Proposed Law

[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>>

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

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 feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.

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

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

I think your analysis is a stretch at best. First, you are criticizing them for spending 135 hours of radar testing in the 11 weeks that the test was run? That is quite a bit, especially with no extra funding or manpower allotted to help. If you are not happy with this then how are you going to fee l if it passes and the manpower or funding is not allotted to enforce it? The people pushing for this clearly have stated in another topic that they don't care about funding it and think it will take care of itself. The joke is on you.

The solid fact remains that out of 3852 boats less than 1% were speeding. That is hard to argue. I can spit out hypothesis all afternoon (although I bet MeenMac is already working on it )as to different calculations and formulas that apply but the main fact still remains. Speed was not an issue.

The study was done during the busy end of the summer, and clearly was concentrated on busier days of the week and daylight hours. If you have spent as much time on the lake as many of us do this may be easier to comprehend. Show up on a Monday afternoon and what do you get? An empty lake. Rainy days? No traffic at all. You did not add any factor in for bad weather days into your calculations. Chances are the concentration of studies was done during busier times in order to achieve catching 3852 boats on radar.

Do you think they zapped every boat that went by? Probably not. Multiple boats going by at the same time cannot all be clocked effectively. My house is right around the corner from Area A so I was able to witness first hand how much they were there and the traffic involved. It is a very busy zone, one of the busiest on the lake which is why it was chosen. So isn't Area B.
I am sure they clocked me a few times.

There are so many different factors that could be thrown in to this that I am not even touching on. They did their job, give them a break. The results were inconclusive of any speed issue. Feel free to analyze away though!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.



I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer? 3800+ boats is a pretty significant sample and should give a pretty clear indication of what is happening on the lake. You lost me on your discussion of Man hours. If there were two people on the boat for 135 hours, then that would result in 270 Man hours of labor. Not really relevant unless you want to discuss what the study cost.

All your spin, and shaky analysis still doesn't negate the fact that only 1 out of 100 boats was going over 45 mph. Certainly not the "wild west" talked about by speed limit proponents.

I'm going to give you a piece of advice that might save your life someday. Quit worrying about boats going over 45 mph, they're not the problem. Keep your eye out for captain bonehead, tooling along at 25 mph in his pontoon boat sipping a martini watching the scenery. While you're straining to see that one speedboat zipping by at 50 mph, captain bonehead might just run you over, he's a much bigger threat and a speed limit won't deter him.

But then this isn't really about safety is it.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer?

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.
3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.
4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

[GWC...]

Was curious as to why Evenstar started posting, again?

The Bill is up for debate, again.

Originally Posted by online Citizen By GEOFF CUNNINGHAM Jr.
Article Date: Thursday, January 24, 2008

Derek Durbin, the environmental policy director for the nonprofit New Hampshire Lakes Association, said he is confident that the Democratic majority in the House will see HB847 making the cut.

"I think it's definitely going to pass and I think it will do so by a reasonable margin," said Durbin on Wednesday.

Durbin said the repeated filing of legislation pushing for a speed limit during the last ten years has probably wore on those on both sides of the issue, but he said it is still of great interest to many residents.

A similar bill that passed in the House was killed in the Senate in March of 2006 and a proposed pilot speed limit on the lake this past summer never materialized.

"I think people are still pretty fired up about it (but) I think some people are a little tired ... they've been at it for 15 years," said Durbin.

The Lakes Association is pushing for the passage of the bill...

[John A. Birdsall]

I think that everybody's rights can be looked too and safety be taken care of. As one that was in agreement with speed zones, not making no wake zones, but curtailing speed within Alton Bay, Wolfeboro, Weirs and other bays leaving the broads for speed, I think we can do away with the speeding issue if everybody that has a boat would agree to obey the 150' rule and other navigation rules. Plus remember courtesy toward your fellow man goes a long way. If those rules were obeyed by all whether it be a kayak, or a rum runner or anywhere inbetween then we would be having fun and a safer lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

[Cal]

The most ironic part is the all the people who are calling foul on the results of the test (that was done by professionals) are the same people who would be swearing by it if the results went their way

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

You are rationalizing.

