Lower Speeds/Larger Wakes

[topwater]

If this speed limit on the lake does pass, are any of the shoreline property owners worried about excessive shore line erosion from all the larger wakes? I would think that faster speeds create much smaller wakes=less pounding of waves on the shoreline, with every boat going slower and creating a larger wake, (which WILL happen) there will be alot rougher waters and a much increased hammering of the shoreline, with increasing erosion inevitable.
I would like to hear from the lake front owners how they feel about this.
This is not a debate or a argument, just a heathy question.

[B R]

why no reply's on this very worthy question? could it be that the answer flies in the face of hb162? could hb162 have a negative effect on waterfront erosion?

i think the answer is implied in the silence. slower boats does = larger wakes which does = waterfront erosion.

[Islander]

The wake of a boat on plane doesn't change much with speed. I don't think 45 is going to cause a lot more wake than 60. And the wake of a cabin cruiser that can't even get on plane is about 100 times more destructive.

This is a scare tactic that just ain't true. And if I am wrong I will gladly exchange the increased wake for benefits of HB162.

However a boat that has been moved to another body of water makes no wake on Winni.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by B R

why no reply's on this very worthy question?

Worthy question? Am I missing something here? Aren't boats on plane well below 45 mph? Mine planes at about 20-25 mph. Is there a big difference in the wake of a boat on plane at 45 compared to 65?

Also, the anti-speed limit folks say that the high speeds only occur in the broads well away from most other people. Are you saying that boats 151' from my dock should also go as fast as possible to reduce soil erosion? I can see the bumper stickers now: "Fight Soil Erosion, Go 90".

[B R]

true for 45 mph; not true for 25 mph. my boat does not plane off at 25 mph and will make a significantly larger wake at night with the proposed speed limits.

please, i'm not advocating speeding by your dock to save the environment; i'm just wondering if anyone thought about the 25mph night time limit. it will speed up waterfront errosion, no doubt about it. have you seen the size of the boats that cruise around at night? most of these boats will make larger wakes if they are forced to go below 25mph as opposed to 30 or 35 mph.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Ranger

The people who favor a speed limit have only one agenda, and that is to rid the lake of so called performance boats.

That's your opinion. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Most supporters that I talk to are genuinely concerned about the safety of their families and the ability of ALL boats to use the lake safely, now and in the future. That's their "agenda".

OK, I'm outta here.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by B R

slower boats = waterfront erosion.

Any "statistics" on this?

But I imagine that any of the boats that will be effected by a 45MPH SL are already equipped with power trim and trim tabs. Those who simply refuse to learn how to use them will be fewer and farther between as the speed limit takes hold. Is this a "speed limit" issue or an "education" issue?

As to the planing argument, go to Powerboatmagazine.com. You'll first notice that this is no speed limit advocacy group. Click on "boat tests". There you will find the planing speeds for virtually evey kind of performance boat. Here's the report for a 2002 Baja 275 (no slow boat); http://www.powerboatmagazine.com/200...sults/feb1.pdf.
Notice that its planing speed is 18MPH. But then, the tester surely knew how to trim the boat.
Notice that none of the other boats have planing speeds in excess of 25MPH (according to this preformance boat site, not according to me).
Of course, these are for stock boats. I suppose that one could alter his boat to gain top-end speed at the expense of planing speed, but is that the public's fault? If I put straight pipes on my bike can I argue that it should not be subject to the noise law because it can no longer pass?

All these old arguments have been tried and have already failed over and over. The original "speed is safe" argument flies in the face of all that is known about motor vehicle safety (or are you going to argue that boats are nto motor vehicles?). As was said in an article by the Union Leader last summer (I'm paraphrasing), the notion that "speed kills" is recognized by every law enforcement agency in the country except the one in Glendale, who believes that speeds which are dangerously high everywhere else mysteriously become safe on Winnipesaukee (a miracle!).
The "discrimination" argument is another distraction...which of the protected groups is "danger" in? Do homicide laws discriminate against certain types of guns?
I notice that you don't even bother with the "unenforceable" argument anymore (Almost time for its re-emergence).
And then the "poll was too vague" argument, which I thought had exposed the fact that you were finally reaching the bottom of the bag, until this...the "shore erosion" argument.
Too bad you hadn't thought of this one in time for the committee. I'm sure it would have made the difference.

PS: I just thought of another argument you guys can use...How about the idea that the faster you go, the less time it takes you to pass me and the less time that I am therefore in danger? There's got to be some way to spin some logic into this.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Ranger

The people who favor a speed limit have only one agenda, and that is to rid the lake of so called performance boats.

Too bad you did not think to expose this "secret agenda" at the hearings last summer.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Ranger

read winnfabs web site if you do not believe me.

Ranger, how did you get access to the secret "members only" portion of the winnfabs site where we lay out our secret agenda and spell out our strategy for discriminating against danger?

[B R]

about my own boat and my own boating experience. my boat does not plane off at 25 mph; it's one of those large boats that you might think belongs in the ocean also. probably the next boat to be targeted off the lake.

i thought the original poster had a valid point. does a slower boat create a bigger wake? it's just a simple question that everyone who boats knows the answer to.

i have no doubt there are plenty of boats that don't have a problem planing off at 25 mph; i'm just saying that mine does. and when i'm not on plane, it makes a larger wake than when i am on plane.

[B R]

trim tabs work differently on a 6,000 pound boat than on a 14,000 pound boat. if i try and use my tabs to bring the bow of my 14,000 pound boat down so it can plane at a lower speed; the tabs would probably get ripped off the stern. i use my tabs to level my boat, not to try and bring the bow down.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

{snip} All these old arguments have been tried and have already failed over and over. The original "speed is safe" argument flies in the face of all that is known about motor vehicle safety (or are you going to argue that boats are nto motor vehicles?). As was said in an article by the Union Leader last summer (I'm paraphrasing), the notion that "speed kills" is recognized by every law enforcement agency in the country except the one in Glendale, who believes that speeds which are dangerously high everywhere else mysteriously become safe on Winnipesaukee (a miracle!). {snip}

I'm just going to chime in on one of your points. What you seem to not realize is that "Speed Kills" was a nice soundbite in the NMSL/55 days but has been throughly discredited since. The various safety agencies would have had us all believe that returning the speed limits to their pre-Carter numbers would have resulted in the deaths of extra thousands per year. Yet the limits did rise and the predictions didn't come true. The problem is that the adage "Speed Kills" is so general that is it meaningless. As was shown on our highways and is shown on the Autobahn, speed all by itself doesn't kill. Speed too fast for the conditions may be another matter. Most of the time and most of the lake has conditions which can safely support high speed and there are other times where and when such speeds can't safely be run. Is there some maximum speed at which a normal person is putting someone else's welfare in potential danger ... sure but I believe to be a lot higher than the 45 mph proposed (see my other post should you care to). Short of that, what some are objecting to is the limitation to a slow speed all the time, all over the place instead of being allowed to exercise their own judgement.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by B R

my boat does not plane off at 25 mph.

