Speed Limit test zones dead in the water!

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by overlook

From interviews with the director, the results were the fastest speed recorded was 46mph.

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

To use your logic, one could say: "A study was performed for the month of July and revealed that not a single canoe was seen going accross the broads. Therefore, we've deemed it illegal for canoes to be in broads".

Just becuase people tend not to go terribly fast in boats is no reason to limit them if they want to and can do it safely (history has shown they can).

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Dave R

My boat barely breaks 50, empty, so a speed limit is never going to affect me. I cruise at 28 to 32 MPH most of the time, during the day, and 20 -25 at at night; conditions permitting. I oppose the limit, not just for my own rights, but for everyone's rights, including yours.

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Curious as to how many times this type of accident has occured on Winnipesaukee??

Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

[KonaChick]

[QUOTE=Dave R]Actually, quite often. There are quite a few injuries every year from operating too fast for conditions. I think they are more often than not reported as "falls in boats". One does not need to be in a really fast boat to injure one's passengers with a dumb move in rough water. Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.[/QUO


Yes I would agree there are injuries from operating too fast for conditions on the lake in bow riders. In fact we've had a few ourselves when we were newbie boaters. A speed limit will NOT stop that...you can dictate the law but you can't dictate common sense. I was specifically referring to the video of the GFBL boat's racing at high speeds across the ocean. I've yet to see that happen here but I understand the broader meaning of the video and how it relates to us boats on Lake Winni. I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I was just breaking the video down to it's simplest form. Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it.

Not that I'm aware of. Those boats handle typical Winni chop with ease and I rarely see more than 2 together.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Hitting waves like that in a 24 foot bow rider at 40 MPH could easily eject passengers, or cause serious injuries, speed limit or not.

We were out riding recently in our 22 ft bow rider. We were in the broads traveling about 25 – 30 MPH. The chop was moderate to light. I caught a single rouge wave and it threw us up and dropped us down. My wife, riding in the bow, got slammed hard and was sore for a couple of days. I usually see these coming and slow down but I missed this one. It can happen to anyone unless you decide to travel everywhere at headway speed.

The guy in the video was being a hot dog. He pushed his luck and it ran out. Unfortunately his passengers also paid the price. Is there anything wrong in hot dogging per say? Most of the moments in sports or history that we celebrate (and relish) probably involved some pushing of the envelope. Sometime this is done for a good cause, sometimes just for fun. Explorers set off into an unknown ocean to discover foreign lands. More explorers roamed this country, poking into every nook and cranny. Families traveled West through mountains, deserts, and Indian attacks to reach new homes. We invented jets and some crazy people were the first to test pilot them. We landed on the moon. Firemen rush into burning buildings. Policemen face down armed criminals. An outfielder slams into a wall to catch a fly ball. We climb mountains. We sky dive, scuba dive, ski (water and snow), and race horses. We ride roller coasters, really big and crazy ones. We have Iron Man competitions that would grind most average people into jello. I took a teenager for a tube ride and snapped around a turn and he flew off. I was worried if he was OK. He gave me a huge grin and asked if we could go faster. Aren’t these all forms of hot dogging? For every one of these endeavors people have died or been seriously injured from time to time. Yet most people either participate in some of these activities or live vicariously through the participation of others.

The boat driver in the video decided to take others along for his ride. He was cited for “operating at an unsafe speed for the conditions”. This is a great 20/20 hindsight citation, as some boating laws are. If you had asked boaters or authorities in the area what the “safe” speed was before the accident I doubt you would have gotten a consistent answer. The reason his speed was “unsafe” was because something bad happened. Therefore it must have been unsafe. Were his passengers avid power boaters that understood the risks? I don’t know? If they were then they willingly participated in a risky ride. Even so, if he was careless, as it appears he was, he exposed them to more risk than they expected. Had they ridden with him before and knew he was a hot shot? Well…. If I go for a ride in your car and your tires are going bald or your brakes are shot you are exposing me to more risk than I expect as well. Maybe you didn’t sleep well last night and you’re not as alert as you should be. It would be wonderful if these things didn’t happen to those along for the ride but they do; sometimes because of negligence and carelessness, sometimes because of bad luck. When people are negligent or careless they should be prosecuted.