You see the need for highway speed limits, so you rationalize that they don't violate you Constitutional Rights.

You don't see the need for boating speed limits so you believe they violate your rights.

The issues are EXACTLY the same. The right of the state to set speed limits.

You said "as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits" If the legislature passes HB847 and the Governor signs it into law, then we will have decided, as a society, to invoke boating speed limits.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

Here's the difference.Cars are traveling on 93 only a few feet away from each other.In that scenerio a speed limit is prudent.On water you must be a MINIMUM of 150 ft apart or there IS a speed limit already of 6 mph.I know it's a bit of a strech but a better analogy would be like planes flying in almost any airspace.There are no speed limits there.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Here's the difference.Cars are traveling on 93 only a few away from each other.In that scenerio a speed limit is prudent.On water you must be a MINIMUM of 150 ft apart or there IS a speed limit already of 6 mph.I know it's a bit of a strech but a better analogy would be like planes flying in almost any airspace.There are have speed limits there.

As a pilot and future astronaut I can tell you there is a speed limit everywhere above the USA. The only exceptions are military and spaceflight.

However the question is about the constitutionality of setting speed limits, not the practical considerations.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph. Actually, from the press and comments posted by WInnfabbs I would have expected to see 30 or 40% of the boats to be traveling faster than 45mph. The study didn't show that because there is not a speed problem.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.

You might as well say the study is invalid because MP didn't stop and gather each boat operators name and address. Look up statistical sampling, read and understand.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.

Wrong again...........

From the Citizen:

Gallagher said there were two areas chosen for temporary regulation of speed, including the southwest side of Rattlesnake Island, ranging to the main shore, as well as the area between Bear Island and Meredith Neck. He said the reason was because they were long areas with a fair amount of traffic.

There also were several other areas surveyed, including Paugus Bay because it is a large area with boats mainly traveling past each other in opposite directions. Others were in Gilford between Governor's Island and Timber Island; Center Harbor; Moultonborough near the east side of Moultonborough Neck; between Cow and Little Bear islands; Tuftonboro Neck; and the end of Alton Bay, the part nearest to the main lake.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

And again wrong. The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

[Evenstar]

[quote=ITD;61913]I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph./quote]

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.



This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

The study proves that you could not have possibly had as many "close calls" with speeding boats as you allude. Especially when you consider how few times you have been on the lake. What more could you possibly need to know about the population of the study that would be relevant? In any study, capturing 2% is a pretty good sample, if we accept the premise that hours of daylight is important, which it isn't.........

As far as the accuracy of the study, even though I don't think it is true, let's suppose they missed 50% of the boats that were above 45, that would bump the total from 0.9% to 1.8%, still a very small number, so what?????

You keep bombarding us with inaccurate info. only 2 out of 9 areas were published, so you are wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Common sense, a speed limt isn't going to help you. The only thing that will make you feel safe is a power boat ban, and that isn't going to happen. The world doesn't revolve around you. You should have learned this by now.

Show me some data that supports a speed limit, you have none. Just a group of people using scare tactics. Tactics that have been exposed and pretty much admitted or shown as being untrue. When you see some actual data, you try to torpedo that, but you are foiled again....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

"...So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area..."

Nobody knows how many boats were speeding according to this excerpt:

"The men logged more than 50 boats in an hour. The highest speed recorded was 34 mph, but the fastest watercraft - a Jet Ski with two people who cheered and whooped as they passed - could not yield a reading, because it was bouncing on the water too much, Marine Patrol Officer Stern said."

and...

Originally Posted by The Big Kahuna

"...What is the big deal with a speed limit, it will be the same as any other speed limit we have for cars, planes, snowmobiles, etc.. There are going to be those that will choose to obey them and those that don't..."

