Proposed Law

[pm203]

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

Although you won't be able to hear us, we will be cheering like crazy when you go by.

Live free or die.

[pm203]

Thank you for your support. And, yes, live free or die!

[fatlazyless]

If the 45/25 law actually gets passed in the new legislative session, why not set up a designated hi-speed area, since Winnipesaukee has a long and checkered history as a high speed type of a lake.

I suppose the big question is what area of the lake and for when?

Also, if it does pass, this forum will have lost its' biggest arguing issue in its' eleven year, forum history. We will definately need a new issue for us knuckleheads to argue over. The speed limits issue....it will be missed...

As a Wolfeboro hometown guy, waterskiing whiz. and a candidate, I wonder how Mitt Romney feels about the speed limits issue?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If the 45/25 law actually gets passed in the new legislative session, why not set up a designated hi-speed area, since Winnipesaukee has a long and checkered history as a high speed type of a lake.

I suggest Bob Bahre's, Clay Point, 36 million dollar, mega-mansion area in Alton. Ever drive past Bob's New Hampshire International Speedway and see his sign; it say's

HAVE A SPEEDY DAY!

Plus, now that he sold it, he'll have plenty free time.

I do not think this would work or this should be done. IT would crowd certain parts of the lake and it was cause marine patrol to stay in that area inatead of patrolling the whole lake. Also a lot of people in that area will make a fuss. There should be no speed limit on the lake, this is letting the few spoil for many others. This is what Marine Patrol is here for, just like on Highways with the Highway Patrol

[Bear Islander]

When the speed limit passes it will be too late to set up a "high-speed area" without passing another law.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When the speed limit passes it will be to late to set up a "high-speed area" without passing another law.

If a bill must pass, it should include a distance from shore qualifier. For example, the speed limit would only be set within 100 yards of a populated shoreline. The boat separation would also be increased to 100 yards when above 50 MPH - with the faster boat as the burdened one. No law should pass until it accounts for fast-safe travel.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by pm203

"...Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake..."

Towards whom was your word "unfortunately" directed?

All the other ocean-racers?

[Phantom]

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

The bill as attempted before will likely get a repeat of strong opposition. The democrats that help it pass are up for election next year so need to be careful they vote on the right side of the issue. A compromise that makes sense, is not based on fear, and allows safe-fast travel (day and night) might have a chance.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

It's not that I feel that the bill will pass. It's just the fact it will be business as usual if it does pass. The speed and the noise will never go away. I would support a new law if it could be statistically proven that it was needed.And, as we all know, that is not the case here. In a world full of frivilous lawsuits and craziness, the last thing we need is to pass a another law based upon anything but the truth.

[fatlazyless]

There's something new in this legislative session that may sway the opinion of a few of the 400 state representatives and 24 state senators with regard to passing a 45day/25night speed limit.

If you read the Laconia Daily Sun news article in the nearby thread, building Winni Sailing, it mentions that the NH Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Assoc, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing center on a lightly used end corner of the very terrific state beach at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford.

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual engines totaling 1200hp; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

..............................

Want to help build the new Winnipesaukee community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park?

Mail your tax deductible donation to

Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing
Association, Inc.
PO Box 7047
Gilford NH 03247

or you can donate online at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3

www.lwsa.org ......psssst....check out all the photos!
.....................

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

Now that's a cleverly worded stupid question. How about , is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake , with or without ANY other boats?
Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cal

"...How about, is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake, with or without ANY other boats..."

A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by Cal

"...Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats..."

So "the blind ones" can do what?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

Well more power to them. They obviously have more guts than common sense since too many "sighted" sailors have falled off the edge of the earth

Secondly , it dosen't mention if they are "Totally" blind , as in see nothing but black or "Legally" blind ,where you do have some vision. I certainly wouldn't want a totally blind person docking next to me.
A past co-workers wife was legally blind but with glasses like Coke bottle bottoms was fully functional.
The term "blind" , in and of itself and be misleading or misused to one advantage or to forward ones agenda and we both know it.

Originally Posted by Acres per second

So "the blind ones" can do what?

Perhaps blatantly exercise their right of way over any power vessel from a 3hp 10' dinghy to a 1200 hp Baja to the Sophie C or the Mount itself.






BTW Happy New Year. Hope 2008 goes as "fast" 2007 did for you

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

........................
........................

How is this any different than it's been for years? A few more sailboats on the lake isn't going to make much difference in the boating experience and it's pretty hard to get enough speed out of a sailboat to cause a deadly collision. I think the power boaters will be able to get out of the way of the novice teen sailors easily enough. I say build it as long as it's privately funded.

A 32 foot Baja with 2400 HP (pretty sure it's not a factory option) will go well over 100 MPH. Probably over 130. The latest Donzi 38 tops 110 with only 1400 HP, according to Boating Magazine.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

And speaking of the size, is someone driving on Scenic Drive endangered by the higher level and speed of traffic on Lake Shore Road? Except for the the intersection of the roads I would guess that there is little threat to the drivers on Scenic Dr. because they are in separate locations. Similarly, if a powerboat follows the Mt Washington's route they are almost a mile from Ellacoya shore area, where I would guess most of the sailing training would be done. If the powerboat is in the broads, it is over 2 miles away from the Ellacoya shore. The only real threat might be if the powerboat buzzed the shoreline at high speed. Since this would break at least a half dozen existing laws I would think the Marine Patrol could deal with such a moron quite easily. Further, I would guess most power boaters, seeing a collection of sailboats would give them a very wide berth to avoid getting near them and having to drop to headway speed. I think the inexperienced sailors are in more danger of bumping into each other than running afoul of a powerboat. Why not simply flag the primary training zone and make it a restricted speed area?

Finally, although Baja's can be custom powered to run at very high speeds, the cost of such additional power would price the boat out of the range of the vast majority of people and would be a waste to have on Winnipesaukee where the opportunities to use such an extravagant boat would be limited. Are there really any boats on Winnipesaukee that can go much faster than 80 MPH? Talking about 100+ MPH boats on Winnipesaukee is like worrying about the problems of landing the space shuttle at Manchester airport. Yes, the shuttle exists and landing it puts a stain on the landing area. However, I don't think we need to worry about it landing in Manchester anytime soon.

I have been around novice Sunfish sailors many times. I have passed them at a distance at 55 MPH and cruised at headway speed through the middle of them when they were blocking a channel. No one had any problems. Why would an expanded sailing facility be any different?

Maybe I'll sign up for lessons when they get the new facility built.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jeffk

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

Gee , imagine that...somebody made a misleading statement
Here I thought there was going to be 300 out there all summer long.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph, this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

Although I am not a huge fan of the speed limit, I do believe if done right and certain busy areas of the lake had limits we would be at a happy compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things. I hate people with the attitude of screw the system I am going to do what I want. That is a poor attitude. NH maybe the live free or die state, but everyone in the state has the right to do that in away that is comfortable to them. At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?

That what this is all about, people are so concentrated on themselves these days they forget to think about how what they do may affect others. This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

Now stepping off the platform about the rude, selfish behavior, to the one on enforcement. everyone better be careful, your boat maybe able to scream across the lake and they will have a hard time getting the radar on you. But remember this just like NH successfully put noise pollution control in place to quiet boats down. Most new boats have PCM units for the motors. Governing an engine has never been easier. In other words, Get caught once shame on you, get caught twice, shame on us, get caught three times, either have your boat governed, or never be caught on the lake again. I personally would not want to see it come to that, but remember people there is more then one way to skin the cat, all of which can be made legal by your friendly legislator.

Blowing off the law because you don't think it is enforceable is only going to tender the fire.

[Hottrucks]

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?
...
This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

[jrc]

I wish we could measure the effects of poorly implemted and thought out laws. Obviously the biggest one was prohibition, where breaking the law and corruption was so common place that many people lost respect for the law.