Not to sound too cold, but is it our fault that you bought a boat that cannot be operated at night at a reasonable and prudent speed on our lake unless it throws a huge wake that, by your admission, causes shore damage?
You must go through 25MPH at least twice everytime you use the boat. Did you consider this shore erosion that it has alledgedly been causing when you bought it? Hasn't it been bothering you since?
If my car was unable to steer or brake properly until it reached 50 MPH, should I be allowed to drive it that fast through town?
I would think people would be above trying to use the argument that a boat should be allowed to go faster because it is unsafe at reasonable speeds.
And 25MPH at night on a lake is more than reasonable. Go to Offshoreonly.com and you will see that even the go-fast group of that site is finally admitting this (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...t=speed+limit). Note that over 63% of the respondants to a poll of go-fast boaters favor restrictions on night time speed...to "save their sport" (sport?).
If your boat cannot slow down to 25MPH at night without causing damage, just PLEASE don't drive it at night on our lake. It's that simple. My grandkid's Boston Whaler has no lights...so he doesn't use that at night either. He doesn't argue that lights should not be required at night or call that law discriminatory against his type of boat.
And during the day, please stay away from my dock when you are getting underway so you do not damage it with your huge wake before you reach your planing speed.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

As shown on the Autobahn...

Are we actually stooping to camparing New Hampshire's beautiful Lake Winnipesaukee to the German Autobahn now? Is that what you people want it to be? That's not what the rest of us want. It's not a super highway or a race track...its a crowded lake. Besides, where would we paint the lane markers?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Are we actually stooping to camparing New Hampshire's beautiful Lake Winnipesaukee to the German Autobahn now? Is that what you people want it to be? That's not what the rest of us want. It's not a super highway or a race track...its a crowded lake. Besides, where would we paint the lane markers?

Lane markers, now who's stoooping. Your point was that in the auto world, speed kills and by extension it (whatever speed you have in mind, presumably over 45) kills here on the lake. It's an oversimplification in the auto world and it's the same here. The lake (to be fair not all of it) has some of the same qualifications that make highways safe for their speeds, namely unhindered sightlines. To say "Speed Kills" on these portions is as untrue as it is on the highways or Autobahn. Now if you don't want "high" speed on the lake anywhere, anytime, then fine say so. Just don't make the claim that it's inherently unsafe because "Speed Kills".

As to lane markers ... boats have room to manuver that cars don't have. Cars don't function safely off the road, it's those pesky trees and poles and hills and stuff that get in the way. We created roads for just these type of reasons. Because roads are limited in size, we must operate our cars in close proximity to other cars and so we have lane markers to separate them. A better analogy, auto world to boating world, would be driving aroung the Bonneville salt flats. If you want to say you would be unable to drive your car in the saltflats without running into someone else, that it would require lane markers, well I have no polite response for that.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

if you don't want "high" speed on the lake anywhere, anytime, then fine say so..

I don't know how I could say so anymore emphatically than I (and most of NH) already has. I (We) don't want high speed on the lake anywhere, anytime. (except maybe in properly managed and policed events, on closed courses...not to be confused with poker races)

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

A better analogy, auto world to boating world, would be driving aroung the Bonneville salt flats.

I don't know just how the Slat Flats compare with Winnipesaukee, but if it covers 72 Sq Mi, has 365 Islands on it, numerous invisible rocks, wave-like dunes that pop up out of nowhere to 3 or 4 feet, 30000 other cars driving around with no brakes in every which direction and at differing speeds, some pulling kids behind in wagons, other kids just walking around, kids and old people riding around in bikes, if it has bays and inlets that these other cars come speeding in and out of so quickly that even Director Barrett's finest would not be able to get a radar gun on them (his statement), then I would say that allowing you to fly around at 90 or 100 MPH would indeed be a bit dangerous.
How about if we stop the analogies altogether and the attempts to confuse by comparing to some other non-lake like place (Autobahn, Salt Flats, Outer Space, Fifth Dimension, what's next?) Why not just look at Winnipesaukee? Winnipesaukee is simply not an environment that lends itself to the operation of boats at 90-100MPH. But even if it was, its owners do not want that, so be it.
That of course assumes that there are no shenanigans in Concord to undermine the will of NH's voters. I hear that Rep Whaley is really pushing, against the overwhelming wishes of his own constituents, against the bill, to help his family's jet ski business. I guess I'd do the same thing if I had no morals.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I don't know how I could say so anymore emphatically than I (and most of NH) already has. I (We) don't want high speed on the lake anywhere, anytime... That of course assumes that there are no shenanigans in Concord to undermine the will of NH's voters... I hear that Rep Whaley is really pushing, against the overwhelming wishes of his own constituents... I guess I'd do the same thing if I had no morals.

Can we stick to the facts here so we can have intelligent debate?

"Most" of New Hampshire has had no say in this matter....a limited poll of less than 1 % of the State's population was asked a question. A poll is only a snapshot of opinion based on an instantaneous moment, and many times not representative of a general trend of popular thought.

Furthermore, New Hampshire's voters have had no say in the matter, There has been no referendum, nor statewide elections held to determine if constituents would vote yea or nea on a candidate based on his or her opinion on this particualr subject. We won't know what New Hampshire voters think of the issue until next fall's election, well after the bill is passed or defeated.

Finally, The Honorable Representative Whaley is entitled to make up his own mind on the matter, just as the Honorable Representative Pilliod is entitled to his opinion.

To take a cheap shot like you did at Whaley because he may hold an opinon counter to yours actually speaks volumes to your moral character, not Representaive Whaley's.....

[Silver Duck]

Fat Jack

Are you saying that winnfabs main agenda is not driving performance boats off the lake, with cruisers in the organiztion's sites as the next target? (Serious question!) If so, do you speak for this organization, in what capacity, and what corroboration can you offer?

The clear picture that I've received from postings by several of the more vocal HB162 supporters is that booting performance boats off the lake was the major aim of HB162. That presumed agenda is the main reason I've been vehemently opposed to the both the bill and winnfabs. I think that this just might be the case for some others on this site, too.

Silver Duck

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Skip

"Most" of New Hampshire has had no say in this matter.

The poll had a statistical accuracy of plus or minus 4% to account for the sample size. It is proven science that based on this sampling, if the same question were asked of the entire State's voting populace, between 62% and 70% of the voters would have answered "Favor". So there has indeed been a referendum.

Originally Posted by Skip

The Honorable Representative Whaley is entitled to make up his own mind on the matter, just as the Honorable Representative Pilliod is entitled to his opinion.

The difference is that Rep Pilliod's vote (regardless of his opinion) is consistent with the opinion of the people who elected him. I differ with the notion that an elected official is "entitled to make up his own mind" when his constutuents are so overwhelmingly biased in the other direction, provided his constituents are not asking for something that is immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise against their own best interests. None of those modifiers apply here, so one can only assume that Rep Whaley considered only his family's jet ski business when he made up his mind. Do you feel that is moral? Come on. But we can differ on this opinion. He's an elected official, and is fair game for public scrutiny and even insult (If I had so chosen). I do not see you jumping to scold those who have been calling our president a liar. I just wish politicians would tell us when they are asking for our votes that they intend to vote according to their own interests and against ours.

Originally Posted by Skip

To take a cheap shot like you did at Whaley because he may hold an opinon counter to yours actually speaks volumes to your moral character, not Representaive Whaley's.