What level of risk are you willing to accept? If you require high levels of safety you better not get into a car (40,000 deaths a year in the US) or most other forms of motorized transport. Airplanes are the safest forms of transport but some do crash, usually with 100% fatality. Bicycle riding results in some nasty falls. Even walking, especially in the winter, can lead to serious injury and even death. Shoveling snow can lead to heart attacks. Do you go out when it is about to rain? Better hope you don’t get hit by a bolt out of the blue that can hit 10 miles from a storm center. Do you worry about electrocution when you use electrical appliances? Watch out for skin cancer from being out in the sun. There are hurricanes on the coast, tornadoes in the Midwest, blizzards in the north, and severe thunderstorms and flooding almost everywhere. In 2003, 35.000 people died in Europe because of a heat wave. There are insect borne fatal illnesses, tainted food, sexual predators, and internet identity thieves. My God, I am terrified to get out of bed in the morning. But then I need to worry about obesity and blood clots from being sedentary. And, and, and, …

You know, the problem is that life is risky. The solution is to realize that the likelihood of being a serious victim of any of these risks, including being in a boating accident, is very small. Take reasonable steps to carry out your activities safely, like having your lights on while boating at night, and Get On With Your Life.

[Irrigation Guy]

Jeff, very well put.

Lets not forget Islander, of WINFABS fame, freely admits she would choose a higher speed than the 45 mph proposed limit, as she has a boat capable of 60mph+ and regularly travels at those speeds on this lake.

Therefore she must consider that speed safe, due to the fact that she operates regularly at that speed in her own boat willingly and by her own admission.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

Now that you mention it….

Actually the founding fathers were most concerned about maintaining the “most” unpopular rights. Freedom of speech is not meant to protect popular speech for it does not need protection. It is meant to protect your speech in this discussion. I think you would find old Ben to be quite squarely against your position to limit the rights of a small group.

Benjamin Franklin wrote
Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Inoculating yourself with a "slow" boat doesn't mean that I should give up my right to life and liberty, but especially life. Loading up the plastic to endanger others at speeds proven reckless on the water isn't any "pursuit of happiness" that The Founders had envisioned.

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Dave R

My advice: Don't go for a ride with the guy in the video. You'll notice there are others in the video that don't crash...

I don't need a law to tell me what he was doing was dumb, but there is one. He was operating illegally in that video and has been charged with "operating at an unsafe speed". In NH, one could be charged with the same crime today, since we already have a similar law on the books. I don't think we need a redundant law.

What law are you referring to?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

What law are you referring to?

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Operation of Boats
Section 270:29-a
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

What law are you referring to?

Skip beat me to it.

[Islander]

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Islander

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

If the law enforcement agent considers the boater's speed "careless and negligent", then he can stop the boater and issue a citation. See - the law already exists to cite speed if it is careless and negligent. WE NEED NO MORE LAWS (or taxes)!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Where does it say "operating at an unsafe speed"? Or say anything about speed?

It only says careless and negligent manner!







And to think I am the one accused of spin!

As my grandfather used to say... "Oblivious to the obvious".

[Islander]

270:29-a is a "catch-all" If a MP officer was foolish enough to use it to charge a boater with speeding, the defense would be simple. "You honor, The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat. The officer has exceeded his authority and replaced the legislatures judgment with his own!"