But think of the 55 MPH national speed limit. Has any law hurt the prestiege and respect of the police than that? Think about how you felt about the police on 9/12/2001, now think about how you feel when there's one behind you when you're doing 65 MPH in a 55 MPH zone even though the highway designed for 70 MPH.

I don't want to think about the MP that way.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

I niether totally agree or totally disagree with you Jeff. Which is what makes this such a hard issue. However I think the bigest problem is that niether side is willing to give any. Personally I feel there are very few parts of the lake where speed is a concern. And if it was regulated in those areas only then the rest of the lake would be wide open, I don't think I have ever been in the middle of the broads when I felt there should be a speed limit. However I have been around the Wiers, when a bad egg takes off out of the channel, and puts the hammer down. And I feel that a speed limit would give the Marine Patrol the ability to stop someone like that, who is 150 feet from everyone, with out having to pull them over on a judgement based call.
This is a complex issue, with no good answer however I think if both side hadn't sunk thier heels in, a good comprimised could have been brought forth. Instead the politicians will decide if it is all or nothing.......


Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways.......if a lake wide limit is to be imposed I think something like 60, is more practical, but then again that also really segragates a certain class of boats, and is that really fair.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...The democrats that help it pass are up for election next year so need to be careful they vote on the right side of the issue..."

It is because they were on the right side of the issue that the bill exists at all.

I proposed a generous 130-MPH limit here that got rejected.

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...A compromise that makes sense, is not based on fear, and allows safe-fast travel (day and night) might have a chance...."

After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways

Without revisting my prior comments on numbers, I'll say 2 things.

First I doubt any number will ever get reviewed for the same reason the highway limits haven't been reviewed. There's no desire to do so and every desire to avoid the whole issue. Neither the 45 on the lake nor the 55 on the highway had any safety related reasoning behind the number. The NMSL/55 wasn't even a safety issue when it was enacted, it was to save gas during the oil embargo of the time and was supposed to be temporary. We still have it, in reduced form, today.

Second the only reason the NMSL was watered down in the late 80's and then repealed in the mid 90's was due to massive non-compliance on the part of the driving public. Eventually despite all manner of statiscal manipulation to hide it, various "important" states were going to be found to not be in compliance and threatened with loss of Federal highway funds. The politicians weren't going to let this happen. Without politicians being threatening with loss of revenue I don't see any number imposed on the lake ever getting reviewed.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

How many innocent people have been runover and killed these past 3 years ?

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

Not that I think it is right because I don't...... the fact is they can..... and eventually I can see it happening......

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

How many innocent people have been run over and killed these past 3 years ?

1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

Long Lake's high speed double-fatality would have been averted with any ten-year-old girl behind the wheel rather than some wealthy jerk out to prove that his chromosomes are more important than others'.

What do you propose be done about ocean-racers catapulting themselves 120-feet over your lakefront's property line?

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat.

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake?

"...David Donchecz, chief operating officer of Michigan-based Sunsation Powerboats, told the Sun Journal of Lewiston that he thought the Dominator was too much boat with too much speed for such a lake..."
http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/ne...277&zoneid=500

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol.

Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

Yup,here comes the unfounded and totally uncalled for scare tactics from the speed limit crowd.Can't people see through this verbal crap?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

APS...

You are the master of the obvious!

The sunset clause is clearly a ruse designed to get those legislators who might be on the fence about HB-847 onboard. Extending a sunset clause quietly is usually pretty easy to do...

This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002! Almost 6 years ago! We have had 5 seasons of darn safe boating.... so why do we need a 3 year law?

The MP study/report clearly shows no need for a speed limit, and points out that there are some serious costs to be borne with HB-847... training, equipment, manpower (2 MP Officers required on radar boat), court costs etc... all this $$$ and effort for a 3 year Lake Winnipesaukee only law?

I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection....


Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002!...I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection...."

Lake Winnipesaukee's "Most-Experienced and Most-Educated Night-time Ocean-Racer" is out of jail now.

Using a legal technique that night known as "Hit and Run", he finessed the worst charge against him—and did it legally. Convicted only on the lesser charge, the proceeds of the civil law suit brought against him can only be termed as "modest".

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide. (An 84-year sentence was handed out in a similar ocean-racer crash, but that driver managed to kill everybody on the 31' cruiser he collided with.)

Maybe three years was asking too much of the cult. Today's Concord Monitor is showing a two year sunset clause being considered.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...05/1037/NEWS04

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide.

How so? An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law. It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit. Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court.

The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident. Honestly, even the "drunk" is hard enough to prove as he did not stick around long enough to blow.

According the the law that you are lobbying for, Dan was basically complying already. It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

[Skip]

Originally Posted by codeman671

How so?

As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

The individual in Florida was sentenced to 84 years based on multiple convictions of manslaughter for six deaths induced by Boating While Intoxicated....

A close reading of the stories attached showed a belief that the individual was travelling most likely above the posted speed limit of 25 MPH but authorities agreed that in the narrow confines of the area of the crime that the vessel was not travelling anywhere near its maximum limits.

But again, the individual cited was convicted on manslaughter due to boating while intoxicated.

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties if a 25 MPH speed limit had been in effect shows a complete misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works in New Hampshire. If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime. The complete transcript of the original trial and the Supreme Court decision based on Littlefield's appeal is public record, and has been for years. Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime.

Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years and thousands of miles to compare) in which six individuals were slaughtered versus the unnecessary death of one individual here in New Hampshire totally negates the ability to classify the two crimes and the resulting sentences as "similar".

[Cal]

A perfect example of how you can make a story SEEM to fit your agenda , right Skip?

And just what is the "Sunset Clause"

[pm203]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things.

Don't blame me! I spent alot of money to quiet my boat down and DO follow all current laws. In fact, when coming out of the Weirs channel, I usually go another 200 feet before attempting to get on plane. Meanwhile,most every other "family boat" has the throttles pegged as soon as they pass the markers. I am certainly one of the more courteous boaters on the lake. It just sickens me to see this proposed speed limit law even being considered! It has been shot down countless times, only to be brought back to life, over and over, by the same selfish, misguided group for no other purpose but to discriminate against a certain type of boat. And why?? They don,t like them. And, that is what is so wrong with this proposed law. Rep Pilliod and his Winnfabs friends should be very ashamed.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide.

This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense.

This http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJU...oc/nhspeed.pdf provides a summary of NH automotive speeding laws. While a boating speed limit has yet to be finalized I doubt the penalties would be more harsh than the automotive counterpart. Others are better at providing law quotes than I but I get the following information (my bolding).

Adjudication of Speed Law Violations:
Civil/Criminal Adjudication of Violation: All Speed Law Offenses are Violations.5 ''265:2 & 625:9, II(b)
Other:
Sanctions Following an Adjudication of a Speed Law Violation:
Criminal Sanctions:
Imprisonment:
Term (Day, Month, Years,
Etc.): None
Mandatory Minimum Term:
Fine:
Amount ($ Range): Not more than $1,000 '651:2, IV(a)
Mandatory Min. Fine ($): None
Other Penalties:
Traffic School: An offender may be required to attend a Driver Attitude Training program. '263:56-e
Other:
Licensing Action:
Type of Licensing Action
(Susp/Rev): I. Suspension via Court Order '263:57
II. Suspension via a Point System6 '263:56, I(c) & III
5
A violation is not classified as a crime. '625:9, II(b)


So in summary the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license.

I would venture to guess that Mr. Littlefield would have happily pleaded guilty to a speed limit violation and paid a $1000 fine rather than face the charges and penalties (felonies) he ended up with. It will not be something he will easily forget, versus a fine which would have been relatively trivial to him. He spent more talking to his lawyer for a few hours. Yes, he slipped past the BWI charge. Having a speed limit in place would have done NOTHING to change that.

If you look at automobile accidents involving speeding, the speeding charge is usually the least charge mentioned. Other charges carry far more weight and have criminal consequences. These laws already exist for boating plus additional ones and are what were used to convict Mr. Littlefield of his felony crimes.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law...It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit...The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident...It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

"Hit-and-Run" was NH-legal.

