless]

Yes, that's for sure, and it's always good to have a friendly insurance company on your side.

Attention KAYAK INSURANCE. Is there such a policy as kayak, canoe or small non-motorized sailboat insurance. Supposedly, one's homeowner's insurance provides coverage for these small, non-motorized boats but there's always some other and better way in the insurance coverage biz?

As far as kayaks and speed limits not being related, that doesn't seem too safety oriented considering that they both share the same waters and are as about as opposite as can be. One is small, slow, human powered, close to the water, and can be difficult to see, while the other is much bigger, higher and goes much faster, yet they both share the same waters. Sort of like bicycles and cars that share the same road.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As far as kayaks and speed limits not being related, that doesn't seem too safety oriented considering that they both share the same waters and are as about as opposite as can be. One is small, slow, human powered, close to the water, and can be difficult to see, while the other is much bigger, higher and goes much faster, yet they both share the same waters. Sort of like bicycles and cars that share the same road.

FLL, they don't allow bicycles on highways. Maybe you're on to something

Tell me when was the last time a kayak was run over by a boat on Winni? I'm forgetful.

[Rusty]

It’s funny how not even one business owner supported the bill at the hearing. It’s also funny how several committee members stressed the overwhelming opposition to the bill expressed by the those who live and work in the Lakes Region...I wonder why.

Where is all the support for this Bill. No wonder it’s going down in defeat. Just plan lack of support.

Why didn’t the SBONH and the GFBL boaters have more supporters there. Evidently they have given up.

How about the big debater, why wasn't he there? Never mind he's too busy keeping all of us here in the forum in line.

[Dhuberty24]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It’s funny how not even one business owner supported the bill at the hearing. It’s also funny how several committee members stressed the overwhelming opposition to the bill expressed by the those who live and work in the Lakes Region...I wonder why.

Where is all the support for this Bill. No wonder it’s going down in defeat. Just plan lack of support.

Why didn’t the SBONH and the GFBL boaters have more supporters there. Evidently they have given up.

How about the big debater, why wasn't he there? Never mind he's too busy keeping all of us here in the forum in line.

Because we all work. We are not all retired citizens with to much money and free time.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Dhuberty24

Because we all work. We are not all retired citizens with to much money and free time.

The reason you did not see more businesses getting involved as some were neutral and some knew it was better to not alienate customers on either side of the issue. I talked to a couple marina owners directly last year who did not open their mouths for just the reasons I mentioned.

I know very well the businesses that supported the SL and they will never see one penny of my money as they have in the past.

Looking at my Four Winns technical manual there is a whole section that lists the fuel usage and top speeds based on prop blade & pitch. There's a reason why Four Winns put that in there as people want boats that have some level performance. This is what sells boats.

To be honest I am suprised the boating industry did not step up and support SB-27 and that kinda of support needs to be looked at in the future. Getting more public awareness in magazines, etc is also paramount. Winni is a fringe market compared to places like Florida, Texas, and California and their lakes.

Having a 45 MPH limi on Winni is like having a 40MPH limit on I-93 IMO. Lower the SL on that stretch that low and the same people who would support a boat SL would be up in arms about the slow highway limit.
Get those same people educated about what it's like on the water as to what is considered fast and the 45 MPH limit would not last one day. WinnFlabs is not successful because they are smarter or more organized than anyone else. They have public perception on their side.

There were people who have not ever owned a boat or even been on the water who thought the SL was a "good idea". In some people's minds they think that's great until that same logic results in legislation that affects them.

What would really help is the "right" person get a ticket for speeding on the lake. I suspect there will never be many tickets written as you can spot MP from a great distance, the sight lines are huge, and there's really no place for them to hide like they do on the highway.

I will have one of my radar detectors onboard this year to get an idea of how often they are clocking people. I suspect it would be a lot of wasted time for MP with minimal results when most boats aren't even going 45 MPH to begin with.