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones

Originally Posted by Mike61965

"What happened to the speed limit test? I've been avoiding those two test zones like everyone suggested - Going extra slow when I had to use the Bear channel a couple of times to visit a buddy. But I'm constantly seeing patrol boats out in the open water in other parts of the lake pointing radar guns around this year. What's the deal with that?
For instance, I was out last weekend for an early run before the lake kicked up. Way up ahead, near Round Island (no where near the test areas) I see a boat with a big "MARINE PATROL" on the side and a cop standing in it pointing a radar gun at me. What do they expect me to do? I knew I was way too far away for him to get a reading, so I just slowed down. We waved and smiled to each other as I passed him at about 35. His grin was bigger than mine. What a joke. They might as well have their blue lights flashing. It's pretty clear that they want us to see them and slow down. I guess, in a sense, it works just like when they leave unoccuped cruisers on the sides of the road, as it got me to slow down. I have to admit I have been going a lot slower this summer when I'm on Winnipesaukee, knowing that the radar guns are everywhere. Bu this is getting old. Will we be able to start having fun again next year? When do all these summer cops go back to their real jobs?"

[jrc]

Islander, you're pretending right?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Islander, you're pretending right?

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islaner

...The legislature recently voted down a speed limit bill. Therefore the clear legislative intent is that there be no limit on the speed of a boat...

Originally Posted by jrc

...Islander, you're pretending right?...

Originally Posted by Islander

...you can't make up stuff that good!...

Well jrc, she could be right. Legislative intent can be the affirmative defense employed by a savvy defense attorney.

Unfortunately Islander has a fatal flaw in her latest legal rambling. In order to offer the theory she espouses, the record surrounding the debate of the House Bill that was defeated would clearly need to articulate that the Legislature clearly stated the there be "no limit on the speed of a boat". Additionally the Attorney would need to offer into proof, either by deposition or direct testimony, a significant number of the legislators present voting down the Bill clearly stating that their intent, whether implied or not, was to allow unfettered speeding on New Hampshire waterways.

The record is available on-line, we should anxiously await Islander's direct quotations of pertinent legislative testimony that confirms her theory.

Remember, Islander used the phrase "clear legislative intent" in her latest diatribe. Clearly she can easily reference us to the source that verifies such a bold legal claim!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Islander

No, sorry, that's as real as it gets.

Besides, you can't make up stuff that good!

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

No, I meant your pretending not to understand all this.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.


But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Islander

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to. If you are talking about ....

"Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!"

That is not pretending, it's pure sarcasm.


But tell me how do folks feel about Mike's comments, he operates a Formula on the lake.

I feel Mike is lucky to own a formula!

[jrc]

My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread

[Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

My comments withdrawn, I wasting my time in this thread

For once I must agree with you!

This thread is about test zones. And as Mike61965 has pointed so eloquently, they are a joke!

I declare victory!




Mike - The LRGH can get that bullet out of your foot.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

...I declare victory!...

Boy did I get a good chuckle out of that line!

Many years ago when it had become apparent to all (but a handful) that the war in Vietnam had been lost, a then Republican Senator from Vermont named George Aiken advised Lyndon Johnson and subsequently Richard Nixon to retreat by boldly stating "declare victory, and then get out".

You aren't related to the good Senator by any chance?

[Airwaves]

Islander wrote:

I declare victory!

Mr. President! I thought it was your father that owned the boat!

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

Here is what Mike61965 has to say about the test zones

You forgot to mention your source for this information was not winni.com, but I'm sure you prefer others think it was from here.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

And if 270:29-a makes a speed limit law redundant, it also makes the 150' law redundant.

Why do we need a 150' rule? We have 270:29-a!

Good point. I don't think we need the 150 foot law between power boats. It's a good idea regarding swim lines, the shore, docks, etc. but rather silly when it comes to power boats passing power boats. I would not attempt to vote it out though, the courtesy of it makes the lake nicer, we just don't "need" it.

[VitaBene]

DaveR, you are right on with the 150' rule. The funny thing is the people I was scared to have within 150' of me last year either don't know there is a rule this year or have chosen to ignore it!

See you on the lake!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Good point. I don't think we need the 150 foot law between power boats. It's a good idea regarding swim lines, the shore, docks, etc. but rather silly when it comes to power boats passing power boats. I would not attempt to vote it out though, the courtesy of it makes the lake nicer, we just don't "need" it.