Firstly, my "cheap shot" was not taken because of his opinion. If you read more carefully (aren't you a lawyer?), you will see that my comment was directed to his decision to vote according to his opinion rather than that of his constituents. Secondly, my moral character is irrelevant, I am not holding a public office. If I were, I would follow the will of my constituents, provided they were not asking for something that was immoral, unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise against their own best interests, and would lose no sleep over my morality as a result.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I don't know just how the Slat Flats compare with Winnipesaukee, but if it covers 72 Sq Mi, has 365 Islands on it, numerous invisible rocks, wave-like dunes that pop up out of nowhere to 3 or 4 feet, 30000 other cars driving around with no brakes in every which direction and at differing speeds, some pulling kids behind in wagons, other kids just walking around, kids and old people riding around in bikes, if it has bays and inlets that these other cars come speeding in and out of so quickly that even Director Barrett's finest would not be able to get a radar gun on them (his statement), then I would say that allowing you to fly around at 90 or 100 MPH would indeed be a bit dangerous. How about if we stop the analogies altogether and the attempts to confuse by comparing to some other non-lake like place (Autobahn, Salt Flats, Outer Space, Fifth Dimension, what's next?) Why not just look at Winnipesaukee? Winnipesaukee is simply not an environment that lends itself to the operation of boats at 90-100MPH. But even if it was, its owners do not want that, so be it.

Let's be very clear here, I'm not the one who brought in the car analogies into this post. I've tried to show how they aren't applicable and why. You want to mention "invisible rocks", 3-4 "dunes" and 30,000 cars and I'm the one confusing the issue ?!? How many boats were counted in those July 4'th photos ? Are there times and places where you shouldn't go 90-100, yup. Are they all the time and all the place, I'd say nope. I think there could be a better solution than HB-162.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

The clear picture that I've received from postings by several of the more vocal HB162 supporters is that booting performance boats off the lake was the major aim of HB162.

Winnfabs is not the whole of the HB162 support. You need to remember that 66% (plus or minus 4%) of NH's voters favor a speed limit on their lakes, while only a few hundred (or thousand?) are Winnfabs members. There are likely several thousand various reasons around the state for supporting the bill, each as legitimate as the next. I'd guess that there are many who would, as you say, like to see performance boats driven off the lake. Some may just not like the colors of performance boats. Who knows? As silly as that sounds to us, that is their opinion and they are entitled to it. Who am I to say they are wrong? One man / one vote. And calling this effort "discrimination" is just an insult to the word "discrimination".
Most every last one of those I've met and talked to who favor HB162 do so for safety reasons. Period. If you read HB162, even the amended version, you should notice that it does not mention any particular type of boat. It only addresses speed.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I think there could be a better solution than HB-162.

There is always a better solution. Unfortunately, instead of working together to try to figure out that better solution when the speed limit supporters requested that last spring, we were left with only HB162 to work with, by ourselves. So a House committee studied it long and hard, considered thousands upon thousands of letters, emails and testimonials, and decided that an even stricter version of the bill was warranted. They might have recommended some other proposal instead if we had worked one out, but you guys left us at the table. I really think you picked the wrong guy to represent you and are facing the 45/25 law as a result (but that is just my opinon). Wasn't he also Nomar's agent? So now is not the time for this discussion. If the 45/25 limits prove ineffective after time, we should all sit down together and try to figure out a better solution. I am very sincere about this. Ultimately, I just want to be able to use the lake again without fearing for my life.

I have to leave for work shortly....will check back in tomorrow.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

The poll had a statistical accuracy of plus or minus 4% to account for the sample size. It is proven science that based on this sampling, if the same question were asked of the entire State's voting populace, between 62% and 70% of the voters would have answered "Favor". So there has indeed been a referendum. .

Sorry, you are making a fatal but common mistake in analyzing polling data. First, even if you could be sure that the person polled was indeed a registered voter, there is no way you can determine whether that person would vote on the issue questioned. Indeed a poll can show an opinon on a particular subject, but have completely different results when the votes are counted. Just because you have an opinon on the matter does not mean you will go out and vote because of that particular matter. And one things politicos can do is determine usually who votes and why. And simplistic single question polls can be very misleading, Why do you think so many pollsters have been getting it wrong so often lately.

And again, a poll is a snapshot of public opinion at the moment the poll is taken. In this case the intelligent debate on this issue has shown that only a small hardcore group of directly affected individuals feel strongly on either side. The majority of the voting public has much more pressing things on their mind, and given a major publicity campaign by either side prior to a final vote, polling data could change dramatically.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

The difference is that Rep Pilliod's vote (regardless of his opinion) is consistent with the opinion of the people who elected him. I differ with the notion that an elected official is "entitled to make up his own mind" when his constutuents are so overwhelmingly biased in the other direction....

Interesting you say that about Pilliod. Long term polls on a subject well understood by most New Hampshire voters, the issue of mandatory seat belts for all vehicle occupants, have shown that the great majority of New Hampshire voters feel this is an intrusion into personal choice and soundly reject the safety arguments for mandatory usage. Yet the Honorable Representative Pilliod has ignored his constituancy on this and been the losing sponsor of legislation to mandate seatbelt usage. What say you on Pilliods morals...afterall, he is ignoring the wishes of those who elected him. But guess what, they have re-elected him knowing he takes these stances because reasonable people expect their elected representatives to spend more time researching and forming opinions on subjects they may have little time or knowledge to study, and expect their elected officials to have differing opinions at times based on this knowledge. Note I emphasize the term "reasonable people".

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Secondly, my moral character is irrelevant...

See, we do agree on something afterall!

Have a Merry Christmas FJ,

Skip

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Skip

you are making a fatal but common mistake in analyzing polling data.

You are an expert at poll analysis too? I think I'll trust the real experts.

Originally Posted by Skip

a poll is a snapshot of public opinion at the moment the poll is taken.

I agree with you here, there are still several weeks during which public opinion could change. If we can just last from now until January with no more high-speed boating near-misses on the lake...

Originally Posted by Skip

the Honorable Representative Pilliod has ignored his constituancy on this and been the losing sponsor of legislation to mandate seatbelt usage.

How dare you challenge the morals of the Honorable Rep Pilliod? But I do agree with you here too, if he is guilty of the same offense as Rep Whaley, he deserves the same criticism. However, is he guilty of the same offense? I don't suppose Rep Pilliod owns a seat Belt Company and is sponsoring this legislation because he will profit from it, and (although I do not agree with the legislation), I'm sure that in his mind he voted against the will of his constituents (assuming you are right about that) because he felt "his constituents were asking for something that was against their own best interests". I don't always agree with that approach, but remember that was one of the exceptions that distinguishes an honorable public official from one who goes his own way for personal profit. Now, are the SL supporters asking for something that is against their own best interests? That would be a tough argument to sell.

[winnilaker]

FJ, its been a while since we had some interesting conversation. The hearings this summer were to get an opinion of BOATERS on the lake about HB162. I assume you have the numbers of the pro vs con people who showed up. The poll shouldn't hold any value, do we even know how many were from the lakes region, were they boaters, etc. ? I would prefer to use the numbers of people who showed up at the hearings as a real basis for public opinion, wasn't that the goal? Winnfabs wanted these hearings, it was a perfect way to allow the everyone to voice their opinion. Please post those numbers, if NOT I can! And please post the breakdown per hearing, so we can see the Bear Island impact!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...The lake (to be fair not all of it) has some of the same qualifications that make highways safe for their speeds, namely unhindered sightlines..."