Last year I had a phone conversation with a very well know person from this site with a discussion about rafting and the SL. I told him my real name but did not ID myself as a forum member. He owns waterfront and was under the impression that I was a SL supporter (his assumption, not by me duping him). I have long agonized over revealing what was said but it is very clear that he assumes anyone who is not a waterfront owner is scum of the earth. Given what he sells I am still shocked after what I heard come out of his mouth. I am REALLY close to spilling the beans and probably should have done it long ago. There is a "Z" in his user name.

What I have come to conclude is that the SL is about those who own on the lake and goes beyond safety or public interest.

After having been involved with this forum (since near the very beginning but under my old name) and knowing people's true colors I've lost a lot of respect for people on the water. It's not the opinions that bother me. It's the attitudes that some people have about people's use of the water. I just can not understand why people buy on the water and get upset by people using the lake. If people want to lie and say it's because of wild parties, etc please go tell that story to someone else. I know better.

Maybe some mandatory education attached to deeds for shorefront owners to inform them that boats use the water during the summer is needed before getting the keys would do some good. And the class would be in Berlin, NH and only held on Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day weekends

[Rusty]

At the hearing "Two representatives stated that even though they loved speed, Winnipesaukee was not the place to speed. The increase to 55 mph was a 20-percent increase in the speed limit and using the Coast Guard studies, that would increase the danger by 33-percent from the current 45 mph on the entire lake."

[Dhuberty24]

I know this has already been said but, show me stats. In my opinion the lake has always been safe. The only danger I have seen is rental boats and the occasional bone head towing a tuber.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Dhuberty24

Because we all work. We are not all retired citizens with to much money and free time.

Then maybe when someone takes on a project, i.e. Speed Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, they should realize that it takes time, energy, sincere support, and money.
That’s how I have done things during my life on this earth.

Just a thought.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Tell me when was the last time a kayak was run over by a boat on Winni? I'm forgetful.

The last time I can remember was July 2007 when a power boat cut a kayak in half near Stonedam Island. The kayaker jumped out before the accident and was not injured. However as I remember it, he had considerable cause for embarrassment!

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The last time I can remember was July 2007 when a power boat cut a kayak in half near Stonedam Island. The kayaker jumped out before the accident and was not injured. However as I remember it, he had considerable cause for embarrassment!

Wasn't that an unlit kayak at night... with a paddler who forgot his shorts?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Wasn't that an unlit kayak at night... with a paddler who forgot his shorts?

This is what I am referrring too about liability. People assume a kayak would always have the right of way being human powered. Not having lights and having a vessel strike you opens you up for liability for any damage to the boat.

No lights on a vessel at night on the lake is game over IMO.

[Rusty]

Mary Hutchins has worked real hard to make our beautiful Lake a safe place for everyone.

This well written article is in today's LDS

Reps who voted against SB-27 talked to Lakes Region people

To the editor,

Tuesday the N.H. House Transportation Committee went into executive session to vote on SB-27, which was to increase the speed limits in the" Broads" on Lake Winnipesaukee to 55 mph. Out of 14 actual members voting; 11 opposed SB-27 and three supported it. The total was actually 11 to 6 when 3 "ringers", not hearing any testimony, were added to vote in the vacant seats. Only Rep. Hikel testified to support SB-27 and all 11 who opposed it testified with their reasons.

All 11 opposed to SB-27 felt it was an overwhelming number that testified — opposed SB-27 (7 to 1), as those that came to sign in opposed the bill (11 to 1) . They all reiterated that the overwhelming number opposing SB-27 sent e-mails and phone calls giving their personnel reasons to oppose SB-27, but the supporters had mostly form letters. Two representatives stated that even though they loved speed, Winnipesaukee was not the place to speed. The increase to 55 mph was a 20-percent increase in the speed limit and using the Coast Guard studies, that would increase the danger by 33-percent from the current 45 mph on the entire lake.

It would actually be greater because of human tendencies of feeling it is okay to go 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit. One further stated that the best conditions for speed was exactly the same conditions that swimmers, water skiers, small boats, canoes, kayaks etc… come out very calm days, increasing the danger by pure numbers trying to use the same water.

