Speed Limits

PROPELLER · 04-28-2005, 08:49 AM

I know some are tired of the discussion about HB162 but I think this is important so I want to look at this from a different angle.

I don't know about everyone else but I do not want my legislators voting for or against bills based on peoples opinion, emotion, what they hear through the grapevine or what they read in the newspaper. I vote for my legislators to pass laws based on documented evidence to prove there is an issue that needs to be adressed. Isn't that what we want our legislators to do no matter what the issue?

Collisions are not occurring on Winnipesaukee above or below the proposed speed limits of HB162(except 1 in Meredith). Maybe some boats are bumping others tied up at the public docks but thats irrelevant with respect to HB162 for obvious reasons.

If the legislators who represent me in Concord are making decisions based on peoples opinion, what their friends told them, what they read in the newspaper then I will not be voting for them in the next election.

Islander · 04-28-2005, 09:12 AM

Propeller

There is more than enough documented evidence to support a speed limit. Common sense and good judgment also argue for a limit.

People that have a predisposition against any limit are discounting or explaining away the evidence.

The Coast Guard list speed as the #4 contributor to boating accidents. The lake has had accidents and death involving high performance boats and speed. But as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

PROPELLER · 04-28-2005, 10:42 AM

Besides the collision in Meredith, provide the statistics of all these other alleged collisions.

Speed was #4, not #1, #2 or #3. The top 3 were inattention, careless/reckless operation & operator inexperience which just goes to show that education, education, education should be the top priority. The accidents reported due to speed could have been at much lower speeds than the proposed speed limit in areas where it may not have been reasonable to travel say 10, 15 or 20 mph like the Weirs Channel or between Eagle & Govenors & that could be why they were coded as speed related. It does not mean any of those accidents were due to speeds over 45 mph. They could have been collisions around docks or in no wake areas. Thats where your more likely to have collisions not out in the open water.

446 collisions due to speed(which may have not been at speeds even approaching the proposed speed limit, many could have been around docks or congested areas where you need to go slow) across the whole country is barely a blip on the radar screen when you consider how many registered boats there are in the US. California & Michigan alone have 2 million or more registered boats. In 2003 there were nearly 13 million registered boats across the US. How many of those collisions due to speed occurred in NH & how many on Winnipesaukee?

I did read the Coast Guard report & found it very interesting. Accidents between 93 & 03 have gone down even though the number of registered boats has increased & injuries & fatalities have stayed relatively constant.

So you see, I do see, its just that I can read between the lines & Don't accept everything at face value. Can you?

jarhead · 04-28-2005, 11:38 AM

according to the coast gaurd 2003 report
acidents by state florida 752
michigan 218
new york 224
texas 198
a bunch in between
new hampshire 49
speed of vesels involved in accidents
under 10 mph 1173
10 to 20 mph 1147
20 to 40 mph 1082
over 40 mph 180 yes 180
deaths by length of vessel
under 16' 88
16' to 26' 101
26' or over 14 yes 14

Now we can all see the dangers of boating , it is in other states withsmall boats going well under you proposed speed limit. I did mention i love statistics right!

Islander · 04-28-2005, 12:05 PM

Propeller

Why are we ignoring the Meredith accident other than it is very very bad for your argument?

Jarhead

Obviously there are less fatalities in boats over 26'. These boats are a very small percentage of all boats.

The Coast Guard stats are based on the boat you are IN. So if a GFBL runs over 2 people in a 12' skiff, it is recorded as 2 deaths in a vessels under 16'.

Canoes have a very high fatality rate. However only the occupants of the canoe are at risk. I don't think my family or I are in any danger from irresponsible or drunken canoe operators.

Grant · 04-28-2005, 12:27 PM

Funny, I come across this thread after arriving home and finding the WinnFABS mailer in my mailbox. Just read it and visited the Web site. Compelling stuff.

Here's a simple observation on the matter (guaranteed to raise ire, provoke flames, and induce name-calling):

A speed limit is not a bad thing. Heck, I think if I opened up the throttle on our boat, it might hit 45 MPH. And it's a pretty thrilling ride at that speed. And, when you think about it, 25 MPH at night is probably as fast anyone really needs to go.