1) Last October, the bass boater that came close to running me over at anchor had an "unhindered sightline".

2) A ¼-mile from my dock is an "unhindered sightline" of a navigation marker. A speedboater approaching it at high speed -- some day -- will have to deal with another speedboater approaching the same marker at a 90° angle. He'll have an "unhindered sightline" of the same marker, too. (Too bad about all that land mass blocking their respective view of one another).

3) What's an "unhindered sightline" look like after dark?

The faster you speed, the less "unhindered sightline" you're left with. (It's the fully natural effect of tunnel vision on the operator). Anyway, you can run out of 360° "unhindered sightlines" in only about 6 minutes of travel -- at outlawed speeds -- on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

That presumed agenda is the main reason I've been vehemently opposed to the both the bill and winnfabs. I think that this just might be the case for some others on this site, too.

Agenda? How about Les Hall's independent opinion?

After sizing-up Lake Winnipesaukee's chart, boat population, and the excessive speeds being targeted, here's what Les Hall, savvy moderator of BoaterEd.com forum's Ask the Captain, said about HB162:

"...The ocean's only an hour away."

(Now that's a REALLY "unhindered sightline"! )

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by Islander

The wake of a boat on plane doesn't change much with speed. I don't think 45 is going to cause a lot more wake than 60. And the wake of a cabin cruiser that can't even get on plane is about 100 times more destructive.

This is a scare tactic that just ain't true. And if I am wrong I will gladly exchange the increased wake for benefits of HB162.

However a boat that has been moved to another body of water makes no wake on Winni.

I just have to ask because this quote irks me ???

Do you throw your trash on the neighbors yard or do you drive down the road and toss it out???

as far as wakes go a boat with 20+ out of the water ( this is known as on plane) make a smaller wake than a 20+foot boat pushing water to the side thats why there are 3 types of hulls
1) displacement BIG WAKE
2) Planing Med.Wake
3) Air intrapment Small wake

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

You need to remember that 66% (plus or minus 4%) of NH's voters favor a speed limit on their lakes, while only a few hundred (or thousand?) are Winnfabs members.

As pointed out in another entry, the survey came at the end of a well funded and professionally run media campaign, which was targeted at changing the minds of those to be polled. Fear was used as the marketing message (a common political ploy these days), and speed limits was suggested as the solution. Also, the poll seems to have been taken of NH voters, rather than NH boaters. I never saw the poll numbers before the political action committee did their media blitz? I'm sure it was taken as a control point to see what was working. Anyone care to share the numbers?

My state representitive has had several email exchanges with me, and will vote against the speed bill. He will get my vote next time he comes up for reelection. Fear should not be the basis for laws. I encourage others to make your views known to your representative.

Now - this thread is about wakes, right? I have lost over two feet of shoreline in the past 14 years, mostly caused by large boats going slowly. The biggest problem is when they slow down to pass each other in a narrow part of the lake - where a cruise speed straight line passage at 100 feet would be safe and cause less erosion, but many slow down to maximum wake speed and cause the problems. The bassers that go by at 60 mph leave very little wake, and they are gone quickly, taking their noise with them. Plus, high speed bass boats are fun to watch. There is something very wrong about restricting a bass boat from going 60 at 7AM on an uncrowded lake. Those who are trying to control others should at least be forced to give up a personal liberty in exchange.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

The hearings this summer were to get an opinion of BOATERS on the lake about HB162.

Do you feel this way because your own poll was so disappointing? How about sharing that with us?
Should we use the hearing numbers that include all of the sheets that you guys filled out with the names and addresses of "friends who couldn't make it"? If the balance of attendees at the summer meetings was going to be used as the basis for deciding the fate of the bill, I'm sure the Committee would have policed the attendance sheets more carefully.
You guys are really really scraping for some way to spin out a number that favors you. I would expect that you could do better than an argument like this. Or we could use the unanymous opposition of the NHRBA membership to prove that "New Hampshire's Recreational Boaters" oppose HB162 unanymously. (Stop the presses!)
The citizens of NH own its lakes...all of the citizens of NH. The opinion of a fellow in Sanborton is surely more poignant than that of some OSO guy who rode all the way up from NJ for the first time in two years to attend a hearing. The tax dollars of that guy in Sanborton pay the salaries of the MP and the other costs associated with owning a lake like this. The tax dollars of NJ Joe pay for up-keep and police at the NJ Shore. That guy in Sanborton is supposed to have this lake at his disposal for any legal activity that does not interfere with the uses of NH's other citizens, whether he takes advantage of that right every weekend, once a summer, or once a decade. It is his lake too. It does not belong to your friend in Sarasota or your friends in Michigan, who travel the country to attend meetings like this to "save their sport".
If you felt so strongly that your side had the might in NH, why did you have to go all the way down to Florida last month to have a strategy session with the national performance boaters' associations to solicit their help in fighting this NH bill? (http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...7&postcount=76)
But the bottom line is still the same...the Committee (bipartisan except mostly Republican) considered all of the hearing testimony (and attendance balance), all of the letters, all of the emails, all of the evidence, all of the facts and opinions, and at the end of the day they collectively said "You know what? This bill doesn't even go far enough to fix the speeding problem on our lakes, let's make it even broader and give it even more bite". I can't believe they would have done this if the balance of opinon at the hearings had been the determining factor.

[B R]

Just going through this; my point was 25 mph is a ridiculously slow speed limit. When i bought my boat, there wasn't any sign of a speed limit being proposed. if i can drive at 32 to 35 mph, my wake is very reasonable. at 25, it gets me nervous because i don't like to make that big wake. so i'd probably slow down to under 10 mph to stop that wake. but not everyone is going to be that courteous. think about 4th of july fireworks displays and all those boats traveling back from alton to paugus going under 25 mph. that is one scary thought, and yet this is what you perceive as "safe". i respectively disagree.

some think a night time limit is fine because they don't like to drive at night. are you equipped with a radar overlapping gps screen? i can see the difference between a bouy and where the gps thinks the bouy should be. i can see that canoe without lights because i have radar. when i didn't have radar, i spent $2,000 on military type night vision goggles to help me see at night. has anyone else gone through these efforts to be a safe driver at night? i have.

[Silver Duck]

Hi APS

Didn't know you were on BoaterEd, too! I have a great deal of respect for Les, but I don't always agree with him (and, didn't in that thread!) Anyway, if I recall properly, his opinion was more along the lines of better to accept the 45 mph limit now than have a tighter one imposed later. Maybe I can talk him into dropping by this summer to see for himself, now that he lives in NH.

Actually, I'm not against a speed limit per se. I do think that an absolute speed limit of 45 is a bit too low during the day; but, I also think that there are lots of times and circumstances when 45 is ridiculously fast. And, barring a serious emergency, there's no way I'll even go above hull speed in the dark, let alone over 25!