Agreed. The law is OK, but often it provides a rule of courtesy more than addressing a safety issue. It can increase safety risk too. Forcing similar sized boats to come off wake and back on again creates more wake for kayaks and canoes, increasing the chances they will be swamped - even 150 feet away. But, with the hypersensitive attitude on the lake these days, its best to keep your distance.

[Bear Islander]

I have a test zone detector.

This summer I noticed my depth finder alarm going off in deep water. Then I discovered it was the Marine Patrol's radar that was setting off the alarm on the depth finder. I checked it out on a test zone last week. He points the gun at my boat, the alarm sounds.

This test zone data may give them information on how to use radar on the water but I don't see it makes a difference to the speed limit debate. I don't see that numbers change the central argument.

The age when children are required to wear a PFD changed from 5 to 12. I assume this was done because the legislature felt 12 was a more appropriate age than 5. How many 5 to 12 year olds were already wearing PFD's doesn't change the argument much. The issue was setting an appropriate standard. I hope the legislature does that again when they consider speed limits.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

This test zone data may give them information on how to use radar on the water but I don't see it makes a difference to the speed limit debate. I don't see that numbers change the central argument.

The age when children are required to wear a PFD changed from 5 to 12. I assume this was done because the legislature felt 12 was a more appropriate age than 5. How many 5 to 12 year olds were already wearing PFD's doesn't change the argument much. The issue was setting an appropriate standard. I hope the legislature does that again when they consider speed limits.

Sadly, I imagine there's plenty of "accidental drowning while swimming from a boat" data in the 5-12 year old range in NH. Assuming the data exists, and my gut says it does (just watch the news), I doubt that voting for a higher PFD age was a tough decision to make.

It's the utter lack of high-speed boat accident data in NH that makes the speed limit argument so tough for me to back. If there was a problem, I'd be for better enforcement of exsisting laws, and maybe a speed limit if it could really be enforced. In my opinion, the proposed speed limit is a "solution" in search of a problem.

That said, If the MP can't find any boats going at high speeds when it's perfectly legal to do so, what makes you think they'll be able to when it's illegal? Maybe the folks who said handheld radar would not work adequately on water were indeed right... I always figured it was just an excuse, but maybe not.

If you get your way, we will have a useless law and could very well have no reasonable way to enforce it in all but the most blatent instances. It would be like current speed limits on back roads and sport motorcycles. The smart police don't even bother to try to enforce them, because they know they have almost no chance of ever keeping up with a moderately well-ridden sport bike, they just radio ahead and hope for some good luck. The dumb police crash trying to keep up. The reality is, if you have the skills and wish to ride really fast on a sport bike, you can pretty much do so at will on back roads.

Seems to me, that if you have a boat that goes really fast, you can do so at will in the right areas, without any chance of getting caught. That's how it works in MA, where they've had speed limts for years and GFBL boats traveling at well over 45 MPH are quite common. I bet Lake George is the same way...

You may think a speed limit will rid the state of fast boats, it won't. Go to any decent-sized body of water in MA if you don't believe me. Even the smaller lakes have stupendously fast bass boats.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

A driver of a boat traveling in a straight line at 70 shouldn't be breaking the pelvic bones, eardrum, and vertebra of his passengers. Maybe the video posted above by LRSLA needs another watching.

He was definitely showboating for the camera a bit and caught a wave the wrong way. His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead. Compare it to rear ending another car when you are moving along, the force involved certainly does not leave you sitting in your seat. Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds.

The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Kona Chick

"...Are GFBL boats screaming across Lake Winni racing one another injuring their passengers a common thing?? Is it happening a lot? Once again, I've yet to see it..."

If you're in a sailboat, you'll have the perspective to see that it's pretty common—especially on weekends.

They often observe the "Safe Passage" rule—so they're racing—but "legally".