This law restricts only behavior, so why the angst? There are worse fatal scenarios out there (like Long Lake's) which are making laws against horsepower.

and...

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And the most important of these is Life!

NH Rep. Dennis Abbott has stated, "There’s a lot of people trying to enjoy life in New Hampshire, and they should be able to do that without worrying about their personal safety."

and...

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem..."

Meredith News excerpt:

"...But John Irwin of Irwin Marine Hillside in Alton, president of the New Hampshire Marine Trades Association, says that while he agrees that there are problems on New Hampshire lakes..."

and...

Originally Posted by ITD

I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right.

Cal has said the same thing—twice; but how could the study ever be right? This excerpt even promotes a skewed study:

"The Department of Safety warned boaters to slow down on Lake Winnipesaukee this summer, when a pilot program would allow Marine Patrol officers to enforce speed limits on two busy sections of the lake."

and...

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear.

I fear all those who do not have training in high speed boat control. Check out this excerpt by an experienced boat tester:

"A few years ago I had the misfortune to test the Baja Hammer on Windermere before the speed limit was enforced. That experience etched an indelible memory of a boat that was impossible to hold in a straight line and that bucked like a rodeo bull as soon as you reached the 60mph mark. Plagued by chine walk and spontaneous skips, she was one of the most evil handling boats I have ever driven."

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

My boat does not go 45. I can tell you that I have found very well camouflaged kayaks on occasion with a lot less time to react than I care for. When we purchased our Kayaks the number one requirement was that they were as visible as possible. My kids and wife would be in them and their safety depends on all boats being able to see them. They are yellow and Orange. We chose two bright colors in hopes that between the two they would be even more visible. The greatest safety device for kayakers and boaters alike is visibility and observation. When I see a kayak with a flag or brightly colored paddles or some other obvious attempt to be seen, I nod my head and give them much more than the 150 feet they require.

As far as your question...it could be turned around to ask if so few boats are speeding then why the need to ask the government to get involved in our lives for something that is only a problem for some. The fast boats are not asking to restrict where the slow boats can go so why do we need to restrict where they can go. If they can't maintain the 150 foot rule from shore and other vessels than we already have laws for that. I would much rather have the MP stopping captain bone head going 15mph at full wake and 75 feet from your kayak with 15 people on board. We see them all day on the island. We call them "Wakus Maximus". We have a law that they are violating 50 foot from my dock and 25 feet from my kids swimming, but the MP is behind the island trying to find the one fast boat in an hour. He is far from shore and making hardly any wake and paying keen attention.

I remember the book, what color is your parachute. In this case, what color is your kayak?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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?

If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation.

I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SS-194

"...As big as the lake is, it gets real small at 70 plus mph..."

Here's hoping NH's Legislators are savvy-enough to grasp that.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation..."

I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats..."

All boats?

The far shore (Port Wedeln) is about ¾ to 1-mile away—perhaps a casual 15-minute trip by kayak. At 70-MPH, the same trip in a speeding, excessively-powered boat would take about 35-seconds!

So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

Originally Posted by SS-194

"...Can someone out there just say simply that they love the lake for what it is..."

The following day—same kayaker—I considered offering a tow to the middle-aged woman because a strong headwind was making it very difficult for her and her little boy.

A view through binoculars showed that she was singing!

If you see a driver speeding at 70+ MPH on Winnipesaukee—and singing—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem.

[The Big Kahuna]

Originally Posted by If you see a driver speeding at 70+ MPH on Winnipesaukee—[B

and singing[/B]—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem.

After a statement like this it is impossible to take anything else you ever write serious. YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME! L

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

... I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

So in other words the skipper of the boat saw the kayak and avoided it.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

... {snip}
So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

Seems like you need to post a bigger picture. I mean he did see the kayak didn't he ...