He wasn't proven drunk, but a judge allowed the jury to consider witness' testimony—and was upheld.

He would be in technical violation of the speed limit and that would be weighed by the jury when such testimony is allowed by the judge. Juries will also be weighing the testimony of court experts in speed determinations.

Originally Posted by Skip

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties...As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

Somebody said "massive"?

It's a jury that would be weighing his speed, his lack of proper lookout and all other illegal and anti-social behaviors. (See above).

My point was that eleven years ago, BWI was a very serious charge. Take the 84 years in prison and divide it by the number of victims, and you see that 16 years (for each victim) was adjudicated for a successful BWI prosecution.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime..."

You make my point: no speed law—no speed prosecution—no invocation of felonious behavior.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime..."

Yes, thanks to the NH Supreme Court and a judge who saw a travesty unfolding in his courtroom.

Yet in another jurisdiction, 16 years was delivered for an analogous collision—even without a determination of actual speed.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida..."

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew?

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense...the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license..."

"The worst" would be the technical violation of the speed limit law being considered by a jury who has already heard witnesses describing his pre-crash attitude, after-crash attitude, flight to avoid prosecution and aberrant behavior. (See above).

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court..."

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!



BTW: Isn't someone familiar with courtrooms going to suggest that a post announcing intent to become a lawbreaker is a seriously bad idea?

While it's enormously high in cult value, I wouldn't want my insurance company to have that in print in a courtroom.

[Skip]

For the final time let me remind the reader that yes, Aps is correct in one tiny aspect of his opinion on this matter, speed did play a part in the conviction of Littlefiled.

How so?

An extensive investigation and re-creation of the accident led investigators to a reasonable belief that Littlefield was travelling approximatley 28 MPH at the time of the collision.

But given all the conditions present that evening the State opined and the jury and the NH Supreme Court concluded that the speed Littlefield was operating at was not a contributing factor to the accident, and that given his estimated speed and the environmental conditions he faced that night he easily should have been able to avoid a collision.

Therefore the jury's opinion, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, was that something else other than speed caused the collision and that something was the ultimate decision that imprisoned Littlefield.

And what was that something else? Again, a reading of the transcript of both the original trial and the appeal make it readily apparent. Littlefield was unable to maintain a proper lookout due in part to the amount of alcohol he had drank just prior to the collision.

Simple and obvious as that.

And the fact that Boating While Intoxicated laws with inherent criminal and civil penalties existed that evening that Littlefield chose to drink too much did nothing to deter him or three other adult passenges from preventing this crime.

The fact that there were children present during the drinking and subsequent collision did nothing to deter the crime.

The fact that a number of other horrific and well publicized alcohol related boating collisions have occured throughout the country prior to that night of drinking did nothing to prevent this crime.

And yet a handful out here wnat to continue to harangue that maybe a speed limit that night would have prevented Littlefield and his passengers from engaging in the course of action that ultimately led to this tragedy?

Oh, by the way.....in the horrific alcohol induced collision that Aps cites as the basis for his argument? Gee, there was a speed limit that night in that canal.

And it did nothing to prevent the deaths of six innocent people!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

I am going to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, your banter is meaningless and not fact based. Other posters such as Skip, Woodsy and JeffK have made strong factual arguments yet you continue to dazzle us with your hypothetical crap and twisted views. The facts are the facts APS, your speed limit would not have saved a life in this case. That Baja had just as much right to be on the water as any other boat on the lake, although the driver did not. It was not traveling at unsafe speeds for the conditions and as long as it met MP requirements for safety equipment and state noise requirements the only laws broken were by the driver.

The accident that took place in FL occured in an inland canal (clearly a narrower place than Winnipesaukee) as they were approaching a no-wake zone. With concentrated traffic and manatees in abundance the boat was clearly going too fast for the environment. Oh, and wasn't alcohol involved??? Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

[SIKSUKR]

Folks, this is what we are dealing with when you try to have a meaningful, thought provoking discussion with the pro speed limit side. Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are. Shameful.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew?

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

[fatlazyless]

Just between you, me, and the very small number of the 424 NH legislators who may read this forum, I think the new community sailing facility for local kids-n-adults, that going up at Ellacoya State Park will carry more positive weight for the need for a speed limit than 100 people commenting about the technical aspects of the 150' foot rule.

As you may or may not know, the New Hampshire Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing facility on a lightly used end of the beautifull beach at Ellacoya State Park. It is scheduled to open in the summer of 2009.
.............................

Want to help pay for the new community sailing facility with a tax deductible contribution? Go to www.lwsa.org and look around....at the donation link....at the photos....or go to the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the nearby boating section and read all about it including a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun..

Happy and safe sailing & motorboating to eveyone in 2008. and please dig deep to help pay for the new community sailing facility that's opening in 2009!!
...................

...and now, it's back to the technical arguments....kersplash....pow.....& cowabunga!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

It was not "a direct hit". Any change in vectoring of those 4½ tons would have been safe.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

Like our most famous case?

Originally Posted by chipj29

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years..."

Okaaay...let's go back to the previous summer, where five died without speed limits—and no alcohol.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

"...Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are..."

The above case mentions the use of GPS. Has the "Need for Speed" crowd ever mentioned GPS as an emerging factor in the frequent violations of Winnipesaukee's "safe-passage" rule?

BoaterEd's Les Hall spoke to this collision:

"...Had those two boats been running at 25 knots instead of 70, the failure would not have caused such a dramatic turn and the other boat may have had time to avoid it. Nor would the damage have been so extensive. You guys can posture all you want but it is not safe for two boats to be doing 70 or 80 side by side or for boats to be going that speed on inland waters. Exciting, yes. Safe, no...If accidents like this one keep happening, that's what will happen on the water - speed limits everywhere..."

Don't forget that between 100-130-MPH, I have many more hours (than most) on a closed race course. Also, I go boating 12 months a year.(And get to view other boaters from three different locales).

Soundings magazine is my boat-savvy reading, who recount the awful effects of speed, alcohol, money, ignorance and overpowered boats every month.

And this "isn't just about me" being a proponent: the entire editorial staff of the Concord Monitor has come on board today.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1027/OPINION01

(2nd paragraph from the bottom).

[Hottrucks]

How could we support them ???

LWSA/WYC events are typically mixed-fleet, handicapped (PHRF) races with round-the-islands courses and are held on weekends. There are usually both racing (spinnaker) and cruising (non-spinnaker) divisions. In addition to the mixed-fleet race events, there is J/80 one-design class racing every Thursday evening during the summer - details here.

We welcome anyone who wants to participate - if you are inexperienced at racing but would like to learn,

I fearing for my life they're going to be racing!!!!!!!!!!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

Cum'on , get off it , will ya! First off , the BOAT and its HORSEPOWER had NOTHING to do with it. A 35 foot 300 hp CRUISER could have done the same thing since the ESTIMATED speed was ONLY 28 MPH. (Wide open for the cruiser)
One change in decision , anytime that evening , by either boater , could have made a world of difference!
Even if Littlefield had stayed and had ONE MOOOOORE drink , he wouldn't have been at that place and time that the accident took place. If he had been doing 45 mph , he would have been past the point of impact before the victims boat got there.
Rediculous senarios , yes , but factually TRUE...more true than "the boat had too much power for the lake" , because again and for the last time The Power Had Nothing to Do With It
Now let me rest my bruised finger tips (from POUNDING the keyboard) and go get some lunch

[SS-194]

Not for nothin but 45 in a small boat is alot more fun then 90 in a bigger boat. You go for it skippa, rules are made to be broken right.The lake just isn't what it used to be.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ? How would the speed limit have saved them ? I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

I would suggest we look as far as the lakes go ... here in NH. You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat.

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents". Where's our double-fatality attributable to a power boat ? And shouldn't it be attributable be to speed in excess of the proposed limit ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake?