Originally Posted by codeman671

His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead...Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds...The boat that they were in is certainly built well enough to handle the speeds and conditions that they were traveling in.

1) The boat was "in a collision with itself", which wouldn't have happened going at a reasonable speed.

2) If it's "we can't see kayaks", can speeders also not see waves?

3) The boat is built to take it "at those speeds", but people aren't. The video shows that the boat wasn't "almost stopped", but still traveling fast—thankfully for the passengers. (And thankfully there's a video to demonstrate the bone-breaking physics at work at extreme boat speeds).

4) Remember that New Hampshire only requires Marine Patrol reports within 24-hours of a fatality and don't require any report of property damage under $2000. (A recent change from just $500, which statistically improves New Hampshire's widely-touted 2005 Coast Guard statistics for boating accident safety).

5) Because of a lack of requirements regarding injuries, there's no consistent way to determine how often "falls in boat" will appear in Coast Guard statistics. Most boaters would just transport injured parties to an Emergency Room.

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Benjamin Franklin wrote
"Those who give up Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safty, deserve neither Liberty nor Safty."

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759)

That title page statement includes the phase "essential liberties".

Rocketing along at 70+MPH isn't an essential liberty.

Although the "unlimited speeds crowd" is willing to give up their liberty to go fast:

"I wouldn't mind speed limits in several portions of the lake where you can't go fast anyway."

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by codeman671

He was definitely showboating for the camera a bit and caught a wave the wrong way. His boat looked to be trimmed up quite high to maximize "air" and he landed into a wave that tossed him. It is quite easy for people to bounce around or fall in the cockpit and get hurt, that wave almost stopped them dead. Compare it to rear ending another car when you are moving along, the force involved certainly does not leave you sitting in your seat. Their injuries could have been just as bad at slower speeds.

"Showboating", using your described method, is breaking another of NH's boating rules. "Maximizing Air" is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. Also, it is impossible to "Showboat" at reasonable speeds. The broken back and pelvis couldn't have happened at reasonable speeds either.

The wave did cause him to be stopped "almost dead". But the video shows that he continued to swerve directly into the path of two similar boats approaching at a high rate of speed. They both swerved to avoid colliding with him, but also came close to colliding with each other, as the video shows. If he had stopped "dead", instead of "almost dead", the passenger's injuries could have been compounded by collisions with the other two boats. The injuries were severe enough without involving other speedboats in a juvenile quest for "Maximum Air".

[chipj29]

"Maximizing air" is illegal? And only on Winni?
Interesting...I never knew that.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

"Showboating", using your described method, is breaking another of NH's boating rules. "Maximizing Air" is illegal on Lake Winnipesaukee. Also, it is impossible to "Showboat" at reasonable speeds. The broken back and pelvis couldn't have happened at reasonable speeds either.

The wave did cause him to be stopped "almost dead". But the video shows that he continued to swerve directly into the path of two similar boats approaching at a high rate of speed. They both swerved to avoid colliding with him, but also came close to colliding with each other, as the video shows. If he had stopped "dead", instead of "almost dead", the passenger's injuries could have been compounded by collisions with the other two boats. The injuries were severe enough without involving other speedboats in a juvenile quest for "Maximum Air".

Funny, I don't recall seeing a law about jumping waves... Can you point that one out? You can launch a boat off a wave and not be doing it in a reckless manner. heck, I have had a 22' bowrider completely out of the water as I am sure many have on Winni being caught by a large wave on a bad day in the broads. If this has not happend to you then you do not boat enough...

They were showing off for the camera and got caught by the wrong wave. Yep, he was pushing the envelope and paid the price as did his pasengers.

After rewatching the video twice I see nothing that show other boats swerving to avoid a collision. As the boat wiped out the do not show any other boats in the video so how can you claim that they almost hit other boats? I think you are completely embellishing this.

[jrc]

How many of these rules did the boat in the video break? Of course these rules only apply in NH.