If you read some of my other postings, you might have noticed that I grew up sailing a "Snipe". I know exactly what it feels like to sit there wondering if Captain Bonehead noticed that you're there, with no quick way to duck if he didn't. And, one night a couple of summers ago I almost wound up needing to have a large bow rider's anchor roller surgically extracted; he came right up our stern and didn't miss by more than about 8 feet when he did sheer off. So, I'm not without sympathy for peoples's fears.

But there's no way I can support a measure (or an organization) that's aimed primarily at driving a certain type of boat off the lake!

Silver Duck

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack/Frank

The citizens of NH own its lakes...all of the citizens of NH.

Fair enough, how about all these NH resident's opinions.

http://www.opposehb162.com/opposehb162/testimonials.htm

By the way I went to Key West to watch the races, having some misc side conversations was a bonus.

But getting back to wakes, the thread, we did an experiment this summer, we drove by a small row boat at 150 feet and different speeds, 25, 35, 45, 55. The boat as a Formula 280ss (A family boat). No matter how we played with the trim of the motors or tabs, 25 and 35 produce the largest wake. Hydrologists estimate a wake 10 inches high is five times as destructive to the shoreline as a 5-inch wake, while the wake that is 25 inches high has a destructive potential that is 30 times greater.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Last October, the bass boater that came close to running me over at anchor had an "unhindered sightline".

I recall your post on that incident. I was going to ask a question but then forgot to. I'll ask it now ... what do you estimate his speed to have been ? I'm assuming that it was in excess of 45mph (or you wouldn't be mentioning it) but it's worth the question. I can also fully understand if you can't put a number to it (or how long it took to go the 300' to 40' distance) as it may not have been the #1 thought on your mind at that moment. I also wanted to ask if you were of the opinion that he never saw you, just saw you and turned or just plain old "buzzed" you ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) A ¼-mile from my dock is an "unhindered sightline" of a navigation marker. A speedboater approaching it at high speed -- some day -- will have to deal with another speedboater approaching the same marker at a 90° angle. He'll have an "unhindered sightline" of the same marker, too. (Too bad about all that land mass blocking their respective view of one another).

I'm not sure what your point is here. As I've said (2X) not everyplace on the lake has suitable sightlines. I'm not going to bother to determine if your marker is one of those places.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) What's an "unhindered sightline" look like after dark?

Same, only darker.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The faster you speed, the less "unhindered sightline" you're left with. (It's the fully natural effect of tunnel vision on the operator). Anyway, you can run out of 360° "unhindered sightlines" in only about 6 minutes of travel -- at outlawed speeds -- on Lake Winnipesaukee.

I could make an assumption here but I rather you explain more. Can you explain a bit more on the tunnel vision effect. What's it's nature, what happens and at what speeds ? I think I know what you mean but I'd rather not assume.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Agenda? How about Les Hall's independent opinion?

After sizing-up Lake Winnipesaukee's chart, boat population, and the excessive speeds being targeted, here's what Les Hall, savvy moderator of BoaterEd.com forum's Ask the Captain, said about HB162:
{snip}

Well other than to echo SD's comments as to why Les Hall said that, I would remind you that every comment on some BB someplace is not too always be taken literally. For example when Les Hall said this (09 Jun 2005 : 07:17:55)

Originally Posted by Les Hall

What they need to do is rope off a small section of the lake, like a kiddie section, and reserve that for Kayak use. There is little that is more infuriating than a $400 kayak owner who thinks that he can now dictate how power boaters can operate. Nearly as bad as a blowboater tacking in a channel while also under power.


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

Do you think he meant it or was it tongue in cheek ? Should we set up a kiddie pool because Les Hall said it. He was reffering to Lake Champlain but if it's good enough for them ... Or we all could just stick to making our own comments and expressing our own thoughts, how about that ?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by B R

"...some think a night time limit is fine because they don't like to drive at night. are you equipped with a radar overlapping gps screen? i can see the difference between a buoy and where the gps thinks the buoy should be. i can see that canoe without lights because i have radar. when i didn't have radar, i spent $2,000 on military type night vision goggles to help me see at night. has anyone else gone through these efforts to be a safe driver at night? i have.

I'll have to guess: Is your boat what they call an "Express Cruiser"?

I received three thoughts on this post.

One is, a case of "Get Home-itis", the "syndrome" that kills so many pilots.

Two: The last reference I saw on the use of night vision goggles was in the "One Lap of America", so drivers could speed at their maximum velocity -- often in excess of 150MPH, (a speed now seen in performance boats) -- on our Interstates. I've checked night vision googles out, but any repeated motion tended to make one nauseous. Bad idea.

The third is a recollection of a fellow race car driver who told me "Cops can't use radar in the rain".

(It's true: Radar returns very poor signals in the rain, and is a good defense in court. He's a lawyer -- or was. During the two semesters we were college roommates, he must have received a dozen moving traffic violations -- citations -- and beat every one. He moved from a Psychology major to a law degree).

Now, he is also an excellent driver so as a passenger on the way to America's race courses, I could nap as we traveled at 90MPH -- in the rain.

At night, I was handed the reins, because my night vision was demonstrably far better.

Even with the "unhindered sightline" of the Interstates, I never drove at 90MPH -- in the rain -- at night. It's just stupid.

BTW I: My buddy is presently in Federal lockup -- something about Ginnie Maes and defrauding the government of millions. While appealing the conviction, he lost his license to practice law but became a "law clerk" -- still making 6-figures annually. Go figure.

BTW II: Put "GPS" and "crutch" into Google. Enlightening references there.

BTW III: My "iespell" spell-checker just suggested I change "90MPH" to "20MPH!"
ROFL! Boy, is it smart!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The third is a recollection of a fellow race car driver who told me "Cops can't use radar in the rain".

(It's true: Radar returns very poor signals in the rain, and is a good defense in court...

Sorry, cops can and indeed use traffic radar successfully in the rain, sleet, snow & gloom of night....

The only effect heavy rain, snow and sometimes fog have is attenuating the overall range distance of a given device. However, the attenuation or scattering caused by these effects are usually directly proportional to the actual sight distance that the radar operator can observe the offender anyway.

The radar operator can also simulate this same effect, usually in heavy traffic conditions where he wants to nullify strong and possible interfering signals from great distances, by turning down the radar's gain control manually (the gain control referenced here attenuates received signals, not transmit output power).

I will remind the reader that in court, the testifying officer must be able to articulate that the dispalyed reading on the radar unit employed correlated directly with his actual observations of the target he believed the radar to be tracking. Furthermore, under New Hampshire's prima facie speed laws, the officer must also be able to convince the court that the observed speed was not reasonable or prudent given the prevailing conditions at the time of the stop.

When you receive your next speeding summons in New Hampshire, a close reading of the complaint will state the following:

...at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under conditions prevailing, to wit, at a rate of ____ m.p.h., the prima facie lawful speed limit at the time and place of violation being ____ m.p.h. Contrary to RSA 265:60...

Quite frankly, the reason you may see less speed enforcement (along with any other type of enforcement) in heavy weather is two-fold, but both having to do more with human nature rather than equipment malfunction. First, most people (except in fog, which is a whole other story) tend to slow down in or be a little more cautious in hazardous conditions. Second, it usually has to be a grievous violation to stand outdside in heavy weather and issue a citation (although weather seems to have no effect on some I know in the field)...