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade ?


I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult. This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

[ApS]

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

Where I've just moved to, about 1 in 10 powerboats pass by at night—illegally—without lights. (I'll find out why, but I think it relates to commercial fishing.)

Mee&Mac: I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right?

Whatever speed limit is voted for, I still couldn't feel vindicated if I'd killed one or both kayakers—but that's just me.

Mee&Mac: You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision?

Lake Winnipesaukee has been featured in movies with Smith Mountain Lake used as Winnipesaukee.

Smith Mountain Lake recorded "a double-fatality" last year, with the same cult responsible. We only have about ten years of widespread, grossly irresponsible, actions on Winnipesaukee; plus, the Big Lake only has a summer season—plus, "Noise and Action" is mostly on weekends. Offshore, the speed hazard to other boaters is minimal. Even then, Soundings magazine writes this month:

"...I could keep going on with the horror stories, but we all the the message. The number of people on the water who are lacking even the most basic boating skills and knowledge is staggering. We have a problem..."
—Tom Neale

Now, how many of the speed cult have any "skill and knowledge" in boat control at speeds over 45? Over 65? Or double that—at 130? (One-hundred-thirty MPH being a speed already seen on Winnipesaukee in recent seasons).


Mee&Mac: And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents".

A prohibition of alcohol aboard boats won't happen; add to that overpowered, overweight boats with something-to-prove-drivers—and there's a problem.

Mee&Mac: Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

OK, which is Lake Winnipesaukee—and which is Long Lake?






Mee&Mac: Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

There are probably average family boaters that don't know when they're in harm's way: the boaters that do know, support 45/25.

BTW, I have a screen-capture of ARG's last poll showing 76% of NH's polled, support the new law. Anyone with objections to publishing it here?

This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

Take Courage! The speed-cult is mailing their protests from Hawaii, across the nation—and from Sweden—to New Hampshire Representatives as we speak.

Oops...Don't take Courage—that's a British beer!

Mee&Mac: I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade?

Here, most readers don't profess this level of personal...um...um...um...paucity of cognition.

The MPs certainly seem to know where to look and, annoyingly, stake out NASWA. (That's just one lakeside locale where alcohol is served to boat captains having overpowered, overweight boats).

BWI-arrests are rare on Winnipesaukee. A speed limit would target the most dangerous BWI-perps, IMHO.

Mee&Mac: I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult.

I'm not sensing "the empathy" for the two night-kayaking visitors. In their neighboring state, there may not be the same lighting requirement as New Hampshire's. (I'd find it very difficult to paddle while holding a lantern over my head in NH—but that's just me.)

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....[/COLOR]

No to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula. Fountain does make an "Executioner"...

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

[COLOR="Blue"]On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

To quote President Reagan "There you go again"

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

Further, now you are saying that the boat captain must be responsible enough to adjust his speed to the conditions. He must do this to maintain a proper watch. Since this is clearly true, why do we need a new law? Can't we just arrest and/or fine the people who operate dangerously and don't keep a proper watch?

BTW what is the safe speed for a powerboat of any size or shape to operate, such that they can avoid unlit craft? Can you give me a number or are you going to tell me it depends on the conditions? Do you sense a theme here?

[Hottrucks]

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where???

and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more??? I don't know of any obstuctions on the east side of the lake that look like that.... how ever looking at it again these pics where not taken with the same lens or Zoom factor the bottom one has a much higher detail to it so it was taken closer up giving the impression that the rocks are out further.....Kinda a smoke and mirrors thing????

[chipj29]

I sent a mass email to State Reps regarding my position on HB847. I received about a dozen emails back. Every single one of them opposes the speed limit. I spoke to my local Rep last night. She (a Dem) is for a speed limit. Of course she does not own a boat.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I also had a great response from reps. Seems the tide is turning again. I think it is since they (read winnfabs) changed the bill (AGAIN) and made it a Winnipesaukee only bill. People in other communities in NH have called their reps and let them know that they are afraid.....there is that word again? That the performance boats will come to their beloved lake. Which isn't far fetched, I know several hot rod pwc owners who were discussing that a speed limit on winni, would give them the impetus to visit other lakes such as Winnisquam, Newfound, and Sunapee. So look out peaceful lakes....Here comes the Horsepower!!! Send thank you cards to Winnfabs!

[Hottrucks]

to think that people would load their boats on a trailer and bring them to another lake.... I think ....Is Foolish.... Most of the boats you want to condemn are tied to a dock and never leave the lake. I don't see people buying a truck and some a trailer to haul them....Most of the other lakes don't have the amenities that boaters are looking for ( I can hear it now) LIKE A DECENT BOAT RAMP or PARKING....probably shouldn't go there since I can't find out where the $5 from all boat Reg's for ramp maintenance is going??...no restaurants, no place to anchor ( rafting laws), so Unless they are going to go there and run there boats back and forth on the lake what else are they going to do???

I'm sorry do you have to find a rest room???

[Dave R]

I'm gonna guess the bottom picture is Long Lake, the tiny size of the photos makes it tough though. There's no big mountains visible from Long Lake and the top photo looks like it has mountains. 'Course, could be a trick and neither photo is Winnipesaukee or Long Lake.

Long Lake is remarkably similar to Alton Bay and Meredith Bay (except it's kinda shallow at 45 feet max depth, if memory serves), if you connected them end to end. Both of those bays are proven to be safely navigated by vessels at least as large as 220 feet and/or capable of speeds in excess of 100 MPH. Both also connect to much broader sections of the lake, some parts of which are nearly as wide open as Sebago Lake, which happens to be directly connected to Long Lake via the Songo River. You can't think of Long Lake as a narrow, 11 mile long, lake alone, it's connected to a lake nearly as big as, and much more wide open than Winnipesaukee.

I would not recommend operating any boat at planing speed, at night, while drunk on any lake. I don't think a speed limit would fix that kind of behavior. Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.

[Airwaves]

APS wrote in part

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)....

I'm only joining in this discussion briefly to ask my good friend APS if he is certain about his statement?

The photo you attached appears to have palm trees in the background. So how close is this guy to you?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

APS wrote in part


I'm only joining in this discussion briefly to ask my good friend APS if he is certain about his statement?

The photo you attached appears to have palm trees in the background. So how close is this guy to you?

APS is listed as having a location of Florida and Winnipesaukee, so I would assume that he/she is a seasonal resident here. Or is it just a misc picture that APS posted??? Clearly there was no real knowledge of the brand of boat pictured. The "hook" on the bow of that boat is clearly a telltale sign of Fountain. Being that Formula does not make a style boat like that I find it funny that the time would have been spent checking out the model names of Formula to go with the rest of the post yet no notice was made of the types of boats they build...

[Hottrucks]

Palm trees on Winnie now thas funny!!!!!!!!!

[fatlazyless]

Just looked this up, the speed limits bill from the prior legislative session, HB 162, was passed in the House of Representatives by 193-139 out of 400 state reps on Feb 2, 2006 (Groundhogs day). That was a different group of state reps than who's serving now. It went on to die in the Senate by xx-xx.......16-9 or something....dunno.......(24 state senators) but the 2006 November election switched both the NH House & Senate from a Republican to a Democratic majority. But getting a majority of senators to agree to a new law like this and get it passed during an election year could be too difficult. So it's basically impossible to make an intelligent prediction. Maybe a dumb one, but nuthn too brite..... just too close to call?

Me....what do I predict.....I predict that the groundhog will NOT see its' shadow on February 2, and winter will last & last & last! Long live wintah!

........................

[Airwaves]

codeman671, my post was dripping with sarcasm

I was just pointing out, by use of sarcasm, that APS has once again traveled far and wide to try (again failing) to make a point. This time with a pic of a pretty Fountain blue water fishing boat in Florida. (The Fountain name is on the gunwale just above the word Battery)

I would also point out that this particular blue water fishing boat in Florida does not appear to be speeding or violating any other law.