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.
(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by jrc

How many of these rules did the boat in the video break? Of course these rules only apply in NH.

Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
(a) No boat operator shall allow his or her boat to cross the wake of another boat, or cross its own wake, in a way that causes the vessel to become airborne. For the purposes of this section, "airborne" means that the boat's hull completely leaves the water.
(b) An operator shall slow to headway speed when crossing the wake of another vessel when within 150 feet of another vessel.
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

At the time of the accident he was not crossing another wake, it was a wave that made him go airborne. When he did cross a boat wake he never left the water. He did cross the wake of a boat at less than 150', I am not sure what the FL ruling is on safe passage.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by codeman671

At the time of the accident he was not crossing another wake, it was a wave that made him go airborne. When he did cross a boat wake he never left the water. He did cross the wake of a boat at less than 150', I am not sure what the FL ruling is on safe passage.

You are right, there doesn't seem to be a specific rule to address jumping waves, just jumping wakes. I did not catch the difference.

I didn't watch the video closely enough to notice that the accident was cause by a natural ocean wave versus a boat wake. I guess it is safer to run those boats on a lake.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Funny, I don't recall seeing a law about jumping waves... Can you point that one out? You can launch a boat off a wave and not be doing it in a reckless manner. heck, I have had a 22' bowrider completely out of the water as I am sure many have on Winni being caught by a large wave on a bad day in the broads. If this has not happend to you then you do not boat enough...

They were showing off for the camera and got caught by the wrong wave. Yep, he was pushing the envelope and paid the price as did his pasengers.

How closely did you look? I don't see any "wrong wave" or "wrong wake" that caused the crash impact. And his passengers "paid the price" with more than a fractured pelvis suffered by the female passenger. Her bikini top got ripped off in the impact, and soared 40 feet over the crash vessel. You missed that during your careful analysis of the crash video, maybe.

Thanks, jrc for New Hampshire's wake-jumper RSAs.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

How closely did you look? I don't see any "wrong wave" or "wrong wake" that caused the crash impact. And his passengers "paid the price" with more than a fractured pelvis suffered by the female passenger. Her bikini top got ripped off in the impact, and soared 40 feet over the crash vessel. You missed that during your careful analysis of the crash video, maybe.

Thanks, jrc for New Hampshire's wake-jumper RSAs.

I do not think that her bikini top got ripped off, where the heck did you get that? Part of the windshield did break loose as did a towel fly. I have read comments from people at the scene on another site, by a friend of occupants of the vessel involved. They were the other boat pictured side by side before the lead boat moved ahead for the camera shoot. It was a wave that they caught at a bad angle when they landed. Maybe you should watch it again...

Please tell me what the impact was with then if there was no wave or wake involved???

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I do not think that her bikini top got ripped off, where the heck did you get that? Part of the windshield did break loose as did a towel fly. I have read comments from people at the scene on another site, by a friend of occupants of the vessel involved. They were the other boat pictured side by side before the lead boat moved ahead for the camera shoot. It was a wave that they caught at a bad angle when they landed. Maybe you should watch it again...

Please tell me what the impact was with then if there was no wave or wake involved???

It wasn't the wave when they landed, it was the water condtions when they launched. It isn't possible to see what altered the boat's attitude in the air, causing it to land sideways. It's most likely the captain's option of going too fast for conditions. Or as you put it, "Showboating". If the cause was easy to see, the driver wouldn't have had the choice or ability, to alter his course in the air, other than inevitably landing at those high speeds on the boat's side.

The captain of the boat had no control of his boat whatsoever while he was "getting air." His passengers and crew no longer had a voice in the driver's capabilities and skills. They were now at the mercy of brutal physics. These "performance boats" have heavily bolstered interiors and seats to protect the passengers against injury. But operating at high speed, zero control in the air, and uncertain waters below wrote the ending even before the helicoper started to record it. Winnipesaukee saw at least three similar high speed crashes in three successive summer seasons. None on Winnipesaukee were videotaped.