[shooter]

yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by shooter

yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be . (common sense yes)you run the risk of getting killed crossing the street , as crazy drivers are on the road and the water , you have to value and watch out for your own life dont expect other people to,SO yes I say of course the kayak is in danger of getting whacked but you know if you dont want to be in that position then dont put yourself in that position , lets go guys LIVE FREE OR DIE, COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...

[shooter]

Originally Posted by GWC...

Cross illegally and you are guilty of jay-walking, speed limit or not...

Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

You have the right to enter the scene along with everyone else. Your choice of which freedoms to exercise will be moderated by your personal level and tolerance of fear. Suck it up. Chances are very good that you won't be hit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Risk is a spice of life. Statistically, you aren't at much risk. Its been a long time since a kayaker has been run over by a boat at any speed.

I don't think last July was a long time ago.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me, but I have just as much right to Live Free as you do. Currently, if I want to use the main lake, you even admit that I do so at my own peril. So high-speed boaters get to retain their "freedom" to put others at risk, while kayakers use the lake at the risk of being killed.

That's not what Live Free or Die means!

Common sense is not traveling at high speeds on a lake that is populated by small, slow moving boats. It is not - this "get out of my way" additude.

You're comparing kayaks on the lake to people crosing a street - well, guess what? Streets have speed limits!

Evenstar...

You do lots of everyday activites "At Your Own Peril"! Driving a car, crossing a street, riding a bicycle are all everyday activities that put YOU at risk of serious injury or death! A far greater risk than you have paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee on the BUSIEST of summer days! In all of those activities above, a 2000lb+ vehicle is passing within 10' of you at speed. Everyday people get injured or killed in NH as a result of those everyday activities! No kayaker has ever been struck and seriously injured or killed on Lake Winnipesaukee... EVER!

Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports!

You need to come up with a better argument...

Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...
Kayaking by its very nature is a perilous sport... People drown all the time using kayaks. Statistically speaking, kayaks and canoes are the most dangerous of all watercraft. That is if you read the USCG Boat Safetey Reports! You need to come up with a better argument... Woodsy

Woodsy . . . your so-called "statististics" are totally wrong.

Here's the truth:

In Boating Statistics 2006, the USCG gives that there were 27 boating fatalities in the United States where the vessel was a kayak – out of 710 total boating fatalities – that’s only 3.8%.

49% of the boats involved in fatal accidents in 2006 were open motorboats and 10% were personal watercraft.

The 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report (the latest year I can find) gives that 48.1% of boaters use open motorboats and 14.4% use kayaks. So the ratio of open motorboats percent involved in fatalities to the percent of boaters using this type of vessel is 1.02 to 1 (.49 /.481). For kayakers the ratio is 0.26 to 1 (.038 / .144.)

So, according to actual statistics, open motorboats are 4 times more dangerous than kayaks.

And 6 of those 27 kayak fatalities were not from drowning – and of those 21 who did drown, 5 were wearing PFD, which indicates that this was a result of more than just tipping over. The statistics do not give the type of water where the deaths occurred. White water kayaking results in a large percentage of all kayak fatalities.

From the American Canoe Association – Canoe and Kayak Fatality Report: “From calendar year 1996 through 2002, 574 fatalities associated with canoes and kayaks were reported to the U.S. Coast Guard. Among the 558 paddling fatalities for which type of vessel is known, 72% were associated with canoes . . . the remainder 28% was associated with kayaks.

Sea kayaks represented a very small proportion of fatalities (1% overall and 5% among kayaks).”

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...Have we seen the offical accident report...?"

Because of the $2000 threshold for a NHMP report—and no injury—why would this require a report to the NHMP? Failing that—and that the CG has no jurisdiction on Winnipesaukee—will it even appear in Coast Guard statistics?

''The Coast Guard estimates that only about 10 percent of the boating accidents that occur are actually reported,'' Mr. Potter said. He said many accidents are not reported when boaters are not insured."