Just another attempt by the "anti-powerboat/speed limits in search of a problem" crowd to take a perfectly innocent scene and twist it into something to be feared and crushed!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

codeman671, my post was dripping with sarcasm

I was just pointing out, by use of sarcasm, that APS has once again traveled far and wide to try (again failing) to make a point. This time with a pic of a pretty Fountain blue water fishing boat in Florida. (The Fountain name is on the gunwale just above the word Battery)

I would also point out that this particular blue water fishing boat in Florida does not appear to be speeding or violating any other law.

Just another attempt by the "anti-powerboat/speed limits in search of a problem" crowd to take a perfectly innocent scene and twist it into something to be feared and crushed!

Proof again APS doesn't know what he's talking about , or lying , or thinks WE don't know what we're looking at , or all the above.
In any case it is certainly indicative of a drowning man grabbing for anything he can. So keep up the great work because anybody that's truly knowledgable can see through your smoke and mirrors game and it only makes YOU look worse. You could wind up being your own worst enemy

[fatlazyless]

Hey, here's a thought, if HB847 actually passes the house, senate and executive, then some smart cookie should figure out a way "to melt down those huge fiberglass hulls, and beat them into kayaks." Just imagine such a process.....you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak, all set up for fishing......plus a big box of granola....gratis.....wow.....what a concept!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

It's been eight days: He's not "firing".

Originally Posted by codeman671

Not to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula.

One of my two errors: the boat appears to be named "A Salt and Battery"—my monitor isn't sharp enough to tell.

But why the in-your-face name? What's next, "Assault With a Deadly Weapon", "Manslaughter", "Malice Towards All"?

Pretty sharp—those who spotted the palm trees. This particular boat was located ¼-mile from me, and 1/10 mile from the open ocean—where excess speeds are tolerated by the widely-scattered boaters out there. Speed limit opponents—especially those who choose to ignore speed limit laws—need to continue displaying such sharpness at 80-MPH.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Fountain does make an "Executioner".

What??? No Fountain "Obliterator"??? There are still some kids out there to run over out there.

Originally Posted by Eric P

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.

Kayaks are normally quiet and are not normally equipped with navigation lights. The kayakers weren't charged for nudity or drinking—nor for the absense of a lantern.

It's not "nothing" when you fail to see objects in your path at speed—at any time. A skipper is responsible for his boat's actions—particularly when there are breathing, sentient beings in his boat or in front of it).

When a ball rolls out into my path between parked cars, I slow down. At what is being called a "slow" speed, Littlefield had ample time to observe the slower boat to his left before crushing it under his overweight, overpowered, 4½ tons. That the excessively-long deck on his 4½-ton boat covered the other boat from view hasn't been discussed.

Originally Posted by jrc

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where??? and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more???

Try Google for combinations of "130-MPH, jolly-roger, winnipesaukee, performance-boats, donziregistry.com", and it should appear. I posted the link here months ago.

As in most things nautical, Dave R is right: Long Lake is the bottom photo. The two were selected for identical size (17K) to illustrate how executioners in one lake can be just as deadly in another. (Duh).

(Dave R is also right about his top speed handling as "nervous" in his own recreational boat.)

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways..."

Alcohol is an increasing problem: Records are falling.

A woman was recently stopped with a BAC nine times the limit.

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit...Good luck trying to enforce it.

Just two weeks ago, a driver (with extremely important connections) "got enforced" caught going 70-in-a-30 New Hampshire speed limit zone. Maybe watch how this case runs its course?

Most citizens are wishing the state "good luck" in the enforcement of this case.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak...

In my new—and admittedly eccentric—neighborhood, a family has cut the good front half off of a wrecked speedboat and is using it to store their garbage cans in! From the roadway, it looks pretty normal!

[Airwaves]

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

Who has admitted that a speed limit is unenforceable?

And please consider that most of us OWN power boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Leislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

I am more frightened by a boat going 20 mph and not paying attention than a boat going 60. For some reason they always seem to be paying keen attention to what is ahead of them.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I am more frightened by a boat going 20 mph and not paying attention than a boat going 60. For some reason they always seem to be paying keen attention to what is ahead of them.

I totally disagree with you. I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort. That's the honest truth, whether you believe me or not. When you're traveling 100 feet per second (70mph), it is not at all hard to break the 150 foot rule, just because you didn't see a small boat in time. When a boat is traveling slower, the operator has more time to react - that's a simple fact.

A lake speed limit is enforceable - I've never even suggested that it wasn't. I've personally witnessed enforcement of a speed limit on Squam.

Is it 100% enforceable? No. But neither are highway speed limits.

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. And I've seen how much having a speed limit can improve this situation. In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone. I just wish that the bill hadn't been amended so that Wini was the only lake affected by it.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers.

Perhaps the bill should be amended to ban paddlers from the Lake.

A win-win for all.

The amended bill would protect you (you seem to be partial to the government protecting you) and allow life, as it has been for many, many decades at the Lake, to continue.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Perhaps the bill should be amended to ban paddlers from the Lake. A win-win for all.

The amended bill would protect you (you seem to be partial to the government protecting you) and allow life, as it has been for many, many decades at the Lake, to continue.

This is exactly why we need the lake speed limit bill. You and many others fee that your "right" to travel at unlimited speeds in more important than the rights of others to even use the lake.

My grandfather kayaked on wini. Paddlers were here for hundreds of years before powerboats, so if you're suggesting squatter's rights, we would win.


From RSA 270:1 "II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances."

fficeffice" />>"Among these treasures of our land is water—fast becoming our most valuable, most prized, most critical resource. A blessing where properly used—but it can bring devastation and ruin when left uncontrolled."
Eisenhower, Dwight D. 34th president of the ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">United States.lace>
lace w:st="on">lace>
lace w:st="on">We have laws mainly because everyone's right to liberty ends where it intrudes on someone else's liberty. We wouldn’t need most of our laws if everyone was truly concerned with (and understood) how their actions affect others. But unfortunately some people don’t really care (or truly understand) how their actions affect others.

A speed limit law does not ban anyone from using the lake. All it will do is require a the fastes powerboaters to slow down, which the proponents of the bill feel will make the lake safer.
lace>>

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone.

May I respectfully suggest you simply paddle faster.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).
...

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed. One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is exactly why we need the lake speed limit bill. You and many others fee that your "right" to travel at unlimited speeds in more important than the rights of others to even use the lake.

My grandfather kayaked on wini. Paddlers were here for hundreds of years before powerboats, so if you're suggesting squatter's rights, we would win.

Is this your way of telling the Forum that your grandfather was capable of using common sense to protect himself from danger and hence never felt a need to have a speed limit on the Lake while he enjoyed its serendipitous moments paddling its surface?

So, why is it that you are not able to enjoy the Lake, as did your grandfather, without government intervention to protect you?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Is this your way of telling the Forum that your grandfather was capable of using common sense to protect himself from danger and hence never felt a need to have a speed limit on the Lake while he enjoyed its serendipitous moments paddling its surface?

No. That was just my response to your suggestion that high-speed powerboaters had some sort of squatters rights on the lake, just because they have been here for decades. People have been paddling on Wini for hundreds of years longer than powerboats. The mention of my grandfather was just to make the point that my own family has been living in NH and paddling on NH lakes for generations.

So, why is it that you are not able to enjoy the Lake, as did your grandfather, without government intervention to protect you?

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.

My grandfather was in the NH Legislature, and I'm certain that if he was still alive and still there, that he would vote for HB 847.

Without laws (what you call government intervention), we would have anarchy. Laws exist to ensure fairness (at least this is what they were originally meant to do). I see a lake speed limit as fairness, since it doesn't ban any boaters, but just requires the fastest ones to slow down.

Your idea of fairness is to kick the paddlers off the lake. You seem to believe that those with the most horsepower have some sort of inherent right over other boaters. I don't see that as a right.

Originally Posted by Cal

May I respectfully suggest you simply paddle faster.