Finally, the only way that rain could successfully be used in the argument you suppose is if the offender could convince the court that the weather was so heavy that the issuing officer could not have possibly been able to visually correlate target speed within the sight distances testified to in court. And if the officer cannot articulate that he indeed could, then the defendant deserves to prevail.

That said, Cops can and indeed successfully employ "radar in the rain" (at least, that's what a "friend" told me ).

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[B R]

Yes, i do own an express cruiser that goes 45 mph tops. i'm more concerned that all these "fear" arguments will be made all over again to rid the lake of the next type of boat: cruisers. i cannot afford a place on the lake and have found joy in spending 50+ nights a summer living on a boat with my family. i'm afraid bills like hb162 will be attempting to rid the lake of my favorite past time sometime in the not so distant future.

[SIKSUKR]

It seems pretty clear to me reading the posts on the speed limit debate side makes arguments with clear,calm,logical thinking and which side seems to have to go with the emotional scare tactics.Sounds like me and my ex-wife!I see a divorce for forum members in the near future!!How do you reason with emotion?

[ApS]

My recollection goes back to the preponderance of my racing days -- and the days of K-band radar which is affected by rain. There's no doubt that radar has come a long way since. You won't see rain like we have in Florida, either.

As you say, there are "human nature" reasons why we were never ticketed in the rain: Aircraft spotters won't fly...and not being able to see into the rained-on car would be good reasons today.

My last ticket was in a '88 Porsche Turbo, in Trinidad, Colorado -- 1989 -- empty Interstate, clear roads, bright early morning. 89-MPH.

APS: "Why, officer, 89MPH?"

Officer: "Because if I wrote your true speed, I'd have to arrest you"

Oh.

(It's a good thing I'd previously helped push the officer's cruiser from the median, where he'd gotten stuck). I don't speed anywhere...anymore.

Five of us attending the speed-event got a ticket within an hour of arriving in Colorado: Including three in seperate rental cars from the airport!

You've been fore-warned about Colorado.

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...Now - this thread is about wakes, right? I have lost over two feet of shoreline in the past 14 years, mostly caused by large boats going slowly. The biggest problem is when they slow down..."

You may recall this photo from my January post here. Those are my denims -- plus my black shoe between the roots -- and my shoe is still not wet. It's a maple tree about 50 years old.

From a seed, all trees send a trunk upwards, and a root downwards. This means that I have lost about five feet of shoreline -- and recently. (Actually, it's the state's shoreline. The highwater stake is five feet inland from my shoe).

My problem is the same as yours: Big boats. But at 35, they "mush" (as eminem calls it) while trying to beat their fellow party-boaters. While flying the "tipped-martini" burgee -- I'll never understand why they fly a flag that shouts

"Stop me, MP -- I'm partying, and I'm BUI!".

Since my shoreline faces north, it has gotten the worst of Millennia-worth of winds in the winter, when the ice prevents erosion; therefore, it is the newest shore to face erosion from cruisers.

More recently, wakes (particularly big cruisers), have taken away the soil and caused the rest of my lot to "subside"; that is, to sink, due to rain-runoff sending mud into the lake. The soil is responding to the shoreline erosion through runoff and gravity. The shoreline lost to the lake (through shoreline erosion) must be made-up for by additional mud. It's a shame to watch it happen so quickly, and it's not doing the lake any good, either.

While a HB162 speed limit may cause increased wakes from some of the "Express Cruisers" and the "slowed" 4½-ton fast boats, it is nothing compared to what has been happening since the first oversized cruisers appeared. (About 1990. But even back then, they proceeded slowly -- like...cruisers!).

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Since my shoreline faces north, it has gotten the worst of Millennia-worth of winds in the winter, when the ice prevents erosion; therefore, it is the newest shore to face erosion from cruisers.

More recently, wakes (particularly big cruisers), have taken away the soil and caused the rest of my lot to "subside"; that is, to sink, due to rain-runoff sending mud into the lake. The soil is responding to the shoreline erosion through runoff and gravity. The shoreline lost to the lake (through shoreline erosion) must be made-up for by additional mud. It's a shame to watch it happen so quickly, and it's not doing the lake any good, either.

While a HB162 speed limit may cause increased wakes from some of the "Express Cruisers" and the "slowed" 4½-ton fast boats, it is nothing compared to what has been happening since the first oversized cruisers appeared. (About 1990. But even back then, they proceeded slowly -- like...cruisers!).

Any chance you can do something about the erosion? Does the law allow you to place boulders and such at the water's edge? I know in Maine (I own some land there) we have all kinds of laws preventing one from altering the shoreline but it seems like NH is a bit more reasonable about the prevention of erosion based on the breakwaters and such I see on the lake.

[ApS]

Dave R: Any chance you can do something about the erosion? Does the law allow you to place boulders and such at the water's edge? I know in Maine (I own some land there) we have all kinds of laws preventing one from altering the shoreline but it seems like NH is a bit more reasonable about the prevention of erosion based on the breakwaters and such I see on the lake.

APS: Many years ago, my dad had a dozen boulders moved from a developer's site -- across the ice by truck -- to protect the shore above the high water line. (An old farm's stone fence).

The dozen - or so - boulders have been falling into the lake, and I can't see that they're doing any good there. Lakeshore Construction said to put in any breakwater, I'd have to remove my dock and build a smaller one.

'No way I'm losing THAT dock. Besides, I've got 200 feet of shoreline "to protect". It's funny that the state will permit "Landscaping", but no way can I protect my shoreline from boat wakes.

It's too late anyway. Even a 200-foot, Florida-style, interlocking steel panel seawall won't stop the wakes from breaking over them and eroding the soil from above. It's bad.

Silver Duck: "...I have a great deal of respect for Les, but I don't always agree with him.

APS: Les only steps in when the posters reach a conundrum at which point he will give his considered opinion.

When you've read all the other posts, Les' opinion is like finding a diamond on a beach. He's the most knowledgable skipper on just about everything I've seen in my reading of many boating forums. Plus, he expresses himself very well. (And he's right to say "The ocean is only an hour away").

To fully understand my standpoint, I recommend that you read the "Bad Boys" forums. They're not like us. Go to www.sharkeymarine.com. There's a list of the "Bad Boys" forums there. (There may be offensive photographs).

Speaking of "Bad Boys", what kind of firearm do you carry on board your boat?

Their polls indicate that they like Glocks, SIGs, and H&Ks -- for handguns -- and shotguns for their long guns. Hi-powered rifles are a very minor preference. (All good handgun choices, incidentally). I don't "carry" on Lake Winnipesaukee. What would be the point?

It's also amazing that they would admit -- in a public forum -- to drinking on board. "Tanqueray" is a favorite. 'Course, they'll threaten you if you quote the "Bad Boys" here -- so I don't.

Did I say they're not like us?

Go to www.sharkeymarine.com. "It Could Change You", to paraphrase a speedboat motto.

Silver Duck: Anyway, if I recall properly, his opinion was more along the lines of better to accept the 45 mph limit now than have a tighter one imposed later.