(Now here's the part that'll tee off some folks)... Now, if HB 162 passes, perhaps those who own the giant, meant-for-ocean boats that typically are the fastest on the Lake will take their "business" elsewhere. The result: A bit less congestion, a lot less noise, fewer eyesores, fewer speed-related incidents, less pollution... Sounds like a no-brainer, quality-of-life upgrade to me!

Okay, flame away.

Bear Lover · 04-28-2005, 12:29 PM

In the Meredith accident a 32' Formula ran over a 21' bow rider. So the Coast Guard calls that 1 fatality in a vessel 16' to 26'.

Its not the people in the big boats that are in danger, its the people that get in their way. Then the CG records it as a death in a small boat.

Then somebody tries to use it as a justification for unlimited speed. Unreal!

Evenstar · 04-28-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarhead

according to the coast guard 2003 report
.... Now we can all see the dangers of boating , it is in other states withsmall boats going well under you proposed speed limit.

Your figures are pretty meaningless. You need to have the speed statistics for only the accidents that involved a collision, rather than for every type of boating accident.

35% of boating accidents in 2003 involved the following:

Capsizing 514
Falls Within Boat 233
Falls Overboard 509
Sinking 128
Departed Vessel (swimming) 34
Departed Vessel (other) 11
Flooding/Swamping 274
Fire/Explosion (fuel) 142
Fire/Explosion (other than fuel) 68
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 20
Falls on PWC 15

Most of these probably happened in small, slow moving boats.

restauranteer · 04-28-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...Your figures are pretty meaningless. You need to have the speed statistics for only the accidents that involved a collision, rather than for every type of boating accident....
...Most of these probably happened in small, slow moving boats....

You are absolutely right....

The most dangerous craft to be in, statistically speaking, is a small, slow moving boat!

Using your logic and facts presented, we need to pass a minimum speed and minimum length boating law. No boats allowed on Winnipesaukee under 20 feet and all boats must be operated at a speed greater than 25 MPH.

Thank you so much for helping us discover what we really need here!

Bon apetit!

jarhead · 04-28-2005, 04:21 PM

You folks love to point to these rediculous statistics ,but when it get's turned on you watch out .You twist them your way and i'll twist them mine.

chase1 · 04-29-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Propeller

The Coast Guard list speed as the #4 contributor to boating accidents. The lake has had accidents and death involving high performance boats and speed. But as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

The report lists excessive speed as the #4 contributing factor.... Please refer to the glossary were you will find speeding is defined - operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances.
Excessive speed is not directly linked to high performance boats and a particular speed value. This report shows that in 2003 fewer accidents happened at speeds over 40 than any other reported category including, not moving.

Open your eyes.

You can not legislate responsibility.

dan · 04-29-2005, 09:57 AM

While I completely agree with point #1, point # 2 say,s it all. I have been on the water since 89. The 1st 4yrs on Cow and the rest on the mainland. During the week days there isn,t a problem. It would be a shame to add more rules to try to help a problem that occurs on such a few day,s.

04-28-2005, 12:27 PM	#6
Grant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pennsyltuckey, Tuftonboro, Moultonborough Posts: 1,501 Thanks: 377 Thanked 230 Times in 124 Posts	No Brainer for Me Funny, I come across this thread after arriving home and finding the WinnFABS mailer in my mailbox. Just read it and visited the Web site. Compelling stuff. Here's a simple observation on the matter (guaranteed to raise ire, provoke flames, and induce name-calling): A speed limit is not a bad thing. Heck, I think if I opened up the throttle on our boat, it might hit 45 MPH. And it's a pretty thrilling ride at that speed. And, when you think about it, 25 MPH at night is probably as fast anyone really needs to go. (Now here's the part that'll tee off some folks)... Now, if HB 162 passes, perhaps those who own the giant, meant-for-ocean boats that typically are the fastest on the Lake will take their "business" elsewhere. The result: A bit less congestion, a lot less noise, fewer eyesores, fewer speed-related incidents, less pollution... Sounds like a no-brainer, quality-of-life upgrade to me! Okay, flame away. __________________ "When I die, please don't let my wife sell my dive gear for what I told her I paid for it."

04-28-2005, 04:21 PM	#10
jarhead Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	pathetic You folks love to point to these rediculous statistics ,but when it get's turned on you watch out .You twist them your way and i'll twist them mine.