Originally Posted by shooter

Actually I Compare it to people who drive 40mph in the high speed lane on RT 93, Its just not the proper place to be driving 40 when everyone else is going 70, its just plain common sense.

Interstate analogies again....

How are the salmon fishermen, fishermen at anchor, kayaks, tubers, floating debris, anchored swimmers, anchored picnickers, and the occasional errant swim float to be accounted for in any Interstate example?

Originally Posted by shooter

"...yes there is always a danger, mabey the kayak should stay out of open areas where speeding boats will be..."

I previously noted here that a week before July 4th weekend, I saw a canoe, with a kayak in tow—transporting a solitary toddler—in open water.

Not exactly a jaywalker strolling out between parked SUVs, was she?

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...And I am sure the kayakers were not drinking..."

It's not right to "project" a view of a non-participant into this incident. We don't know that to be FACT.

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...Perhaps if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"

...and...

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

The kayak was empty when struck if you remember right. Because the Nude Kayaker had bailed out so he wouldn't be seen. May it please the court, I would remind everyone this happened AT NIGHT WITH NO LIGHTS!!!! So please don't go there!

...and...

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...The kayaker is a lucky idiot, we can all agree on that..."

What is being taken for FACT...has only appeared at this forum.

The news article states, "...the kayak had no lights...".

A kayak does not need "lights". A single 360° hand-held light is sufficient. Did the reporter expect to find the "missing lights" in an overturned and abandoned kayak with several feet of its bow missing?

SIKSUKR's account (DUI, naked, no lights) was 3rd-hand; plus, we don't have any corroborating evidence from the press. The "NH Bass Foundation Nation" account (if there was one) could be parroting what appears anywhere on the Internet!

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...What happened to the kayaker maintaining a proper watch? Clearly they were intoxicated, clearly they did not have lights, clearly they were naked, and clearly they failed to maintain a proper lookout. Basically 4 laws broken. There is NO REASON that the kayaker should not have had plenty of time to react between the sound of the boat and the incoming lights. Lucky idiot is an understatement...they hit a unmanned, unlit kayak that sits low in the water in the dark...."

Unless there is some public document floating around, we don't "clearly know" any of that. Do we "clearly know" of a single citation being issued?

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...Spin it all you want/can. The person in the kayak was operating illegally, with no lights..."

At some point after this after-dark encounter, there were one or two swimmers in the water. A swimmer anywhere on the lake after dark—and needing rescue—cannot be expected to have lights.

If "kayaks can't be seen", I will agree with Mee&Mac and Evenstar that a strobe should be allowed for after-dark kayaking.

(Even one that does not meet the on-ON criterion. And yes, we should protect the fool at our own "expense").

(Some PFDs have strobe lights.)

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...clearly they were naked..."

Originally Posted by chmeeee

"...if they were not drunk, naked, and without a light, it wouldn't have happened...?"

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

"...the Nude Kayaker had bailed out

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...he was nude..."

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...drunk and nude...not get caught nude..."

Originally Posted by EricP

"...in Fish Cove kayaking naked..."

Originally Posted by EricP

"...drinking and nude...?"

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Maybe nekkid kayaking should be allowed..."

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...is a canoe, with 2 naked people in it..."

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...he didn't want to be seen naked...?"

Originally Posted by superdawgfan

"...naked like the other bonehead kayaker...?"

Originally Posted by MAINLANDER

"...and drunk naked kyackers..."

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...naked people were renters and the owner of the property wanted the powerboater to replace the kayak..."

Originally Posted by ITD

"...these naked midnight [kayakers]..."

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

[SIKSUKR]

In the spirit of APS type posts,I offer this one from the WMUR website.


Searchers Look For Missing Kayaker

POSTED: 7:56 am EDT May 2, 2008
UPDATED: 10:17 am EDT May 2, 2008


ORFORD, N.H. -- Authorities are searching for a Vermont man after his empty kayak was found floating in the Connecticut River in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Fish and Game Lt. Todd Bogardus said 58-year-old Robert Swantak of Bradford, Vt., went out for an afternoon of kayaking and fiddlehead fern picking Thursday.