APS: He preceded that phrase with "When two kids get killed in their kayak...".

Retirees don't count.

Silver Duck: Actually, I'm not against a speed limit per se.

APS: Neither is Director Barrett; but later, he is, then he isn't, but then he is, but then he isn't.

I actually feel sorry for Barrett. As things stand now, a call for a "drowning in progress" might take an officer ten minutes -- or more -- to get there. He writes a report saying...what?

Next summer, a lake-resident's call for "Speeding Boat in Alton!" might be followed by still another's "Speeding Boat in Meredith!". (And be the same boat).

Silver Duck: I do think that an absolute speed limit of 45 is a bit too low during the day;

APS: Relax. The law will probably be unenforceable until the Marine Patrol's command, equipment training, and infrastructure is lifted from its present Mayberry standards. Some day we may even see boating accident reports on the Internet! Didn't I read here that MPs were encouraged to use their cellphones to avoid lake scanners?

Even on Lake George, the speedboaters say they're ignored by the MPs if they're behaving half-sane. Maybe the RSA will give some speeders pause on Winnipesaukee...and that's a good thing.

Silver Duck: ...but, I also think that there are lots of times and circumstances when 45 is ridiculously fast.

APS: I think we've all seen that. Some would say "after dark" is best for 45. I found out today that you can buy a 30-footer that goes 150-MPH. (Triple the speed limit!)

Silver Duck: And, barring a serious emergency, there's no way I'll even go above hull speed in the dark, let alone over 25!

APS: You don't have the same emergencies as the "Bad Boys". Sometimes they run out of beer: That makes them even more arrogant.

Silver Duck: If you read some of my other postings, you might have noticed that I grew up sailing a "Snipe".

APS: No kidding? I've got lots of cockpit-time in a Snipe!

A fun, responsive, and rugged little boat. Once, I had to retire from an eight-boat Snipe race -- not because the winds had gone to gale force -- but because my stainless steel shrouds were unravelling!

With my need for speed, though, I have to have a catamaran.

Let's see...Somebody asked me to post a photo of a "slow-speed" crash. I'll take that opportunity in a minute.

Silver Duck: I know exactly what it feels like to sit there wondering if Captain Bonehead noticed that you're there, with no quick way to duck if he didn't. And, one night a couple of summers ago I almost wound up needing to have a large bow rider's anchor roller surgically extracted; he came right up our stern and didn't miss by more than about 8 feet when he did sheer off. So, I'm not without sympathy for peoples's fears.

APS: In 1993, I was warned by my old neighbor-friend, "You won't like what boating's become..." (This was after I'd returned after several years away from Winnipesaukee).

THEN -- this October -- I had the nerve to relax at anchor near shore!

My concern peaked nine years later in 2002, when I wrote that "Anarchy" letter. It was a double-whammy to get 9/11 and Littlefield in eleven months.

Silver Duck: But there's no way I can support a measure (or an organization) that's aimed primarily at driving a certain type of boat off the lake!

APS: Your sailboat is safe. The limits -- particularly a night time 25 -- target boaters not having the sense to navigate within civilized parameters. While it means they will still strive to violate it (as we've seen in this thread), it's a benchmark for a sane speed regarding civil actions and in accident reconstructions.

I've noticed that they (that organization) has been careful to NOT target the type of feral boats we're both thinking of. When my turn came to speak at a hearing, I made reference to "vacuuming around the elephant in the living room", and proceeded into my insurgent-boat rant.

I'm sure "that organization" was displeased, but somebody has to speak much closer to the point. That's why I didn't become a member, much less a PC member. They send an occasional mailing -- just two so far.

Read Powerboating magazine. Lots of "speedboat" manufacturers are now producing "family" boats that go even faster than what was available since Littlefield.

Today, it's no big deal to go 60 in your "family boat".

Also, Extreme Boating magazine. There's a section in there called "Extreme Drinking". Maybe all those fellows are just misunderstood and trapped in a cycle of drink, thrills, and violence?

Did I mention that they're not like us?

[Cal]

APS,
Here's another example of these "Bad Boys" at work
Saturday July 15th, 2006



Welcome to Shore Dreams For Kids

Shore Dreams For Kids originally started as "Day On The Bay" by Day On The Bay Foundation in 1990. They successfully produced this event for 10 years and made it what it was up until it's last year in 2000. NJ Performance Powerboat Club restarted this great annual tradition in 2003 with the approval of the Day On The Bay Foundation. NJPPC created SHORE DREAMS FOR KIDS INC.

Shore Dreams For Kids will be a day dedicated to entertaining over 400 Special Athletes from the Special Olympics and their families. The day will consist of performance powerboat rides, vintage and antiques car displays, a carnival, clowns, face painting, music entertainment, pictures gifts and a barbeque.

How can you help???

1-Make a monetary donation (this will help cover insurance, tents, tables, chairs, event t-shirts ect...)

2-Food Donation (Hamburgers Hot Dogs ect...)

3-Items for participant's goody bags (pens, pencils,mugs, t-shirts, key chains, informational booklets, posters, ect...)

4-Volunteer your time the day of the event!

NO DONATION IS TOO SMALL!!!
Last year we provided over 400 special participants boat rides. We expect to have at least 500+ attendees this year.

Thank you for consideration of this very worthy cause. This special day only comes once per year.

http://www.shoredreamsforkids.com/

The following is the information on the event:

Date: Saturday July 15th 2006
Location: Seaside Municipal Pier, Seaside Heights NJ
(near the Rt.37 Bridge)
Time: 10am - 3pm

Want to volunteer? Email: brianvci@aol.com

So, you think you would like to volunteer, but you have alot of questions?:

Q. I can volunteer but I can't stay for the whole day?
A. Not a problem, if you can come and stay for only a few hours that is OK! We will be greatful for anytime you can contribute.

Q. I will be the only one on my boat and I am not sure if I can handle the kids by myself?
A. Not a problem! There will be plenty of staff to help load and unload the kids on the boats. Also, every group of kids will have either a parent or a chaparone with them.



Click here for Donation Form




PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO VOLUNTEER YOUR BOAT AND YOUR TIME!
IT WILL BE ONE OF THE MOST REWARDING DAYS THAT YOU WILL REMEMBER!


Funny how there's two sides to every story...not just yours

[ApS]

Mee-n-Mac: I recall your post on that incident. I was going to ask a question but then forgot to. I'll ask it now ... what do you estimate his speed to have been ?

APS: It was likely his WOT (wide open throttle). One would have to do a search of his boat and his motor displacement (which I couldn't have possibly noted, except for color) to get "a figure" for WOT. The speed record for bass boats was set this summer, at 112MPH.

I was reading, anchored, with no other boat traffic for miles. The options open to me included standing up to jump clear. There was no time...I had no chance. It was my closest call on Winnipesaukee.

That includes being thrown out of my own boat at speed, and once having been chased -- at night -- by a drunk neighbor with his lights out. Now that he's passed-on last year, I can safely say here that it was the Cris Craft cruiser "Sea Witch". (About 27-feet long). I think I have a few neighbor-colleagues (here at winni.com) who can verify that boat, and perhaps its owner's proclivities while boating.