04-29-2005, 09:57 AM	#12
dan Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: moultonborough/billerica Posts: 42 Thanks: 21 Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts	Woodsy point # 1 and #2 While I completely agree with point #1, point # 2 say,s it all. I have been on the water since 89. The 1st 4yrs on Cow and the rest on the mainland. During the week days there isn,t a problem. It would be a shame to add more rules to try to help a problem that occurs on such a few day,s.

04-28-2005, 08:49 AM	#1
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Legislation I know some are tired of the discussion about HB162 but I think this is important so I want to look at this from a different angle. I don't know about everyone else but I do not want my legislators voting for or against bills based on peoples opinion, emotion, what they hear through the grapevine or what they read in the newspaper. I vote for my legislators to pass laws based on documented evidence to prove there is an issue that needs to be adressed. Isn't that what we want our legislators to do no matter what the issue? Collisions are not occurring on Winnipesaukee above or below the proposed speed limits of HB162(except 1 in Meredith). Maybe some boats are bumping others tied up at the public docks but thats irrelevant with respect to HB162 for obvious reasons. If the legislators who represent me in Concord are making decisions based on peoples opinion, what their friends told them, what they read in the newspaper then I will not be voting for them in the next election.

04-28-2005, 09:12 AM	#2
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Propeller There is more than enough documented evidence to support a speed limit. Common sense and good judgment also argue for a limit. People that have a predisposition against any limit are discounting or explaining away the evidence. The Coast Guard list speed as the #4 contributor to boating accidents. The lake has had accidents and death involving high performance boats and speed. But as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

04-28-2005, 10:42 AM	#3
PROPELLER Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 340 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Besides the collision in Meredith, provide the statistics of all these other alleged collisions. Speed was #4, not #1, #2 or #3. The top 3 were inattention, careless/reckless operation & operator inexperience which just goes to show that education, education, education should be the top priority. The accidents reported due to speed could have been at much lower speeds than the proposed speed limit in areas where it may not have been reasonable to travel say 10, 15 or 20 mph like the Weirs Channel or between Eagle & Govenors & that could be why they were coded as speed related. It does not mean any of those accidents were due to speeds over 45 mph. They could have been collisions around docks or in no wake areas. Thats where your more likely to have collisions not out in the open water. 446 collisions due to speed(which may have not been at speeds even approaching the proposed speed limit, many could have been around docks or congested areas where you need to go slow) across the whole country is barely a blip on the radar screen when you consider how many registered boats there are in the US. California & Michigan alone have 2 million or more registered boats. In 2003 there were nearly 13 million registered boats across the US. How many of those collisions due to speed occurred in NH & how many on Winnipesaukee? I did read the Coast Guard report & found it very interesting. Accidents between 93 & 03 have gone down even though the number of registered boats has increased & injuries & fatalities have stayed relatively constant. So you see, I do see, its just that I can read between the lines & Don't accept everything at face value. Can you?

04-28-2005, 11:38 AM	#4
jarhead Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I love statistics according to the coast gaurd 2003 report acidents by state florida 752 michigan 218 new york 224 texas 198 a bunch in between new hampshire 49 speed of vesels involved in accidents under 10 mph 1173 10 to 20 mph 1147 20 to 40 mph 1082 over 40 mph 180 yes 180 deaths by length of vessel under 16' 88 16' to 26' 101 26' or over 14 yes 14 Now we can all see the dangers of boating , it is in other states withsmall boats going well under you proposed speed limit. I did mention i love statistics right!

04-28-2005, 12:05 PM	#5
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Propeller Why are we ignoring the Meredith accident other than it is very very bad for your argument? Jarhead Obviously there are less fatalities in boats over 26'. These boats are a very small percentage of all boats. The Coast Guard stats are based on the boat you are IN. So if a GFBL runs over 2 people in a 12' skiff, it is recorded as 2 deaths in a vessels under 16'. Canoes have a very high fatality rate. However only the occupants of the canoe are at risk. I don't think my family or I are in any danger from irresponsible or drunken canoe operators.

04-28-2005, 12:29 PM	#7
Bear Lover Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 96 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	In the Meredith accident a 32' Formula ran over a 21' bow rider. So the Coast Guard calls that 1 fatality in a vessel 16' to 26'. Its not the people in the big boats that are in danger, its the people that get in their way. Then the CG records it as a death in a small boat. Then somebody tries to use it as a justification for unlimited speed. Unreal!