Few paddlers can keep up with me, including most guys. The maximum sustained speed for a sea kayak is about 6 mph - and the average recreational kayaker can only paddle at about 3 mph, which is 15 times slower than a 45 mph powerboat.

Originally Posted by jrc

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers. People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

People who are made fun of rarely see it as funny. And, personally I don't see anything funny about putting other boaters in danger, or in forcing smaller/slower boats off the lake.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jrc

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out
Where I grew up I lived half a block from a river where power boats were outlawed. Only sail and paddle craft were allowed. Worst part was it would have been fantastic for waterskiing. None of us ever tried to limit or take their river away because we have a right to powerboat on it. Shame it's still not 1960

OK enough , I'm off my soap box

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to my posts. To you there’s no difference between a recreational kayak and a sea kayak – yet they are very different from each other in many ways.

I can easily paddle 20 miles in my 16 foot sea kayak in an afternoon – in a recreational kayak, you would be hard pressed to do 10 miles. And I’ve been out in 4 foot waves, without ever tipping over. That's because a sea kayak is designed to handle large waves.

Here’s a news flash for you: A sea kayak is made to be paddled on large bodies of water – it is not intended for small, shallow ponds. What do you think the “sea” part actually stands for? (And I do also paddled in large bays on the ocean.) For the past three years, I have paddle for hundreds of miles on large bodies of water each summer – without ever getting in trouble, or ever needing to be rescued.fficeffice" />>>
> >
I’m also a member of a varsity collegiate sailing team (currently 8^th in the nation) - and guess where we practice? On Mt Hope and ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Narragansett Baylace> - which are very large bodies of salt water. And these are little tiny 14 foot sailboats – and we go out in all sorts of nasty weather. And none of us are what I would call “self destructive” – we are just hard working trained athletes and registered members of the intercollegiate sailing association.

A paddler has the same right to use the entire lake as a powerboater. There's actually only about 2 square miles on Wini where you are ever more than a mile from some shore. It takes me only about 10 or 12 minutes to travel a mile, so it is not all that hard to get to safety if a storm moves in.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Your idea of fairness is to kick the paddlers off the lake. You seem to believe that those with the most horsepower have some sort of inherent right over other boaters. I don't see that as a right.

Your idea of fairness is to limit the speed of all boats on the lake to a speed limit that you see fit yet it has been proven that this is not necessary. The proponents of your bill have been trying to ban a certain type of boat from the lake. How fair is this to the people that enjoy these types of boats? More people have died on the lake in the last 5-10 years on their own accord than at the hands of these evil boaters.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Few paddlers can keep up with me, including most guys. The maximum sustained speed for a sea kayak is about 6 mph - and the average recreational kayaker can only paddle at about 3 mph, which is 15 times slower than a 45 mph powerboat.

I trust that you can keep it under 45mph then?

Unfortunately for you, your super-human strength was not accompanied with eagle-like vision and super hearing so that you can notice these motorized nuisances and avoid danger...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

People who are made fun of rarely see it as funny. And, personally I don't see anything funny about putting other boaters in danger, or in forcing smaller/slower boats off the lake.

Who is forcing? I think Cal just asked you to go faster...

Since a customer of mine in Singapore decided to wake me up at 2:30am to spread some cheer I might as well spread mine here. A new thought... Why don't we start a new law that curbs pollution on the lake by prohibiting any boats (be it paddle, sail or motorized) that does not have bathroom facilities? Something tells me that these thousands of paddlers out on the lake have to "go" at some point. Where is it ending up? In the lake. Maybe this is the answer as to why pollution is up and water quality is down.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.
.

My great great grandfather had an awsome horse that he use to ride to town with until those dang horseless carraiges started to run his kind over.As you said yourself "THINGS HAVE CHANGED JUST A BIT SINCE THEN".

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. And I've seen how much having a speed limit can improve this situation. In my opinion, reducing the difference between the speeds of the fastest boats and the slowest boats is one of the best ways to make any body of water safer for everyone. I just wish that the bill hadn't been amended so that Wini was the only lake affected by it.

Evanstar, you're killing me here. How many times have you been on the Lake, 5, 10, 15, 20 ??????? We've established before that your first time on the lake was a year or two ago. Now you imply how many close encounters you've had with "high speed" boats. Give me a break. I too "paddle" on the lake, for a lot longer than you have. I have NEVER had a close encounter with a speeding boat, or any boat for that matter and I paddle in some busy areas. I find it very hard to believe that you have had so many close encounters. I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

All it will do is require a the fastes powerboaters to slow down, which the proponents of the bill feel will make the lake safer

Exactly, since there is no problem, as shown by statistics and accident data, all the speed limit will do is make you and your buddies "feel" safer. But I seriously doubt that too, because most, if not all of the boats you see from your kayak are already going slower than 45.



No wonder Don has had to replace his server with all the hot air the speed limit proponents cycle through it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Evanstar, you're killing me here. How many times have you been on the Lake, 5, 10, 15, 20 ??????? We've established before that your first time on the lake was a year or two ago. Now you imply how many close encounters you've had with "high speed" boats. Give me a break. I too "paddle" on the lake, for a lot longer than you have. I have NEVER had a close encounter with a speeding boat, or any boat for that matter and I paddle in some busy areas. I find it very hard to believe that you have had so many close encounters. I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

I don’t lie. I never said that every close call that I’ve had with high-speed powerboats was on Winni – many have been on other large NH lakes, which is why I’m upset that the bill has been so watered down that it currently only applies to Wini. But I have had close calls on Winni, and the boats were going way faster than 30MPH, and they came way closer than 150 feet, before they even noticed me. Since you weren’t there, what gives you the right to call me a liar?

Exactly, since there is no problem, as shown by statistics and accident data, all the speed limit will do is make you and your buddies "feel" safer. But I seriously doubt that too, because most, if not all of the boats you see from your kayak are already going slower than 45.

There is a problem. Just because you haven’t had any close calls with powerboats, is not proof that others haven’t. Just because no one has been killed in recent years is not proof that paddlers like me haven’t had close calls. I know plenty of other paddlers who have had very similar close calls as I have – most of whom now refuse to even paddle on Winni, because of the bad experiences they have had. I know one NH Senator who will be voting for the speed limit bill. She told me that her husband had a very close call with a powerboat when he was kayaking. At last year’s Transportation Committee hearing, a number of paddlers told of having close calls with high-speed boats on NH lakes. I suppose that we must all be lying.

And I’ve seen plenty of boats on Winni that were going faster than 45 MPH. If all the powerboats on the lake are traveling at under 45 mph, why is there so much opposition to this bill?

No wonder Don has had to replace his server with all the hot air the speed limit proponents cycle through it.

Right. I post in support of the bill and 7 members immediately attack me. Most of the hot air is obviously coming from the other side. You guys have this bullying attitude, where you feel that having more HP gives you the right to put other boaters in danger. But in an intellectual debate you can’t even compete with one college girl, without ganging up on her.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Unfortunately for you, your super-human strength was not accompanied with eagle-like vision and super hearing so that you can notice these motorized nuisances and avoid danger...

I’m not super-human . . . I’m just in very good shape. I do notice high-speed power boats – but how am I supposed to avoid danger when they are traveling so much faster than me. At my maximum speed of 6 mph it takes me nearly 2 seconds just to travel the length of my 16 foot kayak. In that same 2 seconds a 70 mph powerboat covers 205 feet of lake.

Something tells me that these thousands of paddlers out on the lake have to "go" at some point. Where is it ending up? In the lake. Maybe this is the answer as to why pollution is up and water quality is down.

First of all, I don’t pee in lakes (or even in the ocean). I doubt that I could even do so without tipping my kayak over. Kayaking requires effort, so getting dehydrated is usually more of a problem than having than having to pee. And it really is not all that difficult to return to shore and pee in the woods, should the need actually arise.

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed.