He started in the Waits River in Bradford, which joins the Connecticut River that separates Vermont and New Hampshire.

Swantak's family called police when he failed to return home.

His overturned kayak was found a few miles down river in Orford, N.H., but there was no sign of Swantak.

Authorities from both states searched until after midnight and will begin searching again Friday morning.

Bogardus said officials remain optimistic that Swantak made it to shore, but he notes that the river is at high flood level with very swift currents and cold water temperatures.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

The clothes-optional visitors were operating a craft in an unsafe manner. They created the problem, not the boater. Had they been operating within the law, this incident would not have happened. Period.

Oh and regarding the alcohol-induced excess, there is already a BUI law. Enforce it.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Note the irony? The Hypocrisy?

Clothes-optional visitors at night—bringing no violence nor killing anyone—can be freely attacked, criticized, denigrated, abused and besmirched for a not-infrequent proclivity on quiet waters.

Yet the same "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd will illogically defend the alcohol-induced excess which results in hundreds of reported accidents on the water annually, while tacitly defending Lake Winnipesaukee speeds double or triple the proposed daylight speed limit.

Boy, who pulled out their Thesaurus the other day?? Quite impressed...

This "Live-Free-or-Die" crowd does not condone naked kayaking while drunk and stupid in the dark without any navigation lights, and we do not condone alcohol related stupidity behind the wheel of a boat. We push for better education, enforcement of current laws and promoting a safe lake. We do not promote a fear based campaign full of BS and empty of facts like our opposition.

There is no rampant issue with boats traveling 3 times the proposed speed limit on Winnipesaukee, I am not sure what Winnipesaukee you live on. There is a handful at most that are capable of speeds over 100mph, nonetheless 135mph.

[CaptDan]

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Fatlazyless
As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if because of the need for boats and crews to set up radar posts that they decide the Bear Island Post Office stake out spot would be one of the areas boats and crews are diverted away from?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by WAM 290

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

More single-minded crap there than you can shake a stick at.

I might add, don't forget the big, big wakes.

[SIKSUKR]

I wouldn't call that an update.That's one person's opinion in a letter to the editor.Does the Monitor publish opposing views?

[Seeker]

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

[The Big Kahuna]

The Salem Witch Trials! That worked really well! Jim Crow Laws! Needed those didn't we! The list goes on and on, add the Speed Limit Law to those and you just came full circle of creating laws out of fear of what might happen!

[COWISLAND NH]

Is the 2007 Marine Patrol accident log available to the public? Has anyone been to the WINNFAB website!??....if I'd never boated on Winni it would make boaters that can travel faster then 45mph sound like evil, family hating, nature hating, crazy people. I just can not understand why or how a small group of people who (as they say on their website) are scared of boating in crowds (reason=bc of other boats...)decide how other people should go boating. Please lets have a contest and see who has better boating skills...I bet 100 to 1 that I'd smoke anyone of the WINNFAB crew. Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro docks and see the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Is the 2007 Marine Patrol accident log available to the public? Has anyone been to the WINNFAB website!??....if I'd never boated on Winni it would make boaters that can travel faster then 45mph sound like evil, family hating, nature hating, crazy people. I just can not understand why or how a small group of people who (as they say on their website) are scared of boating in crowds (reason=bc of other boats...)decide how other people should go boating. Please lets have a contest and see who has better boating skills...I bet 100 to 1 that I'd smoke anyone of the WINNFAB crew. Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro docks and see the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!

You are about as wrong as you can be. Perhaps you have not considered that people afraid of boats don't live on islands. Or that when you live on an island your boating skills improve rapidly. I take a boat to get the morning paper. Islanders boat in all kinds of weather, including conditions where most boats don't leave the dock.