Here: Try a similar relaxing, sunny, reading afternoon anchored off your shore. It could raise your "Fear Factor". Anchored, you no longer have the option to swerve "safely".

Sidebar: I have a license in SCCA's "Flagging & Communications". (SCCA is amateur car racing).

In Flagging, one learns how to dodge little "Formulas" -- and big Camaros -- spinning at you just using your "Nike power". While track safety has improved, I learned...fear.

There was a racing team sponsored by the "No Fear" brand of clothing. At a driver's school contemporary with that team's presence, we instructors were handed-out free T-shirts that had the message "Know Fear". It took some of the "macho" out of the students.

Mee-n-Mac: I also wanted to ask if you were of the opinion that he never saw you, just saw you and turned or just plain old "buzzed" you ?

APS: He never saw me -- he took sudden evasive action -- only just soon enough to miss me by [a too-close] 40 feet. There's that old missing 110-feet problem. I suspect that he was "touring" at WOT. There is a lot of new construction along my shoreline to ogle. I've "toured" it too, but at sane speeds.

There was no "buzz"-- no intervening objects. This was October, and a neighbor's raft -- formerly at 300 feet distant -- had been removed for the season. It was an open sightline to my anchored rowboat and me. No excuse for this behavior -- or that speed.

That said, I don't think speeding bass boats pose a threat in most early morning bass tournaments. There's usually a lot of fog then, and they proceed -- with their GPS, and at WOT -- at their own peril. I don't have a problem with a single sky-diver, motorcyclist, or boater speeding. It's when they play amongst us that bothers me -- a lot.

You're "senior enough" here to also recall my post -- here at winni.com -- about the tunnel hull boat that split the difference between my dock and a 14-foot Hobie (used as a raft due to dropped wind) by five teenage girls? I was criticized: "It couldn't have been going over 100MPH". (I think I said 110MPH).

Speeds on tunnel hulls have exceeded 170MPH, I've since discovered. Here's a video at just 150MPH. Their insurance premiums (in the five figures) exceed their bank loan payments today! Below is a photo of the underside, to show the tunnel hull/ catamaran design.

Mee-n-Mac: Same, only darker.

APS: The humor -- if that what it is -- is losing me. A sightline is especially important at night.

Mee-n-Mac: I could make an assumption here but I rather you explain more. Can you explain a bit more on the tunnel vision effect. What's it's nature, what happens and at what speeds ? I think I know what you mean but I'd rather not assume.

APS: The best way to experience "tunnel vision" is to accelerate a Porsche Turbo from a stop to "as fast as you dare" on a familiar street.

Your vision resolutely collapses into a tiny dot on the "sightline". Nothing appears peripherally, except blurred, ephemeral, streaks.***

I mean, I've got hours at 130MPH. I know "tunnel vision". I know Fear. You must not have read the URL I posted here, last time, on "tunnel-vision".

***(The streaks diminish as the rate of acceleration slows, but "tunnel vision" continues to increase; or, the "important" image in the very center of your vision decreases in size).

Mee-n-Mac: Should we set up a kiddie pool because Les Hall said it?

APS: That was Les...being "tongue in cheek".

(I still don't understand M&M's "Cockapoos are more dangerous than Rotweilers" thread. Or how anyone with a nodding acquaintence -- or better -- with physics, can defend mass, energy and speed in 4½ Bajas at WOT. Or how fast boats take up less of the lake than slow boats. It seems like I'm debating someone TWI)!

We don't always express our thoughts cogently: I'm certainly guilty of it -- but I can blame caffeine! I certainly hope I never appear to be defending hopeless causes -- like BWI, DWI, OWI, TWI -- or something.

Les Hall is certainly one of the Internet's Best on ALL powerboating issues. He has even defended "Blow-Boaters!" (Note his other, balanced, answers to issues regarding "GFBLs", their "Speed Bumps", and their "Lake Lice" complaints).

Cal: Here's another example of these "Bad Boys" at work

****
Personally? I think it's the cynical answer to bad headlines and to boost an agenda. It's lipstick on a pig.

It's not like the former American Cancer Society benefits put on by local airplane pilots on Winnipesaukee. They needed no "special protection" from laws and bad headlines.

Yours is a "nice" evil. It's like the tax on cigarettes: It may be funding some worthwhile Government program with "our" tax money, but it will still shorten lives in the end.

I recall $45,000 given to the winner of a California Offshore Poker Run. That was $45,000 less that went to charity that day. With $345,000-and-up speedboats, having "loaded" owners with Tournillon, Littlefield, Mastronardi, and too many other's reputations, what else could they do but kidnap a charity to boost an agenda?

Leave out the Boat Rides/Poker Run part, and I'd be slapping you guys on the back!

[/COLOR]

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

With $345,000-and-up speedboats, having "loaded" owners with Tournillon, Littlefield, Mastronardi, and too many other's reputations, what else could they do but kidnap a charity to boost an agenda?
Leave out the Boat Rides/Poker Run part, and I'd be slapping you guys on the back!

WOW You are SO good at turning anything good around into something bad to fit you agenda. You deserve a slap on the back. You should be in Congress lobbying for lower oil and energy prices to help out everone in the country.

OH BTW , At any organized even , consumption of alcohol is a cardinal sin and will not be tolerated.
I also reread what you took your info from and all I read was "The day will consist of performance powerboat rides, vintage and antiques car displays, a carnival, clowns, face painting, music entertainment, pictures gifts and a barbeque"
Maybe it's me but somehow I missed the "Poker run "part

[Woodsy]

APS...

It seems to me you are trolling for responses with emotional rhetoric and fear mongering. Any mechanical device operated by a human is subject to human error. Therefore, regardless of what is being operated, an accident is a statistical probability. If someone were to follow your logic path, we would have to get rid of most forms of machinery. The first to go would of course be automobiles, because they kill thousands of people yearly. We could go back to horse & buggy, but wait, people got killed operating those too... perhaps it would be better if we all just walked everywhere?

You use pictures and stories from other lakes and other experiences to bolster your position, then tell only 1/2 the story. Why is this? Why not keep the facts you present to incidents/accidents that actually occured on Lake Winnipesaukee? This is the Winni forum after all.

Where is the picture of the 23' Searay that T-boned a STATIONARY pontoon boat in broad daylight at a speed less than 45 MPH right here on Lake Winni? Where was the outrage for that accident? That out of control older Searay driver certainly deserves some sort of punishment for running up on the pontoon boat?

You write of the alleged near miss that occured between you (in your anchored rowboat) & the bass boat. Lets talk some hypotheticals. If in fact he was on a zero bearing course, heading straight for you, as you allege in your story, there is no way you could have even estimated his speed, although in your story you stated he was traveling at top speed. Without actually knowing the make/model/engine size there is no way of knowing how fast that boats top speed is. You have no way of reliably estimating the speed of approach you just know he was coming straight at you at a speed greater that your comfort level. If you were on Lake George, where there is NO safe passage rule, he could have gone by your rowboat at 10' away @ 45MPH and not broken any law at all...

Please keep your sensationalism to a minimum. Debate facts, not emotion...

Woodsy

PS: Why does it matter that winer of some Poker Run got $45,000? Surely being involved in SCCA racing you are not opposed to a winners purse?