Would the other site admit to seeing an injured passenger, not just with a triple fracture of her pelvis, but being naked too? Look again at the video, especially at 1:03 and 1:18. The video ends at 1:23. Use the "pause" feature and don't make the common mistake of enlarging the screen for clarity, please.

There's no denying the windshield gets ripped away by the impacting force of the water. It's tinted, and was launched to fly very high above the boat. The same sudden thrust of water that tore off the windshield ripped the bikini top upwards close to the glass fragment in the air. Or what her friends call a towel. If it's a towel, it's a towel that stays in the shape of a bikini top.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

It wasn't the wave when they landed, it was the water condtions when they launched. It isn't possible to see what altered the boat's attitude in the air, causing it to land sideways. It's most likely the captain's option of going too fast for conditions. Or as you put it, "Showboating". If the cause was easy to see, the driver wouldn't have had the choice or ability, to alter his course in the air, other than inevitably landing at those high speeds on the boat's side.

The captain of the boat had no control of his boat whatsoever while he was "getting air." His passengers and crew no longer had a voice in the driver's capabilities and skills. They were now at the mercy of brutal physics. These "performance boats" have heavily bolstered interiors and seats to protect the passengers against injury. But operating at high speed, zero control in the air, and uncertain waters below wrote the ending even before the helicoper started to record it. Winnipesaukee saw at least three similar high speed crashes in three successive summer seasons. None on Winnipesaukee were videotaped.

Would the other site admit to seeing an injured passenger, not just with a triple fracture of her pelvis, but being naked too? Look again at the video, especially at 1:03 and 1:18. The video ends at 1:23. Use the "pause" feature and don't make the common mistake of enlarging the screen for clarity, please.

There's no denying the windshield gets ripped away by the impacting force of the water. It's tinted, and was launched to fly very high above the boat. The same sudden thrust of water that tore off the windshield ripped the bikini top upwards close to the glass fragment in the air. Or what her friends call a towel. If it's a towel, it's a towel that stays in the shape of a bikini top.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

We can bicker back and forth all you want on this, but I think that the opinions of the people that were actually at the Poker Run as well as friends of the occupants account of the accident hold a lot more water than your opinions.

By the way, you are wrong about the windsheld as well. Sunsation has two windshield options on that boat, a solid painted fairing which is a molded part of the top deck and will not come off, or a completely clear windhshield that screws down like on any other boat. The boat had a clear windshield. Your monitor must be tinted...

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Sunsation has two windshield options on that boat, a solid painted fairing which is a molded part of the top deck and will not come off, or a completely clear windhshield that screws down like on any other boat. The boat had a clear windshield. Your monitor must be tinted...

There are aftermarket windshield tints even in New Hampshire, and these injuries were done by a hotdogging showboater in Florida. If you won't review the video, no one can lead you to see with your eyes what you have already accepted in faith.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

[Airwaves]

Island/Relaxin wrote:

but more then once I have had speed demons buzz around me in tight crowded quarters. So in my mind putting speed limits in Areas like Wolfeboro Bay and Center Harbor are a good idea... putting one in around a place like the Wiers wouldn't be bad either but defining the speed zone could be rough. As for other goals the blanket speed limit people have.... we all know what they are trying to do...

I believe that has more to do with a violation of the 150' no wake zone than speeding boats doesn't it? As you saying these boats were buzzing around you at greater than 45 miles an hour?

A speed limit zone around the Weirs? Again, I think you might be confusing the need for a speed limit with enforcement of the 150' rule. To tell you the truth I've never seen anyone going 45 or above at the Weirs.

Island/Relaxin wrote:

And I am sorry but my opinion is that Some of the boats on the lake have gotten to large.......but this is my opinion... and yes I know that there are many large boat owner that operate responsible.... it the ones that don't that have caused the problems.... and that is unfortunate.....