I'm not sure what your definition of "smoke" is. But if it involves boat handling expertise, I wouldn't bet against WinnFABS. You can be sure that family at the Wolfeboro docks did not come from an island.

Every WinnFABS person I know has at least one boat capable of going well over the proposed limit. So do I.

Sorry if this ruins your stereotyped image.

[Turtle Boy]

Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro(sic)docks and see(sic) the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then(sic) can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR(sic) SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!




I hope your boating skills are better than your spelling skills.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro(sic)docks and see(sic) the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then(sic) can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR(sic) SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!




I hope your boating skills are better than your spelling skills.

Who gave you the spell checking responsibilities?

[flyry49]

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

[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.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

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.

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.

I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

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.

Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.

Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.

I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.

The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.

fficeffice" />>>
> >
I never claimed to be super-human. But I am in great shape (Believe me, you have to be in pretty great shape to compete as a varsity athlete – and I do the exact same workouts and have to pass the exact same fitness tests as the much younger athletes on my team.) Plus I was taught how to paddle correctly, so I use more than just my arms. And I’m 6 feet tall, so I have a pretty long reach. If you don’t believe my paddling abilities, borrow a kayak and come with me some time.>>
> >
That was supposed to read “spatial” awareness – not “special” awareness (I told you that I have language issues. And I'm not allowed to edit my posts, so I can't even correct my error.) I have been tested by experts – more than once. Doctors (and my professors) tell me that my thinking process is very unique. When I tried to explain my differences, you just see it as being egotistical. All I’m trying to do is explain myself here. Believe me, I don’t think that I'm better than other people – but I do know that I’m very different in some basic ways. Most of my life I've just wanted to be normal.
>>

Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.

>>
You guys are constantly questioning my abilities – all I’ve done is try to defend myself. And I’ve been completely honest in what I’ve written concerning my abilities (and in my inabilities).>>
> >

I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.

>>
> >
It matters because my ability to judge distance, speed, or to remember the details of something visual was questioned here. How is admitting that I have language skills “touting myself up”???? When I wrote that I’m very literal – that was not bragging – it was admitting one of my many shortcomings. It was also an attempt to explain my understanding of what others write in their posts. And you’re very wrong, because I do have major problems writing. Writing is extremely difficult for me. I cannot even think in words, but only in images. At college it takes me more than 3 times as long as the average student to write a paper. Does that sound like I think that I’m perfect? Believe me; I’m not even close to perfect. But I do know that I am very good at some things, and I will continue to stand up for myself when my abilities are questioned.
>>

The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.

>>
I just tried to explain some of the problems with that report. The thing about facts is that you need to also look at the facts that are left out – in order to know the truth. [/quote]
> >
I happen to care very much about the enforcement of lake speed limits. So please stop making sweeping generalities about what “the proponents” want.

[The Big Kahuna]

The boating accident in 2002 was just that, an accident. I cause two families a lot of hard ship. The first family lost a loved one, the 2nd lost a father of two and a husband for a long time. Either of which will ever be returned. Why do you have to use it to make your point over something as stupid as this speed limit. You should be a shamed of yourself having to use that reference to make your point. Let the dead lie, and never open old wounds when they have a chance to heal. Over what, a stupid speed limit! What is the big deal with a speed limit, it will be the same as any other speed limit we have for cars, planes, snowmobiles, etc.. There are going to be those that will choose to obey them and those that don't. Have you traveled 93 South lately? Did you know the speed limit is 65 and not 80, everyone does 80. How about on the trials snowmobiling? Its the posted speed or 45 max, I have seen sleds all the time going 60 - 70 on most. Do you really think a speed limit is going to change anything? Think about it. It is a waist of time and effort to be for or against it. It is like anything else there will all ways be something else. If the speed limit passes and the next death related accident is a result of swimming, of which there were two last year. Are you going to call for a ban on swimming? I know lets ban the use of the lake all together, no boating, swimming, rowing, sailing, no nothing GO HOME!

[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.

[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)