Reps opposing SB-27 mentioned that they have talked with many of the representatives who surround Lake Winnipesaukee and businesses, with the overwhelming majority opposing SB-27, and support the current law of 45/30 mph on the entire lake. Residents surrounding Lake Winnipesaukee overwhelmingly opposed SB-27, as indicated in a professional poll recently. Some of the veteran representatives reiterated that just last year there was a compromise to increase the speed at night and it was unanimously supported by the bi-partisan committee … all feeling that that was absolutely the final vote for permanent speed limits, 45 mph daytime 30 mph at night on all of Lake Winnipesaukee — no more compromises. Another member stated that with the current financial state of N.H., who was going to pay for the new markers outlining the speed zone and who would pay for the installation and maintenance of them plus the increase in Marine Patrol to patrol that strip of speed. I thought of how many lakes that already have 45/25 speed limits stated that at least 95-percent self patrol themselves with no need to increase patrols on the lake and all tickets that were issued were supported in the courts.

Representative Hikel tried a very last minute amendment to further study the current 45/30 speed limits. It was voted down. He had only received the amendment one hour before the committee meeting and Chair Packard said he had only seen it one-half hour ago, leading many to ask who actually wrote it. After six years, I believe it has been thoroughly studied and discussed in four House committee hearings and votes. The initial RR&D House Committee's supported the 45/25 after three hearings around Lake Winnipesaukee, then a hearing that was so large it was held in the House Chambers. In the past The Transportation Committee has voted to support the 45/25 in 2009 and then the 45/30 just last year . Today's vote made it the fourth time it has passed the committee hearing. The entire House has voted three times to support 45/25 then 45/30 speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee. It really has been thoroughly vetted through the N.H. legislative process.

Rep Hikel is attempting to represent a small group of go-fast boaters who want to eliminate the speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee for their personnel indulgence, some having bought their off-shore performance boat after the speed limits had actually passed.

Next week the House will vote on this bill again and hopefully it will support those that listened to over four hours of testimony with no lunch at the hearing that opposed SB-27. Hopefully last year's bi-partisan unanimous vote to compromise the speed limits to 45/30 were permanent and permanent meaning at least more permanent than one year!

Mary Hutchins

Laconia
.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Rusty

.... to represent a small group of go-fast boaters who want to eliminate the speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee for their personnel indulgence, some having bought their off-shore performance boat after the speed limits had actually passed.

Buying a go-fast after the speed limits got passed......how's about that? I smell a bargain GO-FAST boat, super-duper second hand, low price deal at work here......big-time! Never underestimate the selling power of a low priced bargain boat, even when making the purchase is totally not practical. Could be that someone fell in love with a boat and could not resist the low price on a second hand cream puff, or something. TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE! ....and is there any chance of posting a photo of the bargain boat?

And along the same line of thought, right now what with gasoline close to four dollars/gallon is probably a good time to buy a large, giant super-duper used pickup truck as a tow vehicle to be towing the go-fast down to the freebie public boat launch in Portsmouth on the Piscataqua River to access the atlantic.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Mary Hutchins has worked real hard to make our beautiful Lake a safe place for everyone.

This well written article is in today's LDS

Reps who voted against SB-27 talked to Lakes Region people

To the editor,



It would actually be greater because of human tendencies of feeling it is okay to go 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit. One further stated that the best conditions for speed was exactly the same conditions that swimmers, water skiers, small boats, canoes, kayaks etc… come out very calm days, increasing the danger by pure numbers trying to use the same water.

What is the danger exactly?

[chase1]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Yes, that's for sure, and it's always good to have a friendly insurance company on your side.

Attention KAYAK INSURANCE. Is there such a policy as kayak, canoe or small non-motorized sailboat insurance. Supposedly, one's homeowner's insurance provides coverage for these small, non-motorized boats but there's always some other and better way in the insurance coverage biz?

.

We have a policy on our Trac 14 sailboat.

Chase1