How large is too large? Are you talking style of boat (cruiser v cigarette style) or are you talking tonnage? There are some large cruisers on the lake but nothing really outrageous. I got the impression you're going after cruisers only because of your comments about exempting the Mount.

As I have said many times, enforcement of existing laws will solve the problems the speed limit crowd has without additional laws or spending the limited funds the Marine Patrol has on a law that it appears data collected and anecdotal evidence shows isn't needed. So enforce the laws we have and get those few operators that you cite into compliance and everyone is happy.

I was going to respond to a number of Islanders comments about limiting power on a "drinking water supply" but they have become just too ridiculous!

I now believe she is writing these posts to be intentionally outrageous to push buttons! Good one!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

There are aftermarket windshield tints even in New Hampshire, and these injuries were done by a hotdogging showboater in Florida. If you won't review the video, no one can lead you to see with your eyes what you have already accepted in faith.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1155180898

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was the one that stated he was showboating... Pushing the edge. Never said that he wasn't. Some of your claims though are embellishing the situation a bit.

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

But the video shows that he continued to swerve directly into the path of two similar boats approaching at a high rate of speed. They both swerved to avoid colliding with him, but also came close to colliding with each other, as the video shows. If he had stopped "dead", instead of "almost dead", the passenger's injuries could have been compounded by collisions with the other two boats. The injuries were severe enough without involving other speedboats in a juvenile quest for "Maximum Air".

No other boats were came close to colliding with each other. When he took the lead no other boats were even pictured! Aftermarket tints on the boat? You could pick this out in the midst of the accident? Gimme a break.

Check out the following link, the accident victims were actually the ones that released the video to promote safety/ No cover up there...

http://destinsharks.com/photo-and-video/196#more-196

A quote from the link:

"As the video shows, the boat was driving mostly south at high speed into the mouth of Destin Pass were it ‘hooked’ after landing from a big wave jump. Destin Pass, like most passes, is subject to unpredictable wave patterns due to tide/wind conflicts, shallowing water, and busy boating traffic by vessels of all sizes."

If you would like to contact ACTUAL people at the poker run that can attest to weather/water conditions and the proximity of other boats in the area I am sure I can point you in the right direction. Lets agree to disagree and move on. Isn't this thread supposed to be about Winnipesaukee anyway?

[MAINLANDER]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

Are you kidding?
A rational thinking person would deduct that if the MP's didn't write any tickets (and no they will not ticket for 1 mph over limit as boat speedos are usually far from accurate) Than there is NO SPEEDING PROBLEM on the lake therfore there is no need for an additional law that would do nothing but pull valuable MP resources away from FAR more serious problems such as safe passage and alcohol based violations. Oh yeaa, and drunk naked kyackers, which apparently we do have a problem with.

[bbarrell]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

Then this is Lake Winnipesaukee's happiest day in five years.

If the MPs only have written one speeding ticket in one boating season of measurements, then nobody can object to a speed limit damaging one's rights.

This supports the fact there is no need for a speed limit. And since I pay taxes in 2 NH towns....I REALLY don't want anymore of my money wasted on this effort! There are waaayyyy more important things to worry about in NH and I want my tax dollars and lawmakers efforts going towards those. This bill is unfounded and UNFUNDED. Money will fly out of your pockets to pay for it if it passes. Also, instead of marine patrol doing their jobs looking out for intoxicated drivers and helping boaters in need....they will be sitting in coves with radar guns. It's ridiculous. And of course you're right, it's some of my freedom being taken away....but there's more at stake here than that.

I really don't understand the supporters. The whole test pilot was a result of their request in a Meredith hearing when they petioned the DOS for a speed limit. Then because it wasn't going their way they bag on the pilot and call it a joke? And you also are now complaining about people actually slowing down so they can't be caught by radar???? Isn't that what you wanted, for people to slow down?

I'm picking up the phone to call my local reps again today to tell them how mad I am that time and money is still being wasted on this useless battle. We don't need a speed limit.