Let's start with these:

1) The speed that doesn't cut kayaks in half, or
2) The speed that doesn't launch a Donzi dealer into a 32-foot cabin cruiser to kill a married couple, or
3) The speed that doesn't send a Dominator 130-feet up a hillside after killing two boaters.

An after-dark 25-MPH is generally regarded as reasonable, even by the few detractors of Winnipesaukee speed limits. Under several adverse conditions/alcohol, one could still be charged additionally with Failure to Keep a Proper Watch, as Littlefield was: unless they're totally wasted, drinking speedboaters become thrill-killers.

Originally Posted by jrc

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

At a then-legal 45-MPH speed, Littlefield could have gotten away with leaving a debris field in his wake, keeping his killer 4½-ton boat out of sight, and leaving scant evidence of criminal activity. In leaving no witnesses, there'd be no prosecution and, subsequently, no House Bill 162 or 847. At "only" 28-MPH, two witnesses remained to trigger the hit-and-run investigation. With New Hampshire's new $2000 theshold for reporting collision damage—and slower speeds—the case wouldn't have made headlines. (Or the one new law that the Legislature has already made.)

I, for one, am delighted for the witnesses.

Originally Posted by jrc

Evil power boaters are against paddlers.

How about "Lake Lice"? And the paddlers they "can't see"?

Are there maybe two dozen Winnipesaukee testosterone-driven sociopaths who have driven Winnipesaukee's HB-847 to this point? It's not the family boaters who are to blame for a few dozen ocean-racers' transgressions on Lake Winnipesaukee: one Long Lake resident regarded the nearby double-fatality by observing, "This isn't Miami".

Originally Posted by jrc

One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

Agreed: even on the trailer, ocean-racer propellers can kill. Many have razor-sharp "Cleavers".

To avoid "cleaving" the neighborhood kids, special caution should be observed by ocean-racers. Covers, boxes, and gloves are manufactured for razor-sharp propellers with the same Kevlar that is used in bullet-proof vests.

Here's a photograph provided by a retailer of those protective devices:

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? Without looking it up, what are the 4 largest lakes in the state and what is their size comparison to Winnipesaukee? Let me get you started. The next closest lake to Winnipesaukee in size is your beloved Squam. If your close calls took place there then your speed limit is not working. Squam is considerably shallower and rockier than Winni and also only 15% of the size. Big difference. How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam? On Ossipee? Umbagog? Newfound? the Connecticuits? Winnisquam? Massabesic? Having been on many of these lakes myself I have not seen a speed issue other than an occasional rogue bass boat going for a beer run. After Squam the next closest lake in size is 10% of the size on Winni. Please tell us where your close calls have occurred so we can hand you a shovel to dig a deeper hole.

How about your car or are you a peddler and a paddler? How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Hey, I didn’t bring up the environment issues – you did! I never said that we should ban all powerboats.

I just found it humorous that that you needed to stoop so low as to try to make an environmental issue out of my supposed need to pee in the lake, in an attempt to poke fun at me.

My intentions here are only to support a lake speed limit because I honestly believe that one of the best ways to make the lake safer is to slow down the fastest boats. I have the right to support this bill – just as you have the right to oppose it. But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

Well, maybe you should take the time to read my past posts, rather than accuse me of writing something that I never wrote. I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum.

I have paddled over 500 miles on NH's lakes in the past two summers - many of these miles was on Winni. My best friend and I had our first close call with a high-speed powerboat the very first time that we kayaked on the lake. Since that episode I’ve had a difficult time convincing her to kayak on Winni.

I've always been comletely honest here - I’ve never once insinuated anything. In my very first post I openly stated that I had never kayaked on Winni before – which is why I originally joined this forum – to learn more about kayaking on the lake. I’ve never once implied that Winni is a terrifying place – if it was, I would not kayak on it. I merely stated that I feel is very dangerous to allow powerboats to continue to travel at unlimited speed on a lake that is also used by small human-powered boats.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? . . . How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam?

I’ve had close calls on several of these lakes – I don’t feel that I need to document every encounter here – I live only 3 miles from Moore Reservoir, which is one of the lakes where I’ve had numerous close calls (since I paddle there the most). A boat doesn’t have to be a 38’ fountain to be dangerous to a kayak – and many bass boats (as well as other types of powerboats - and even jet skiis) can and do go faster than 45 mph. My best friend and I were nearly run over by a high speed powerboat on the Connecticut River two summers ago.

How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

Hey, I never posted that I’m in favor of raising the speed limit – in fact I posted that I didn’t believe that bill would get very far, for environmental reasons.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

..............But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.................



............... I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum..............

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

The personal attack song is getting old too. The world doesn't revolve around you, no one is "personally" attacking you. You know this is a passionate subject, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I won't stand idly by and let you post all these stories of mayhem and danger when I can pretty much guarantee that over the past 10 years I have spent more time on the lake than you and I know that your portrayal is wrong.

Your chance of having all these "close encounters" with boats going over 45 mph is pretty much nil since most boats travel the lake at less than 45 mph. That means these "close encounters" you have had are with boats going less than the proposed speed limit ergo the speed limit will not help you.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted

I seriously doubt you've had any close encounters and if you have, it was with a boat traveling travelling under 30 mph.

- Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating,

I know that your portrayal is wrong

is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My grandfather kayaked on the lake in the 1930's - things have changed just a bit since then. For one thing, people in general are now less considerate of others. And in general, powerboats on the lake have become much faster and much larger. And there are more boats on the lake now.
Without laws (what you call government intervention), we would have anarchy. Laws exist to ensure fairness (at least this is what they were originally meant to do). .

things have changed but instead of blaming the inconsiderate people and the fact there's more people on the lake you put it all on GFBL boats

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Legislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

Like a MPH speed limit on the roads????

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I totally disagree with you. I've never had a close call with a 20 mph boat - I have with much fast boats, who haven't seen me until they were way too close for comfort. A bigger issue with jet skis I would imagine That's the honest truth, whether you believe me or not. When you're traveling 100 feet per second (70mph) And according to NH MP how many are going 70 mph and where..probably someplace you shouldn't be with a row boat,

A lake speed limit is enforceable - I've never even suggested that it wasn't. I've personally witnessed enforcement of a speed limit on Squam.

Is it 100% enforceable? No. But neither are highway speed limits.

The only reason that I'm so pro-speed limit is that I've seen first hand how dangerous it can be to mix high speed boats with paddlers. .

OK speed limit isn't enforceable they have no fixed platform for them to use Radar accurately according to the manufacturer....I would think that you should be more Prohibition since almost ALL accidents are alcohol related

By the way what other BIG lake in NH have you had issues with...I have been on quite a few lakes and only winnie has the GFBL boat you seem to have issue with.....could it be they where GFFB ( go fast family boats)

[Cal]

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close. The only thing I would ever consider having been a close call was NOT from a speeding boat but your typical 18' to 20' rented bowrider with captain bonehead at the wheel. And most of these can barely to 45 so speeding is certainly not their problem

[GWC...]

Cal, you might find this comment to an online Union Leader article of interest:

Originally Posted by Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

The following voice message was left by the speed limit bill sponsor Mr. Pilliod, tell me there is no agenda here and this is a safety issue and not about banning a certain style of boat.

This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "
- Ramsey Tidwell, Ct

Cal, you might also find the comment from Arwen Mitton of Littleton very interesting, too.

[Lakegeezer]

So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats. Now, what about the bass boats, which can go just as fast, but are much lighter and generally come with courteous pilots. Maybe the rules should be rewritten that no boat over two tons can go over 45. The bass contests are won by getting from one favorite bass hole to another before the competition. The boats are expensive, and computer designed to be stable at high speeds. One could (and some do) argue that nobody needs to go that fast, but that is opinion, not a reason for a law.

Jet skis are another craft that will be impacted by trying to get the 'big guys'. Some of them go 60 with ease, and it is the pursuit of happiness to do so. This type of craft causes more anger than fear, and lowering their speeds will do nothing to reduce anger. There are more fools driving them, but they are very maneuverable. There have been deaths on jet-skis, but speeds over 45 don't seem to be the cause.

So since Mr. Pilliod says "It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels", then the law should not be so broad based against the freedom to persue happiness for those without the big boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call - 50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close.

Not that it's any of your business, but haven't been 20 for many, many years - so please stop trying to discredit me because of how old you think I am. Again, personal attacks have no place in a debate, and happen to be against the rules of this forum. (And, yes, making fun of someone is a personal attack.)

Some of you on this forum have referred to kayaks (and sea kayaks) as toys (or worse) - and you seem to think that a "real" boat has to have a high horse-power motor - and that only "real" boats should be allowed out on the main lake. Some of you feel that all kayakers are inexperinced boaters, and that we all get in major trouble whenever the lake gets a little rough. I've merely tried to present the other side here, as an experienced sea kayaker (there happens to be a LOT of us that paddle on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And stating, "I know that your portrayal is wrong" is also calling me a liar.

Get used to it.

"They" said the same thing to me when I started the thread "Close Call Today".

When I finally located that thread-starter just now, I found one "Go-Fast" has a problem obeying New Hampshire's boating navigation laws.

Guess who that might be?

HINT:

"...this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit..."

Oh, I can't STAND the irony!

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

e on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jrc]

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought.

You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

[NHBUOY]

Could the kayak vs powerboat "close calls" be a vision thing?...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...Same with the jet skis that don't have the tell-tale straight up spray...Why don't they pass a law that will make them more visible?...In some other states (California for example) They require a tall orange flag on ski boats when skiing as well as at the dunes when offroading...Put these on the kayaks and they will be seen...and avoided...I have a VERY fast boat and am an ex-offshore racer...I have been on the lake for 50 years and ALWAYS had a fast boat...(45-50 mph Centurys, 100 mph Hondo/Sanger drag boats, 70-80 mph jet boats, 22'- 32' 75-120 mph offshore V-bottoms & cat boats etc...) I have NEVER had a ticket but have been stopped for "safety checks" numerous times...I have SCARED myself MANY times but always lived to tell the tale and never involving anyone but myself...My point being, it is the "other" boneheads out there that SCARE me so I try to avoid those that look like they don't know what they are doing...(and there are too many out there that fit this description: DRUNKS-DUMMIES-DOPES+DISTRACTED "boaters")...If I want to go FAST I head out to the BROADS, choose my line and go...Even on weekends the BROADS can usually support a couple speed runs with out encroaching ANYONE...SAFELY!!!...Speed limit during the day...NO WAY...Speed limit at night..."might" be RIGHT...Enforce and obey the laws as they are written and let's move on...Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents....

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get it just fine, thank-you.
Here’s the thing: whenever a boat is traveling above no wake speed, if it runs into another boat, it has to be in violation of the 150 foot rule. After all, it’s sort of impossible for one boat to collide with another one, when it is still 150 feet away.

If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would seen where I have posted (several times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that when boats are traveling at high speeds, some operators apparently don’t see smaller boats until they are closer than 150 feet.

It is also true that the faster a boat is traveling, the less time the operator has to avoid an object in its path, or to stay outside of the 150 foot limit.

For these reasons, I feel that a speed limit will result in a reduction in the number of 150 foot violations.

Originally Posted by jrc

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

Then why don’t they just say that, rather than constantly trying to discredit everything that I post? I’ve stated before that I have language issues (the result of a severe head injury when I was very young). I am very literal, but I still think it’s pretty clear that I have been accused on lying a number of times in this one thread.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

First of all, I don’t know that no one’s ever been ticketed on Squam for speeding – I’d like to see the proof of that. Secondly I’ve seen boats stopped for speeding – isn’t stopping someone who is speeding enforcement? (And I was close enough to hear what the person was being stopped for.)

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought. You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

I happen to be extremely visual, since the right side of my brain is overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in special awareness. Because of this I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images. Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea of what 45 mph looks like.

I don’t believe that I ever said that I’ve had “many” close calls or that I’ve been in “great fear” – what I posted was that I have had close calls, and that speeding boats have come way too close for comfort. In defining “close call”, when I stated that a boat was less than a second from hitting me, I realized that I should have added “if they continued their course” (but I can’t edit my posts). I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

My grandfather was a carpenter and he purchased his kayak as a kit – from Sears and Roebuck Company. Based on my uncle’s age at the time, this was sometime in the late 1930’s. So, I’m not “bending the truth” – I based the date on what my uncle stated.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws.

I’ve already explained how high-speed contributes to violation of the 150 foot rule, which is in my opinion, a pretty good reason to enact a speed limit.

I’ve haven’t take that course, but I have read the rules numerous times, and I do own the latest copy. I kayak and sail so my studies are a bit broader and more specialized. I took kayak lessons, from a certified sea kayak instructor when I bought my first kayak. I’ve also attended advanced paddling workshops, and I also took a coastal navigation workshop. Now I’m learning the rules of competitive sailing (the book is over an inch thick, to give you an idea of the number of rules involved here). I’m also employed by my university to instruct and supervise other students on the use of kayaks, and have had Red Cross CPR and first-aid training.

I do care about enforcement, but I also believe that most boaters will obey a speed limit on Winni, if the bill passes - so I believe that the estimated costs for enforcement are way higher than what the actual costs will end up being.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

VERY well said codeman.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted - Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating, is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying.

Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

From the actual results, eleven (11) boats out of 3800+ were clocked at a speed above 50 mph, eleven. This is over 135 hours of checking. Now they don't specify if those eleven came by in one group or if they occurred randomly throughout the case. I will assume that they occurred randomly throughout the test, because that's the best case for your stories. So if they occurred randomly we could spread out the occurances and say that once for every 10 hours of testing, a boat went by at greater than 50 mph. Not very good for your stories. I want to be fair here, so in the report it states that 36 boats were clocked at greater than 45 mph, less than 1% of the total, but still better for your stories (many "close calls" on the lake). Again we'll assume they randomly occur throughout the test (better for your stories) so over 135 hours, you might see 1 boat over 45mph in about 3 hours.

So now lets talk about a close call. A close call, as you describe them to bolster your pro SL view, would have to be a boat, travelling greater than 45 mph, coming closer than 150 ft to your kayak, just like you say in one of your posts.

So I've laid out the case, for your "close call", in the hours that you are out there, if 100 boats go by you (unlikely), the one that is going over 45 mph comes within 150 feet of your kayak (which is extremely unlikely). Now to claim this has happened many times, well I'm calling BS.

I think you were legitimately scared per one of your posts, ON THE CONNETICUT RIVER, years ago. This has messed up your perception of power boats to the point that you think they are all travelling above 45mph and within 150 feet of you. It just can't be true.

Enacting a law, on faulty perceptions, totally ignoring a study that determines there isn't a problem is nuts. I'm telling you now, a 45 mph speed limit isn't going to help you.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats..."

FYI, your quoted "Ramsey Tidwell" did a cut-and-paste of Woodsy's winni.com post from three years ago!

Tidwell, (an alias of old) is presently spamming out-of-state boating websites to overthrow deliberations by New Hampshire's Legislature.

http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboar...ics/T61402.htm
http://www.ridepwc.com/blog/single/n...e_coming_soon/

http://www.bulletinboards.com/v1.cfm...eb357&expand=y

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake...TI7IFJRDF0H251

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243110

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243113

(One of the above links proposes a new law on Long Lake against 500-HP boats.)

Originally Posted by jrc

"...OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's..."

FYI, commercial production and retail sales began 100 years ago with Klepper (often seen on Winnipesaukee), and 75 years ago with Folbot. One of my Folbot brochures shows an early Folbot kayak cartopped on a 30's car having wooden spokes!

I keep two vintage Folbots on Winnipesaukee, but don't use them for a reason that could change by this summer.

Originally Posted by NHBUOY

...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...

This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see?